MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[robvalue]

This is the latest Armoured Skeptic video, featuring possibly the most stupid, bigoted, delusional person who can operate technology sufficiently well to record themselves. He comes with a warning about how Obama is Hitler or something, and legalising gay marriage is persecution of Christians.

I'm not at all taking this as representative of Christians in general, and I was cheered to hear A.S. say this guy actually got complaints from other Christians for his insane ravings.

http://youtu.be/JD8PRKaxJxY

[Anima]

Murder/necrophilia/cannibalism/rape/retardation/blindness/deafness is a natural trait. This is well established and is found across the natural world.  Perhaps we may recognize that which occurs naturally is not biologically, sociologically, or teleologically good or beneficial.

Don't be absurd, Murder, necrophilia, and cannibalism are actions not traits. Perhaps your problem is that you can't differentiate between homosexuality and gay sex.

Perhaps you are right. Are there examples of homosexuals who never engage in gay sex? We are aware that various men have bromances, but I do not think we would consider them homosexuals. We are also aware that there are numerous effeminate men who are far from homosexual. So what pray tell is the universal defining trait which separates homosexuals from men in prison who engage in "gay sex"? Predisposition to the commission of a specific action?

In general it would appear homosexuality is as much a trait as any other biological predisposition (unlike race which is an inherent biological trait). While there are times when a person without the predisposition (what you are calling a trait) engage in the activity due to necessity or conditions (like men in prison having sex with one another). One who does not recognize the existence of free will and choice would be compelled to say any action is taken due to a predisposition to that action on the part of the actor (he had no choice in the matter). As such there may not argue a difference in one predisposed to commit the act of murder, necrophilia, pedophilia, or even cannibalism.

[Anima]

Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right.  I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically.  

Wrong use of biology. I thought my meaning would be clear given my previous reference to the study of other apes.

I must assume you do not mean biology in terms of the habitual tendencies of the creatures. If so this would really be in stark opposition to your argument. After all such would contend the habitual tendencies of apes and all di-hybrid species on the planet is to heterosexual action. In this regard homosexuality is but a minor defective blip not even worthy of statistical significance or discussion. Is that what you meant by biology?

[Ace]

Cato Wrote:

"Some people really need to read the 9th Amendment.  And then read it again.  And again.  Until it sinks in.  According to the Constitution, people have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  So, when someone makes a judgement based on that, they are not necessarily just making things up; it is part of the Constitution (as amended) that people have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment which was created in 1791 over the disagreement between Federalist and Anti-Federalist on were the Bill of Rights was to be placed in the Constitution or if the bill should stand-alone. When the Constitution was first drafted in 1787 it did not have the Bill of Rights in it.


This Amendment has always been considered a little bit of a mystery. Its very difficult to fully  interpretation the amendment in regard to what "non-named rights" in the Constitution are or the nature of the rights it was designed to protect. Non-named rights have never been identified.

Every year federal courts are asked to recognize new Unenumerated Rights "retained by the people," and typically, they turn to the Ninth Amendment. However, in the [i]history of law no ruling has ever been made [i]exclusively with this amendment[/i]. It has always been cited as a secondary source of fundamental liberties. When the 9th amendment has been used it has always been in  helping to establish a constitutional right to privacy.


However, the 9th amendment only is in play if not mentioned in the constitution, (this mean  both the federal and the state). Remember if it is not in the federal constitution then it is to be look for in it state constitution and if not there then the people can take up the issue. This falls under the 10th amendment  of the federal constitution: The powers [i]not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/i]On the issue of marriage it HAS AND IS MENTION IN full in the state constitution [/[/u]i] even long before the establishment of the Federal Constitution. Thus the use of the 9th amendment on the issue is not in play on this issue.

For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, around 140 years before the constitution was ever created.

Marriage has been present in the state constitution of the United states/colonies since our colonial time to our creation of the United States of American as an independent nations.  Both historically and in legal rule of precedent (the history of law) of all marriage has been in the state’s constitution, with the states having complete and final say on the matter.  [/color][/color][/color]

[Chas]

Cato Wrote:

"Some people really need to read the 9th Amendment.  And then read it again.  And again.  Until it sinks in.  According to the Constitution, people have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  So, when someone makes a judgement based on that, they are not necessarily just making things up; it is part of the Constitution (as amended) that people have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment which was created in 1791 over the disagreement between Federalist and Anti-Federalist on were the Bill of Rights was to be placed in the Constitution or if the bill should stand-alone. When the Constitution was first drafted in 1787 it did not have the Bill of Rights in it.


This Amendment has always been considered a little bit of a mystery. Its very difficult to fully  interpretation the amendment in regard to what "non-named rights" in the Constitution are or the nature of the rights it was designed to protect. Non-named rights have never been identified.

Every year federal courts are asked to recognize new Unenumerated Rights "retained by the people," and typically, they turn to the Ninth Amendment. However, in the [i]history of law no ruling has ever been made [i]exclusively with this amendment[/i]. It has always been cited as a secondary source of fundamental liberties. When the 9th amendment has been used it has always been in  helping to establish a constitutional right to privacy.


However, the 9th amendment only is in  play if not mentioned in the constitution, (this mean  both the federal and the state). Remember if it is not in the federal constitution then it is to be look for in it state constitution and if not there then the people can take up the issue. This falls under the 10th amendment  of the federal constitution: The powers [i]not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/i]On the issue of marriage it HAS AND IS MENTION IN full in the state constitution [/[/u]i] even long before the establishment of the Federal Constitution. Thus the use of the 9th amendment on the issue is not in play on this issue.

For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, around 140 years before the constitution was ever created.

Marriage has been present in the state constitution of the United states/colonies since our colonial time to our creation of the United States of American as an independent nations.  Both historically and in legal rule of precedent (the history of law) of all marriage has been in the state’s constitution, with the states having complete and final say on the matter.  [/color][/color][/color]

So your argument is that the Supreme Court overstepped its limits?  That it misinterpreted the Constitution?  Read the 14th Amendment.

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?  What is the downside?

[Anima]

Ha ha.  I really do not think you want to make an appeal to anthropology and biology.  Anthropologically speaking marriage is for determination of the legitimate heir.  As such it should be barred from homosexuals and all person not intending to have children.  

Couples who enter marriage knowing one party is incapable of reproduction are clearly not entering into marriage with the intention of fostering a legitimate heir and yet are not barred from the institute of matrimony. Indeed, according to the Catholic tradition it's a heresy to suggest they can't due to "natural law" and the Pauline provisions for those not capable of being "Eunuchs for the sake of heaven" and whom "burn".

Catholic Matrimony is already open to those not capable of procreation whereas for some Christians it is not.

Very nice. However, my original post was stating anthropologically speaking the purpose of marriage was to determine the legitimate heir (particularly of the wealthy). This is exhibited throughout societies the world over throughout the entire span of recorded human history.

But we may digress down the Catholic line if you want. The fundamental teaching of the church is really two fold. First marriage is the means by which the two natures of mankind (that is to say male and female) are united with god in complete realization of the human creature. Second, the ultimate purpose of this union of the dual natures with god in complete realization is manifested in the procreation and conception of new life. People are commonly aware of the second part of the teaching where Catholics say marriage is for the procreation of children. It is under the first part of the teaching (which leads to the second) that the church permits the marriage of persons who are incapable of having offspring under the argument the fullest realization of the natures given the conditional limitations are to be achieved to the degree possible. So one may still marry if they cannot have offspring, but one should have offspring and marry if they may do both.

However, you would be mistaken in thinking the first is the prominent focus of the church. You state how if the parties knowingly marry where one is incapable of having offspring. In this regard you are correct as the parties knowing the condition chose to accept the condition. In the event parties unknowingly marry one incapable of having offspring (or one in such a condition that having offspring would represent a danger to them, such as a spouse infected with AIDS, Herpes, and so on) the church will grant an annulment to said marriage so that the capable party may seek the fullest fulfillment of the union between man, woman, and god.

Biologically speaking there is no such thing as a right.  I think you are endeavoring to argue a thing should be allowed to be what it is biologically.  Since we readily recognize we are not to allow the virus to be at the expense of human lives we may readily recognize that not all biological conditions are of equal valuation and to be promoted or encouraged.  As such we must identify that which serves the teleological biological end and say that is to be encouraged and that which is in opposition to the end is to be prohibited.  In this case hetero does serve that end and homo is in opposition to that end.

You've entered into heresy again, Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors makes it quite clear rights are an objective reality when he declared that everyone has the right to the practice of Catholicism, including but not limited to access to matrimony. This is why since homosexuals have been barred from the priesthood and most religious orders the Courage apostolate has increasingly encouraged them to enter into heterosexual marriages.

The arguments concerning biological teleological ends are nothing short of feeble. It is the teleological end for my hair to grow, but the bible and earlier papal decrees order me as a male to keep it short. It is the teleological end in your logic for humans to reproduce, and yet the highest possible calling unto which all are encouraged is the celibate religious life in your faith.

Again we were arguing in terms of biology not theology. Digressing down the Catholic line we may first state the comments of Pius IX (1846-1878) was not considering homosexual marriage in his writing. It may further be said marriage is a sacrament (one of seven) to which Catholics may engage. Catholics are encouraged to engage in all the sacraments they can but may not engage in every sacrament which they are not in proper standing for (a sacrament is further rendered void if the parties engage in said sacrament with the wrong intention). In order to engage in the sacrament of marriage there must be two person of opposite gender intending to form a union between one another and god to the fullest realization of the human being. To engage in the sacrament of ordination the person must be educated in the faith and willing to serve as guide of those in the faith through service and fidelity to the Church, to engage in the sacrament of the sick one must (hold on to your hat) be sick.

In regards to the teleological argument of biology I think you should read some more. First off the teleological end of your hair is not to grow. That is the immediate end of your hair. The teleological end would be the purpose hair was to fill by its design (and that is not growing to grow). The Catholic church holds the sacrament of marriage on equal level with the sacrament of ordination. Both are callings leading persons to the fullest communion and realization of the human person with god. So it may be said the highest possible calling of the catholic church is one of marital union and offspring or religious devotion and celibacy. Take your pick.

[Anima]

Fuck me, is this thread still going? Bigotry lost, equality won. Get the fuck over it and focus on the important issues of today.

Actually bigotry won. As of yet all arguments in favor of same sex marriage are based on the fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, and appeal to pity. None of which are logically sound.

So in short passion won and reason lost. I think this is commonly referred to as bigotry winning.

[robvalue]

Let's cut to the chase.



Thanks ignor

[Anima]

This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.

As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.

Some people really need to read the 9th Amendment.  And then read it again.  And again.  Until it sinks in.  According to the Constitution, people have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  So, when someone makes a judgement based on that, they are not necessarily just making things up; it is part of the Constitution (as amended) that people have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

According to the 10th amendment those rights not so enumerated in the constitution are under the jurisdiction of the States and if not the States the People (by means of the voting process).

Otherwise the test for substantive rights not enumerated in the Constitution were establish in Washington V. Glucksburg as:
1. The right must be recognized as existing in the tradition and history of the nation (to which gay marriage is not).
2. The right must be essential to order liberty and democracy that denial represents a threat to the nation (which gay marriage does not).

"Justice Curtis explained that when the “fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control” the Constitution’s meaning, “we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”" - Chief Justice John Roberts

[Anima]

Let's cut to the chase.



Thanks ignor

While I disagree with Lawrence V Texas personally (as I think the government should legislate certain conduct) I do not disagree with the logic of the ruling by which icky bum sex is legally permissible.