kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 15:51:55 GMT -5
Since when did favoring small government become the equivalent of, essentially, no government. Those of us that think that less government is better think that government has grown too big and gotten itself entangled in too many areas where it not ought to be through the establishment and funding of programs after program after program. This is a lot different than the government taking the position on marriage, civil unions, etc. This is akin to saying "small government" people can't be in favor of the embargo on Cuba. There's a difference between policy stances and establishing programs that need my tax dollars to function. Bonus points for why religion should automatically be excluded from any such debate? Is not a valid basis upon which to base one's opinion. This is a christian nation after all (or is it, Mr. President?). This IS not a Christian nation. It WAS founded on Christian principles. Those principles remain extremely valuable to many people, and even I would agree, likely guide a lot of what we do and who we see ourselves as. But to say that the nation is itself "Christian" is wrong. Everyone likes to say "We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles," so we ARE Christian. OK. We were also founded on the backs of enslaved blacks. Does that mean we ARE "slave-owning" or a forever "racist Nation"? I would argue no. And you don't get to argue that religion is a legal justification for something because...really? Does this require an explanation? Why our laws should not track YOUR religion? In terms of small government, I agree with whoever above said that government should be out of the marriage business altogether. It was founded as a Christian Nation and I think it remains so. And the founding fathers and politicians since would agree. I'm utterly confused as to your second paragraph. You really need an editor.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 15:54:28 GMT -5
Why not three people, you bigot? To be honest, if three adults want to live in a house together, and screw like bunnies, and raise 15 kids, and whatever else...frankly, I don't care. Government doesn't have to recognize it. Government doesn't need to give them any benefits at all. You can condemn them all you want. If their warped church wants to call them married, so be it. You and I can call it wrong, sick, etc. Our government doesn't have to call it anything. I'm confused. Are you saying that government doesn't have to recognize gay marriages? That gay couples don't need any government benefits?
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Apr 8, 2009 15:54:49 GMT -5
Oh no! Gay people getting married. The invisible man in the sky is very angry at the gays. That's why he made them in his image...and he loves everyone...but he is still angry....and afraid....but all knowing.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 8, 2009 16:18:20 GMT -5
The United States was in no way whatsoever "founded as a Christian nation." It was founded as a decidedly secular nation, explicitly so in an age when that was unique, by men who happened to be mostly Christian. For all their brains, it is very strange that no mention whatever of Jesus of Nazareth made it into any of our founding documents if they intended to forge an explicitly "Christian nation." If that was there intent, it would have been very easy to do so, but boy did they drop the ball then. Instead we have vague poetic references to "Creators" in the Declaration. But not even that in the Constitution. Strange oversight for a "Christian Nation" no? Must have slipped their mind I guess.
Our nation was founded on Enlightenment Principles, not Christian ones. The single most astounding feature of our nation’s birth was that it was forged specifically NOT as a Christian nation even though it was one of the most deliberative national births in all human history and even though the players were almost all Christian.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Apr 8, 2009 16:48:51 GMT -5
thebin's right. This country's founders were more Freemasons than Christian. Freemasons and Christians, to put it lightly, don't always get along.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2009 17:04:20 GMT -5
To be honest, if three adults want to live in a house together, and screw like bunnies, and raise 15 kids, and whatever else...frankly, I don't care. Government doesn't have to recognize it. Government doesn't need to give them any benefits at all. You can condemn them all you want. If their warped church wants to call them married, so be it. You and I can call it wrong, sick, etc. Our government doesn't have to call it anything. I'm confused. Are you saying that government doesn't have to recognize gay marriages? That gay couples don't need any government benefits? Right. I think that government either has to recognize all (gay or straight) equally, which gets into the thorny religious/moral issues, OR get out of marriage entirely.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 8, 2009 17:24:50 GMT -5
The "get out of marriage entirely" idea is stupid and just a way of pandering to people who can't separate the difference between a legally binding union and a religious one. Should we have done away with the vote instead of letting women have it? Or done away with schools rather than integrating them?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 19:22:59 GMT -5
thebin's right. This country's founders were more Freemasons than Christian. Freemasons and Christians, to put it lightly, don't always get along. What would you call the following? Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Or more recently: Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture." Harry S Truman wrote to the Pope: "This is a Christian nation." Heck, even Earl Warren said, "I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses[.]"
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2009 19:24:10 GMT -5
I'm confused. Are you saying that government doesn't have to recognize gay marriages? That gay couples don't need any government benefits? Right. I think that government either has to recognize all (gay or straight) equally, which gets into the thorny religious/moral issues, OR get out of marriage entirely. So you would agree that government has to recognize all (singe or plural marriage) equally or not at all?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 8, 2009 21:19:32 GMT -5
thebin's right. This country's founders were more Freemasons than Christian. Freemasons and Christians, to put it lightly, don't always get along. What would you call the following? Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Or more recently: Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture." Harry S Truman wrote to the Pope: "This is a Christian nation." Heck, even Earl Warren said, "I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses[.]" You have quoted only one Founder here, and a minor one at that. Why are the opinions of men who did not in any way found the nation pertinent to a discussion of whether the US was "founded as a Christian nation?" Furthermore are you of the opinion that we are a nation of men or one of laws? Assuming you agree we are a nation of laws, I would ask you to tell me which of your anecdotes was culled from our Constitution? How is it that those great men could have forgotten to establish this Christian-ness in our founding Documents? Oversight? Let me show you something that was at the time earth-shattering and that they did manage to slip in to that document: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) Another nugget... The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" - this was official US Law under.....John Adams. I'll remind you that treaties are the highest form of US law outside of the constitution itself. But if you want to play the quotation game for "evidence" ....I'm game... Thomas Jefferson: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - "Notes on Virginia" "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787 "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - to John Adams, 1803 "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814 John Adams: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -letter to Thomas Jefferson John Adams again: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Benjamin Franklin: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -in Poor Richard's Almanac James Madison (Father of the Constitution): "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774 James Madison again: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785 The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason. Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175] Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 8, 2009 21:42:51 GMT -5
Right. I think that government either has to recognize all (gay or straight) equally, which gets into the thorny religious/moral issues, OR get out of marriage entirely. So you would agree that government has to recognize all (singe or plural marriage) equally or not at all? Assuming I don't get my real preference and the government doesn't get out of marriage altogether, I'd say no to states recognizing plural marriage b/c that opens up marriage benefits to extensive fraud. Every single person in D.C. could just claim being "married" to some random other group of "married" people. It would make the benefits pointless b/c everyone would game the system by "marrying" anyone else just for those government benefits. What I actually believe is that government should recognize civil unions: two people of either gender. Allowing plural unions would (as I just said) open the whole thing up to massive, completely uncontrollable fraud. So government can give benefits based on civil unions. We can call it whatever we want. You get "civil unionized" like you're getting a driver's license. Fill out form B, bring the pink copy to window 7, have a nice day--the two of you know get some kind of tax break. Hooray. "Marriage" should be handled by the churches. I don't want my church recognizing plural marriages because, personally, I think it's kind of weird. But does it mean a damn thing to me if my neighbors want to live in some odd 10 person group-marriage? Not really. As long as they don't bother me, what's the difference to my life? If they have a religion that will recognize their plural relationship, then they can go nuts with people who believe the same things they believe. And they can call it whatever they want. But only two people paired up can be considered part of a state-recognized civil union that gets any benefits. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to recognize gays as being "married," then fine. I think it's absurd, but whatever. At least it will take the issue out of our politics. Rather than this battle being waged during elections and in our legislatures, we can have gays holding rallies in front of, and marching against, and challenging their churches. We can have alternative faiths emerge rather than alternative party platforms. If it is for religious reasons that people oppose gay marriage, then it is appropriate to hash out that debate within our religious institutions, not state supreme courts and legislatures.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 8, 2009 21:53:18 GMT -5
Can all of us on both sides just agree right now that "famous dead guy agreed with me!" is not a very persuasive or valid form of argumentation?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 8, 2009 21:54:39 GMT -5
The "get out of marriage entirely" idea is stupid and just a way of pandering to people who can't separate the difference between a legally binding union and a religious one. Should we have done away with the vote instead of letting women have it? Or done away with schools rather than integrating them? To put it nicely: you must be a little slow. Why is the "get out of marriage idea" stupid? providing false analogies doesnt give reasons. additionally if the "get our of marriage idea" is stupid, then why is it NOT stupid for government to tell people who they can and cant "marry?" And why is "marriage" even a government concern? in its actual definition what does it have anything to do with government? why does it NEED government regulation? The only reason government i in the marriage business is because of taxes. eliminate the tax code that concerns its self with marriage and then govt is out of the marriage game. PERIOD. taxes are the ONLY reason for govt to be in the marriage game. PERIOD Please, try to convince me otherwise.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 8, 2009 22:14:41 GMT -5
While we are getting really absurd and taking Harry Truman's word for it (which is no more valuable than yours or mine in determining whether the US was founded as a Christian nation) then how about the big guy.....
His former law partner, William Herndon, said of him after his assassination: "[Mr. Lincoln] never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception. He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake." He also said that Lincoln "assimilated into his own being" the heretical book Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
Lincoln's first law partner, John T. Stuart, said of him: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on atheism. He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I have ever heard."
Supreme Court Justice David Davis: "He [Lincoln] had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term-- he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects."
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." -Spoken by Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 8, 2009 22:19:00 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 8, 2009 22:32:28 GMT -5
Can all of us on both sides just agree right now that "famous dead guy agreed with me!" is not a very persuasive or valid form of argumentation? Actually it can persuasive if you are quoting from the Founding Fathers about the character of the nation they created.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 8, 2009 22:59:17 GMT -5
Why is the "get out of marriage idea" stupid? It's begging the basic questions here (does the equal protection clause apply here, and does homosexuality fall under it), it's completely politically and legally unrealistic, and it seems like complete pandering coming from a philosophy that purports to support personal liberty. Plus it's the equivalent of scorched earth or "I'm taking my ball and going home". BTW, I don't buy the argument that taxes are the only reason that the government is into marriage - blood tests, division of property during divorce, and child custody say differently.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 9, 2009 12:18:09 GMT -5
Why is the "get out of marriage idea" stupid? It's begging the basic questions here (does the equal protection clause apply here, and does homosexuality fall under it), it's completely politically and legally unrealistic, and it seems like complete pandering coming from a philosophy that purports to support personal liberty. Plus it's the equivalent of scorched earth or "I'm taking my ball and going home". BTW, I don't buy the argument that taxes are the only reason that the government is into marriage - blood tests, division of property during divorce, and child custody say differently. WHY? You keep stating things, but never give reasons. WHY is it "completely politically and legally unrealistic, and it seems like complete pandering coming from a philosophy that purports to support personal liberty" "blood tests, division of property during divorce, and child custody say differently" Arent these in the domain of the courts??? every one of these cases is different and must be looked at by a court on an individual basis, so having a blanket law hasnt helped anything.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 9, 2009 12:26:47 GMT -5
Why is the "get out of marriage idea" stupid? It's begging the basic questions here (does the equal protection clause apply here, and does homosexuality fall under it), it's completely politically and legally unrealistic, and it seems like complete pandering coming from a philosophy that purports to support personal liberty. Plus it's the equivalent of scorched earth or "I'm taking my ball and going home". BTW, I don't buy the argument that taxes are the only reason that the government is into marriage - blood tests, division of property during divorce, and child custody say differently. I also am having a little trouble following your logic. But one thing I agree on is that there is an "I'm taking my ball and going home" sort of mentality ALREADY at work here, but it is modified a bit. The religious segment of the country—the part that really opposes gay marriage—is essentially trying to leave "the ball" (marriage) in everyone's collective national court (federal/state law), but while still dictating the rules by which we all have to play with that ball (no gays). I'd prefer you take your ball and your rules for that ball, and bring them back to your home. The rest of us who are still out in the park can then create our own rules for playing with a different ball—gays (and everyone else) can get civil unions under state law.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 9, 2009 12:57:07 GMT -5
Another quote:
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” - A. Lincoln
|
|