Religious Laws Imposed
Erendil
society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few parameters
while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United States
of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
question.
You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who don't
belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose their
religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want to
receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays. The
Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency. Sodomy
and Fellatio banning laws.
I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it is.
Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
tenants.
Blessed Be,
Erendil
--
The Tree is judged,
by the Fruit it bears.....
The_Padre
wrote:
I don't want any laws based on just religion no matter what religion
Padre
In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.
Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.
For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.
Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.
Adam Arthur
much problem with people's beliefs. But when those beliefs are imposed upon
me by a majority I become quite angered. There are many such laws. Did you
know it was illegal for minors to have sex in California? WHY? Sex is a
biological function. Of coarse, the law isn't enforced. If you are going
to make a law regulating under-18 sex--why not make a law requiring the use
of condoms. THAT would have a good and clear purpose. Anti-prostitution
laws are religious in scope. I see it as a business that could be regulated
because of real social problems like the transmission of diseases and such.
But to outlaw it is unjustified.
Erendil <ere...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:385a...@news3.enter.net...
Joel
paul...@my-deja.com
> The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon
members of
> society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions
that
> would impose their religious laws on others?
Please please please...it's tenets, not tenants.
> The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
> is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> institutions.
There are movements to overcome these restrictions, and to at least
procure for gay couples the same legal rights as marriage (viz.
domestic partnership), My wife and I looked into getting the legal
standing of marriage without marrying, but you know what? No legal
contract except marriage is binding in some cases (eg. executor for
living wills, automatic rights of inheritance, etc.). However, track
back through civilizations far predating the Christian rise, and which
were not under the Judaeo-Christian social contract at all, and you
don't find same-sex marriage granted there either. We are trying to do
something new with this, which is good, but a long haul.
> The automatic
> mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the
United
> States of America.
What makes you think circumcision is inspired by Judaism when applied
to gentile babies? Until it became fashionable to do so for hygeinic
reasons after WWII, most gentiles resisted circumcision of their
offspring because it WAS a Jewish custom. The practice is under fire
medically now, but was never instituted for religious reasons in the
first place. Where did you get such a notion? Nor is medical
circumcision mandated by law in any case.
> The taking of an oath upon a Bible.
In Maryland, court oaths are "under penalty of perjury." In any state,
for a generation or more, it has been possible to request to make
affirmation (swear a secular oath) rather than on the bible. Where do
you live, anyway?
> The closing of
> businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays.
Same question: every store in my neck of the woods is open 7 days a
week, and beer and wine are for sale the same way. Liquor in this
county is regulated in more ways than the old blue laws, but that is
because the county government runs all the stores directly...I keep
voting against every council member who doesn't vote to get out of the
business, but it never seems to do the trick.
But the issue here is civic greed, not religious blue laws.
>The
> Pledge of Allegiance..
Tyhat would be one that any student can refuse to take on religious
grounds, under federal law? By the way, you know who fought that case
clear up to the Supreme Court and won? Just checking (hint, the
initials are J.W.).
> and the affirmation of God upon our currency.
How does that motto impose on you? Are you maintaining that you have to
worship a specific God every time you spend a buck? This is a pretty
trivial example of a law "imposing" religious beliefs on anyone. But if
it really bugs you, do everything by check and credit card.
> Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
With you there, and every year more states are under fire by their
voters to repeal them. Along with insuring the rights of citizens
regardless of who and how they fuck.
Of course, you can find queer-haters over on the atheist NGs, and the
oagan NGs, etc. as well, so it isn't entirely a religious thing, but a
cultural one. I know it pisses you off no end that the culture you live
in has a large Judaeo-Christian component in how it formed, but it
does, and when necessary social change conflicts with that component,
it is not going to be put through by fiat...it's a long row to hoe.
> I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as
it is.
Pity you can't find any on the books that really add up to imposing
religious obligations on anyone, as opposed to reminding you that you
don't like Christians.
> Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
> tenants.
TENETS!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gregory Gadow
Joel wrote:
> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
Phrase the logic as a matter of life.
The Declaration of Independence, which outlines the reasons behind the
American Revolution, states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness." The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law...." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in theory
observed by all members of the United Nations, states in Article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Given that the United States includes, among its self-evident, unalienable
rights, the right to life, and that the nations of the world have also
agreed that everyone has the right life: Murder then is the case when a
person's right to life has been violated.
Violation of the right to life is the most severe form of rights violation,
because unlike the right to free speech or the freedom to live where one
wants, once the right to life is removed it may not be restored. Thus, of
all rights violations, this violation can and generally does carry the
highest penalty, up to and including forfeiture of the violator's right to
life (capital punishment is another subject entirely, and one I will not
address at this time.)
--
Gregory Gadow
E-mail: tech...@serv.net
American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical
e-mail sent with false or misleading headers is in
violation of state law and subjectto a $500 penalty.
I WILL FILE CHARGES!
L. Michael Roberts
Joel wrote:
>
> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
The crime of murder causes harm to the victim, is non consentual
and also causes harm to the victims loved ones.
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Turtle
>The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
>society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
>would impose their religious laws on others?
<snipped>
>Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
>tenants.
>
How about, the State and/or Federal government agencies giving employees
certain religious holidays such as Christmas off, but not others, such as Yule,
Hannukah, etc.?
--Turtle
(Millennium, Schmillennium.)
Mind the spam trap.
paul...@my-deja.com
"Joel" <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of
murder?
>
The right of citizens to life unless deprived of it by due process has
been a fixed element of cultures worldwide and throughout history. If
you want a rationale, OK, try...
- citizens are part of an economic system, and mmurder wrongfully
deprives the victim's dependents, peers, and associates of the murdered
person's resources. This was, for example, the basis of weregild, and
the outlawry which attached to those unwilling or unable to pay
weregild, or the right of the deceased's family to refuse weregild.
Killing a leader required gild beyond money, since you were beholden to
those followers who suffered loss by losing that leader's expertise,
etc.
- a citizen's life belongs to the state (a popular notion at various
times)...sheer civic greed makes murder a crime against the state. This
was also applied in different ways to the killing of slaves, which was
a crime of property in some cultures.
- murder without mitigating circumstances indicates danger to the
citizenry from the murderer - ie. he did it for kicks, or because he
wanted the victim's possessions. Executing or incarcerating a murderer
is simple self-protection.
The question is asinine with about 30 seconds thought. Criminy, people,
all someone has to do us say "religious laws imposed" and common sense
goes toes up?
Turtle
>What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
Being against murder is a *moral* question, not a *religious* one. Morality
does not equal religion does not equal morality! Completely secular people can
be very moral. (Are you a Christian, by any chance?)
The prohibition against murder does seem to have a practical aspect as well,
though. It just doesn't work very well for people to go around killing each
other for not very good reasons (i.e., not in defense of self or family). The
theory is that prison time or the death penalty will remove such offenders from
society either temporarily or permanently, thus preventing them from repeating
the offense. I don't want to go into whether this actually works or not, at
least not in this thread, nor do I wish to veer off into what is murder and
what is not.
Was that enough words to answer your question? <G>
fyrestyrm
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gregory Gadow
> Well said Greg! May I quote you?
You may for free or other not for profit.
Midnight Magick
Erendil wrote in message <385a...@news3.enter.net>...
> The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
>society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
>of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
>Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
>question.
>belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose their
marriage
>is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
>without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want to
>mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
>businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays. The
>Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency. Sodomy
>and Fellatio banning laws.
>I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it is.
>tenants.
Murder, theft, adultry...
Jason Sanderson
In many cases the "eternal swing of the pendulum" is taking care of a
lot of these.
Here in New England it is ver difficult to get these changed, it almost
seems like the old "Blue Laws" are a matter of pride, who can have the
most eccentric regulations. But here in NH they are changing the
prohibition about the sale of sunday liquor, especially along the border
towns and areas of high tourist traffic.
I've had to testify in several court cases, and have not been asked to
swear on a bible or even say "so help me God".
With more and more people seeking alternatives to their individual
beliefs and philosophies, there are less and less that are belonging to
the 'institutions' so to speak, and therefore the institutions are
losing a lot of their influence. But, their influence is old, and runs
deep, so I'm not expecting things overnight. However, change is coming.
However, I can't help but think how much this post brings to mind the
event in the life of Thoureau, who was jailed for not paying his dues to
the local Congregational church. (Interesting note, in VT up until
roughly 25 years ago, we were still required to pay pew tax on the slips
that our family owned in the Church. Failure to do that would have
resulted in it being publicly sold at auction!)
BB
Jason
Erendil wrote:
>
> The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
> society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
> would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few parameters
> while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United States
> of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
> Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
> question.
> You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who don't
> belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose their
> religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
> is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
> without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want to
> receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
> mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
> States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
> businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays. The
> Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency. Sodomy
> and Fellatio banning laws.
> I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it is.
> Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
> tenants.
>
Artem Khamzin
religius logic (assuming christian) can YOU phrase to justify capital punishment?
James Doemer
Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83dp47$c71$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
>
It infringes upon a citizen's right to life. It infringes on their civil
rights because it
brings harm to another.
The secular logic is all one needs. Sure beats the illogic of having to
behave
because God says so. One would think that, upon the discovery that God
doesn't exist, Christians would run amok, with absolutely no direction, they
would become rapists, killers, muggers, etc.. Is this true?
Jaguar
I think marriage is more of a social institution/construct than a religous
one.
Historicly, marriage is a contract between a male & female regarding the
raising of children.
Even in societies that did have multiple forms of marraige, the ones I
know of at least, all those marriage types were between male & female.
Even in cultures, like ancient Greece, where one would think such a union
might be recognized... marraige was between male & female.
Odd, considering one thought thread of that culture was that the highest
form of love was between a man & another man. And that women were inferior
to men, therefore not as worthy in love. YET a man had a duty to his
family to marry & have children, thus must marry a woman. (THAT set up a
rather nasty schisim 'tween the sexes)
Considering that up until the event of modern birth control, sexual
relations pretty much meant pregancy (probably sooner rather than later)
& considering it is in societies interest to see that children are
provided for... it rather makes sense.
In some cultures (noteably the Celts) ANY union that resulted in offspring
was considered a marraige of some type.
Jag
tossing in a few pennies
Daithí a Iúile O'Broder
News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com says...
>
> Joel wrote:
> >
> > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
> and also causes harm to the victims loved ones.
>
> +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
> This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
> Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
> "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
> +==================================================================+
>
Considering that in the recent year we have see a "President" argue the
definition of the word 'is' and 'sex', I'm treading on thin ice, but
under what do you define 'murder'?
Daibhaid
--
"D'aithle na bhfileadh n-uasal, truaghsan timheal an tsaoghail."
[Now with all the High Bards gone, sad is the waning of the world.]
(SPAMMERS win the grand prize, a full scale assault to your ISP.
Therefore, DON'T fecking do it!)
Daithí a Iúile O'Broder
> simple, the personal desire to live and contribute. On the other hand what
> religius logic (assuming christian) can YOU phrase to justify capital punishment?
>
> >
> > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
Welll, duh, depending on the crime I can site numerous justifications for
capital punishment. For instance, Adultery - death by stoning/both
participants. Wrongful / Willful murder of an individual - death, the
list goes on. This is just under Christain Code. Under the old Irish Code
there is similar laws in effect, if not more so, not only is the offender
killed, the offenders family is fined an 'honour price'.
Daithí a Iúile O'Broder
> >
> >
>
> rights because it
> brings harm to another.
However, posit this, if it infringes on the citizens right to life (spec
the murderer) then how much more is the family of the one murders
infringed upon to the right of the life they have lost?
Daibh
John De Salvio
Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> I think marriage is more of a social institution/construct than a religous
> one.
>
> Historicly, marriage is a contract between a male & female regarding the
> raising of children.
>
> Even in societies that did have multiple forms of marraige, the ones I
> know of at least, all those marriage types were between male & female.
>
> Even in cultures, like ancient Greece, where one would think such a union
> might be recognized... marraige was between male & female.
> Odd, considering one thought thread of that culture was that the highest
> form of love was between a man & another man. And that women were inferior
> to men, therefore not as worthy in love. YET a man had a duty to his
> family to marry & have children, thus must marry a woman. (THAT set up a
> rather nasty schisim 'tween the sexes)
>
> Considering that up until the event of modern birth control, sexual
> relations pretty much meant pregancy (probably sooner rather than later)
> & considering it is in societies interest to see that children are
> provided for... it rather makes sense.
>
> In some cultures (noteably the Celts) ANY union that resulted in offspring
> was considered a marraige of some type.
Read "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.
It covers this issue quite thoroughly.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Korax Lykos
__
Korvin
"L. Michael Roberts" wrote:
> Joel wrote:
> >
> > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
CJ Watson
John De Salvio wrote:
> In article <Pine.SV4.3.96.991217...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> <snipo>
> > In some cultures (noteably the Celts) ANY union that resulted in offspring
> > was considered a marraige of some type.
>
> Read "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.
>
> It covers this issue quite thoroughly.
There still are same sex unions practiced by some orthodox churches. They
aren't sexual unions. Boswell doesn't give evidence that they ever have been.
--W
--
"If the American blood products industry
had accepted the conclusions of CDC
experts showing that HIV was a bloodborne
disease, tens or hundreds of thousands of
Americans who are now dead might be alive.
Instead, for almost two years-hammered
on the one side by gay activists arguing that
screening would be discrimi-natory and on
the other by concern for profit margins-the
Red Cross and other institutions resisted
pleas to institute donor screening, killing
thousands of transfusion recipients and
nearly every American hemophiliac who
received even a single dose of clotting
factor between 1980 and 1985."
(Homosexuality and American Public
Life, Edited by Chrisopher Wolfe,
(Dallas: Spence Publishing Company)
1999, :122)
"Each new homosexual generation is being replenished
by heterosexuals whose productionof gay sons is entirely
unrelated to the dynamics of the epidemic. AIDS, therefore,
can keep mowing down gay men and rather than die out,
phalanax after phalanax will emerge from the trenches, ready to be
mowed down anew. The epidemic could literally go on forever."
(Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, Gabrielle Rotello)
John De Salvio
<Midnigh...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Erendil wrote in message <385a...@news3.enter.net>...
> > The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
> >society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
> >would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few parameters
> >while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United States
> >of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
> >Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
> >question.
> > You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who don't
> >belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose their
> >religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all
> marriage
> >is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> >institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
> >without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want to
> >receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
> >mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
> >States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
> >businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays. The
> >Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency. Sodomy
> >and Fellatio banning laws.
> >I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it is.
> >Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
> >tenants.
>
>
> Murder, theft, adultry...
The laws relating to murder and theft were in place before there were any
codified religious laws.
Adultery as a breach of a civil contract is not a religious law.
And the word is "tenets," not "tenants."
CJ Watson
James Doemer wrote:
> Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83dp47$c71$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
> >
> >
>
> It infringes upon a citizen's right to life.
A citizen's right to life is not immutable.
What is their right to life based on?
> It infringes on their civil
> rights because it
> brings harm to another.
Bringing harm to another is not always immoral. So that argument is not
relevant.
Your point is.... pointless.
What is the issue of murder's morality or immorality actually based on then?
<snip>
Erendil
Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83dp47$c71$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
and friends would want your demise in revenge. Therefor if you wish not to
be murdered, don't murder. Cause and effect if you will.
Blessed Be,
Erendil
>
CJ Watson
L. Michael Roberts wrote:
> <snip>
> "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"<snip>
"Have you ever heard of second hand AIDS?" --Me
Erendil
Turtle <turtl...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:19991217124155...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> Erendil wrote:
>
> >The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
> >society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions
that
> >would impose their religious laws on others?
>
>
>
>
> >Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
> >tenants.
> >
>
> certain religious holidays such as Christmas off, but not others, such as
Yule,
> Hannukah, etc.?
Maybe because Christmas isn't a religious holiday? ;)
Blessed Be,
Erendil
Joel
deprives the victim's dependents, peers, and associates of the murdered
submit that the only justification is a moral one. i.e. the government must
have an element of morality...i.e. religion
Fenris
Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> I think marriage is more of a social institution/construct than a religous
> one.
>
> Historicly, marriage is a contract between a male & female regarding the
> raising of children.
>
> Even in societies that did have multiple forms of marraige, the ones I
> know of at least, all those marriage types were between male & female.
You need to do a little more research. You might begin with Walter L.
Williams's
The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Cultures."
You might also want to be aware that some cultures have prescribed
same-sex unions for particular periods in life, e.g., the Greeks and
Azande.
--
To e-mail me replace "spamsucks" with "azstarnet.com"
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
>
Do you actually mean to suggest that you can think of no secular
arguments against murder?
Perhaps it is time for a secular law against paralyzing stupidity!
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be restricted by
prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY
wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate
the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Artem Khamzin
thing. religion MIGHT be a RESULT of morality but morality is NOT a result of
religion. Morality is the sence of right and wrong. Thats what it is, period.
Explain to me then: Comunist Russia had no religion PERIOD, <i submit the
earlier chaos years after the revolution> Still murder was as wrong as
anywhere else, and untill recently (since christinity has been reinstated)
murder rate ROSE higher than ever. Morality is what defines who we are and
our laws, morality .e.i. spirituality, e.i personal awarnes of "I" and NOT I
repeat NOT Organized/dogma driven religion.
<shudders as he remembers writing a paper on this very subject>
Joel
the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Matthew 10 : 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell.
Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their
mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must
in this manner be killed.
Joel
Artem Khamzin
varaety to cosial classes? already knew that one.
Joel
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Artem Khamzin
suffer, perhaps like any good saint would do... heheh (:
eeeeech
-Artem <proud to be pagan, even if an ill one at the time>
Joel
Oldguyteck
James Doemer wrote in message <385a...@news.provide.net>...
>>
>>
>
>rights because it
>brings harm to another.
>
>behave
>because God says so. One would think that, upon the discovery that God
>doesn't exist, Christians would run amok, with absolutely no direction,
they
>would become rapists, killers, muggers, etc.. Is this true?
>
>
You'r kinda stepping out there on the shaky limb, so to speak. After all in
what you say implicates the atheist, that once were theist. Is THAT true as
well ?
Ed.....................(Oldguyteck) †
James Doemer
Oldguyteck <granp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:83f8h6$knl$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Implicates them in what? Finally waking up? Finding an ethical code that
transcends the
boogiman mentality?
John De Salvio
O'Broder <facets_...@nospam.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> In article <385AB6FA...@iname.com>, a...@iname.com says...
> > simple, the personal desire to live and contribute. On the other hand what
> > religius logic (assuming christian) can YOU phrase to justify capital
punishment?
> >
> > Joel wrote:
> > >
> > > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
> >
>
> Welll, duh, depending on the crime I can site numerous justifications for
> capital punishment. For instance, Adultery - death by stoning/both
> participants. Wrongful / Willful murder of an individual - death, the
> list goes on. This is just under Christain Code. Under the old Irish Code
> there is similar laws in effect, if not more so, not only is the offender
> killed, the offenders family is fined an 'honour price'.
The phrase "secular logic" seems to have escaped your notice.
Rainbow Christian
- What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
It deprives a person of their constitutional rights?
It deprives a person the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Of couse if only your fear of God keeps you from committing murder, or
fear of the lae, thean sir, you truly are a beast.
--
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true. whatever is noble, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things. Philippiams 4:8
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Rainbow Christian
<Midnigh...@email.msn.com> wrote:
- Erendil wrote in message <385a...@news3.enter.net>...
- > The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
- >society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
- >would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few parameters
- >while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United States
- >of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
- >Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
- >question.
- > You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who don't
- >belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose their
- >religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all
- marriage
- >is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
- >institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
- >without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want to
- >receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
- >mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
- >States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
- >businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays. The
- >Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency. Sodomy
- >and Fellatio banning laws.
- >I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it is.
- >Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
- >tenants.
-
-
- Murder, theft, adultry...
The laws banning above have little to with religion.
Such laws exist where relgion has little ot no influence in decades, China
(which was never Christian, and has been non-religious for close to 50
years) comes immediately to mind.
(Actually, I really don't know of any "laws/statues regarding adultery (or
if such exist if they are ever enforced) in the USA. Adultery is a
"grounds" for divorce, but that is not the same as saying there is a lwas
against it.)
If you don't know why, with or without the weight of religious reasons,
why theft and murder are wrong, than you are not fir to be in civilized
society.
-
- >
- >
- > Blessed Be,
- > Erendil
- >
- >--
- >The Tree is judged,
- > by the Fruit it bears.....
- >
- >
Lord
God exists, without question, for I have seen him, and been there...
Religion is a mess, regardless of what your faith may be....best to
believe in the truth...reality....
further info? see my site.....
WTW
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/wtw
James Doemer wrote:
>
> Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83dp47$c71$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
> >
> >
>
James Doemer
Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83f4r8$u5t$1...@nw001t.infi.net...
> I don't speculate science fiction.
>
>
And you have trouble dealing in reality... Must suck to be you...
Jaguar
> > I think marriage is more of a social institution/construct than a religous
> > one.
> > Historicly, marriage is a contract between a male & female regarding the
> > raising of children.
> > Even in societies that did have multiple forms of marraige, the ones I
> > know of at least, all those marriage types were between male & female.
> You need to do a little more research. You might begin with Walter L.
> Williams's
Hmmm... I'll have to add that to my read list.
> The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Cultures."
> You might also want to be aware that some cultures have prescribed
> same-sex unions for particular periods in life, e.g., the Greeks and
> Azande.
I know.... thus the greek lament that women were not worthy or love & the
bemoaning the necessity of marrying a female in order to beget a son.
-grin-
Greek culture got pretty polarized at some points & places.
The question would be, are these same sex unions actual legal contracts
-in other words a type of marriage, or were they voluntary associations?
There IS a differenence.
Just because it was a same sex reltionship does not mean it was a marriage
in that culture.
& as for the greeks, do you have a referance for a same sex marriage in
that culture? I'm curious.
While I have seen ample material that indicated same sex relationships, my
impression of ancient greece, was that marriage was specificly for the
continuation of the family & having children.
Jag
Jaguar
> Read "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.
> It covers this issue quite thoroughly.
I'll have to add it to the to read list.
'till then, the question is, what legal standing did those relationships
have in those cultures?
For example: The Brehon laws regarding marriage of the Celts, concerned
mostly the different forms of marriage, dowery & such, who got what & who
provided what for the kids in case of divorce, 7 in what cases divorce was
permissable.
(Didn't see any mention of same sex union in the specific case)
So, in the same sex unions you are aware of in history, was this type of
reltionship also addressed by the laws of that culture?
Jag
James Doemer
Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SV4.3.96.991218...@saltmine.radix.net...
> >On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Fenris wrote:
>
> > > I think marriage is more of a social institution/construct than a
religous
> > > one.
> > > Historicly, marriage is a contract between a male & female regarding
the
> > > raising of children.
> > > Even in societies that did have multiple forms of marraige, the ones I
> > > know of at least, all those marriage types were between male & female.
>
> > You need to do a little more research. You might begin with Walter L.
> > Williams's
>
> Hmmm... I'll have to add that to my read list.
>
> > The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Cultures."
> > You might also want to be aware that some cultures have prescribed
> > same-sex unions for particular periods in life, e.g., the Greeks and
> > Azande.
>
> I know.... thus the greek lament that women were not worthy or love & the
> bemoaning the necessity of marrying a female in order to beget a son.
> -grin-
> Greek culture got pretty polarized at some points & places.
>
> The question would be, are these same sex unions actual legal contracts
> -in other words a type of marriage, or were they voluntary associations?
They were actual legal contracts. Egypt also had state sanctioned same
gender marriages.
>
> There IS a differenence.
>
> Just because it was a same sex reltionship does not mean it was a marriage
> in that culture.
>
In these cases, it was.
> & as for the greeks, do you have a referance for a same sex marriage in
> that culture? I'm curious.
Read pretty much anything written by Homer. I believe they were also
mentioned by Sophicles.
> While I have seen ample material that indicated same sex relationships, my
> impression of ancient greece, was that marriage was specificly for the
> continuation of the family & having children.
Marriage, historically, was more about property and asset transfer than
about children.
John De Salvio
Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, John De Salvio wrote:
>
> > Read "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.
> > It covers this issue quite thoroughly.
>
> I'll have to add it to the to read list.
>
> 'till then, the question is, what legal standing did those relationships
> have in those cultures?
>
> For example: The Brehon laws regarding marriage of the Celts, concerned
> mostly the different forms of marriage, dowery & such, who got what & who
> provided what for the kids in case of divorce, 7 in what cases divorce was
> permissable.
> (Didn't see any mention of same sex union in the specific case)
>
> So, in the same sex unions you are aware of in history, was this type of
> reltionship also addressed by the laws of that culture?
I am not going to reproduce the book for you. It has chapters dealing with the
subject, and exhaustive references in Greek, Latin, and other languages from
original contemporary writings.
Eric Bohlman
> (Actually, I really don't know of any "laws/statues regarding adultery (or
> if such exist if they are ever enforced) in the USA. Adultery is a
> "grounds" for divorce, but that is not the same as saying there is a lwas
> against it.)
Illinois still has a law criminalizing adultery on the books, and I
remember reading about a couple prosecutions under it in the last few
years (both involved cases where a husband's discovery of his wife's
affairs led to a physical altercation with the other man; in both cases
the police said the reason they were filing charges was to try to prevent
the situation from escalating). I have no idea if the cases ever went to
court, but I suspect that charges were eventually dropped.
Christopher J. Watson
John De Salvio wrote:
> In article <Pine.SV4.3.96.991218...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> Jaguar <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
> > >On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, John De Salvio wrote:
> >
> > > Read "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.
> > > It covers this issue quite thoroughly.
> >
> > I'll have to add it to the to read list.
> >
> > 'till then, the question is, what legal standing did those relationships
> > have in those cultures?
> >
> > For example: The Brehon laws regarding marriage of the Celts, concerned
> > mostly the different forms of marriage, dowery & such, who got what & who
> > provided what for the kids in case of divorce, 7 in what cases divorce was
> > permissable.
> > (Didn't see any mention of same sex union in the specific case)
> >
> > So, in the same sex unions you are aware of in history, was this type of
> > reltionship also addressed by the laws of that culture?
>
> I am not going to reproduce the book for you. It has chapters dealing with the
> subject, and exhaustive references in Greek, Latin, and other languages from
> original contemporary writings.
If you've read the book you should be able to make some kind of case and argument.
But apparently you can't do that.
--W
--
"Tolerance is the highest virtue for those who have no others." --G.K. Chesterton
Oldguyteck
James Doemer wrote in message <385b...@news.provide.net>...
>
>Oldguyteck <granp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:83f8h6$knl$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> James Doemer wrote in message <385a...@news.provide.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of
murder?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >It infringes upon a citizen's right to life. It infringes on their
>civil
>> >rights because it
>> >brings harm to another.
>> >
>> >The secular logic is all one needs. Sure beats the illogic of having
to
>> >behave
>> >because God says so. One would think that, upon the discovery that God
>> >doesn't exist, Christians would run amok, with absolutely no direction,
>> they
>> >would become rapists, killers, muggers, etc.. Is this true?
>> >
>> >
>>
>in
>> what you say implicates the atheist, that once were theist. Is THAT true
>as
>> well ?
>>
>> Ed.....................(Oldguyteck) ?
>>
>
>
>Implicates them in what? Finally waking up? Finding an ethical code that
>transcends the
>boogiman mentality?
>
>
but rather the closing of the eyes, and in falling asleep. Re read the
first assertion, then be aware of my assertion.
Ed......................(Oldguyteck) †
Chad L
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you"... now some say
Confucianism is a religion ( although many don't)... but that saying in and
of itself is also secular... and if that isn't enough to convince you, I
would ask you to go to your local Barnes and Nobles... sit down in a nice
comfortable chair, and read Imannuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure
Reason"... if there is any secular reasoning on to 'why murder is wrong'...
among other issues of morality... this is where you will find it... you have
probably heard of the philosopher Kant, and this one of the main literary
works that has made him famous.
Chad L.
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:83dsbh$d2q$0...@199.201.191.2...
: (Reading from alt.politics.homosexuality)
:
: Joel wrote:
:
: > What secular logic can you phrase to argue against the crime of murder?
:
: Phrase the logic as a matter of life.
:
: The Declaration of Independence, which outlines the reasons behind the
: American Revolution, states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that
: all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
: certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
: pursuit of Happiness." The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states:
: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
: process of law...." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in theory
: observed by all members of the United Nations, states in Article 3:
: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
:
: Given that the United States includes, among its self-evident, unalienable
: rights, the right to life, and that the nations of the world have also
: agreed that everyone has the right life: Murder then is the case when a
: person's right to life has been violated.
:
: Violation of the right to life is the most severe form of rights
violation,
: because unlike the right to free speech or the freedom to live where one
: wants, once the right to life is removed it may not be restored. Thus, of
: all rights violations, this violation can and generally does carry the
: highest penalty, up to and including forfeiture of the violator's right to
: life (capital punishment is another subject entirely, and one I will not
: address at this time.)
: --
: Gregory Gadow
: E-mail: tech...@serv.net
: American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
:
: I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical
: e-mail sent with false or misleading headers is in
: violation of state law and subjectto a $500 penalty.
: I WILL FILE CHARGES!
:
:
Chad L
: You said "murder wrongfully
:
Erendil
having sex with a virgin. Even if you are married. The result is that
technically you have to leave the state to deflower your virgin bride. I
wonder if it was the Chamber of Tourism who managed to have that law passed.
;)
Blessed Be,
Erendil
Adam Arthur <na...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:83do2s$opk$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Laws such as these are what I oppose with much vigor. I honestly don't
have
> much problem with people's beliefs. But when those beliefs are imposed
upon
> me by a majority I become quite angered. There are many such laws. Did
you
> know it was illegal for minors to have sex in California? WHY? Sex is a
> biological function. Of coarse, the law isn't enforced. If you are going
> to make a law regulating under-18 sex--why not make a law requiring the
use
> of condoms. THAT would have a good and clear purpose. Anti-prostitution
> laws are religious in scope. I see it as a business that could be
regulated
> because of real social problems like the transmission of diseases and
such.
> But to outlaw it is unjustified.
>
> Erendil <ere...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:385a...@news3.enter.net...
> > The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members
of
> > society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions
that
> > would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few
parameters
> > while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United
> States
> > of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation of
> > Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a moot
> > question.
> > You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who
don't
> > belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose
> their
> > religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all
> marriage
> > is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> > institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
> > without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want
to
> > receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
> > mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
> > States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
> > businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays.
The
> > Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency.
> Sodomy
> > and Fellatio banning laws.
> > I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it as it
> is.
> > Others can add to the list of imposition of laws based upon religious
> > tenants.
> >
> >
> > Blessed Be,
> >
> Erendil
> >
> > --
> > The Tree is judged,
Erendil
beneficial. If you do something that is not beneficial to either yourself
or society, then you've done something "wrong". One doesn't need religion
to understand whether or not something is right or wrong, beneficial or
harmful.
Blessed Be,
Erendil
Erendil
must be achieved. OK, so it's semantics. Will you continue to be caught in
the web of semantic word play, or can you offer some thought on the original
post?
Blessed Be,
Erendil
Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83f6vr$jvk$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
Erendil
Christopher J. Watson <p21...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:385C7555...@hotmail.com...
If memory serves me, I believe John Boswell points out that
marriages were a civil contract prior to the Priests getting their hands
into the pockets of the newlyweds. That the early church in large part
attempted to promote celibacy in all of their followers. The first
documentation of a ritual binding two people in the Church was between two
men. The saints "I forget their names" that were called upon in the ritual
were also men, who had a homosexual relationship and were martyrd. Later in
our Western history, the Church sanctioned a marriage and of course recieved
payment for such. As I understand present Catholic doctrine, the Sacrament
of Marriage isn't conferred upon the participants but rather "witnessed" by
the preciding Priest.
Blessed Be,
Erendil
John De Salvio
SS Sergius and Bacchus.
tac/mokosh
Oregon line; "Legalization, ten bucks." Of course, as a woman, I would
happily take care of all the virgin boys, but I would need to hire help for
the girls...
Mokosh )O(
Erendil wrote in message <385d...@news3.enter.net>...
Bart Lidofsky
: me by a majority I become quite angered. There are many such laws. Did you
: know it was illegal for minors to have sex in California? WHY? Sex is a
: biological function. Of coarse, the law isn't enforced. If you are going
: to make a law regulating under-18 sex--why not make a law requiring the use
: of condoms. THAT would have a good and clear purpose.
When people who are not properly prepared to have sex do so
anyway, the state is frequenlty charged with picking up the pieces. This
makes it a non-religious matter. It is generally agreed that the state has
the responsibility to protect minors, who are often not mature enough to
make their own decisions in certain areas. Minors receive certain
protections, as well, based on the same assumptions.
: Anti-prostitution
: laws are religious in scope.
How?
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
: society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
: would impose their religious laws on others?
It depends on whether the law is purely religious. I doubt that
the murder laws would ever be overturned to allow for human sacrifice, for
example.
: religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
: is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
: institutions.
Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
some of which pre-dates Christianity.
: to receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
: mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
: States of America.
Not religious at all. For many years, it was thought that
circumcision helped prevent certain kinds of cancer. It turns out to be a
wash.
: The taking of an oath upon a Bible.
Not required by law.
: The closing of
: businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays.
Has been legally challenged and defeated many times.
: The
: Pledge of Allegiance,
Added during WWII; nobody may be legally punished for refusal to
recite it.
: Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
What do they have to do with religion?
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: The Declaration of Independence, which outlines the reasons behind the
: American Revolution,
and holds no legal force whatsoever.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: > The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
: > is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
: > institutions.
: standing of marriage without marrying, but you know what? No legal
: contract except marriage is binding in some cases (eg. executor for
: living wills, automatic rights of inheritance, etc.).
In general, the benefits that gays are seeking are the economic
benefits of marriage. Now, the dilemma has to do with the fact that these
economic benefits were put into place to help facilitate the creation and
raising of children. The flaw is that they benefit childless couples, as
well, and it is that flaw which gays are using as their wedge. But then,
you have additional consequences to worry about, such as making marriage
of convenience much easier than it was. It's tricky legal territory.
: What makes you think circumcision is inspired by Judaism when applied
: to gentile babies? Until it became fashionable to do so for hygeinic
: reasons after WWII, most gentiles resisted circumcision of their
: offspring because it WAS a Jewish custom. The practice is under fire
: medically now,
Not terribly. What has been found out is that the chances of it
doing harm were almost identical to the chances of it doing something
equivalently good, making it a wash, especiallly since the chance of
either bad thing approaches zero.
: > The taking of an oath upon a Bible.
:
: In Maryland, court oaths are "under penalty of perjury." In any state,
: for a generation or more, it has been possible to request to make
: affirmation (swear a secular oath) rather than on the bible. Where do
: you live, anyway?
You may recall, in the famous Scopes Trial, William Jennings
Bryan, when taking the stand, was offered the opportunity to take the
affirmation instead of the oath.
: > Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
:
: With you there, and every year more states are under fire by their
: voters to repeal them. Along with insuring the rights of citizens
: regardless of who and how they fuck.
Although I believe in "consenting adults", I don't really see that
these laws are purely religious. They are against sexual activity that
doesn't make lots of babies to become part of and strengthen the state.
Bart Lidofsky
Gregory Gadow
I was responding to Joel, who asked, "What secular logic can you phrase to
argue against the crime of murder?" I never brought up the issue of law; I
was establishing foundational principles upon which the laws of the United
States are (supposedly) based. Likewise, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights has no legal force in the US either (yes, the US is a signator, but
the treaty was never ratified by the US Senate; therefore the US is not
obligated to hold it.) But these documents *do* form the basis of a
fundamental *secular* right to life for all people
Bart Lidofsky
: Illinois still has a law criminalizing adultery on the books, and I
: remember reading about a couple prosecutions under it in the last few
: years (both involved cases where a husband's discovery of his wife's
: affairs led to a physical altercation with the other man; in both cases
: the police said the reason they were filing charges was to try to prevent
: the situation from escalating). I have no idea if the cases ever went to
: court, but I suspect that charges were eventually dropped.
Adultery was a serious crime in pre-Christian Europe, as well as
most other pre-Christian societies.
Bart Lidofsky
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Gregory Gadow (tech...@serv.net) wrote:
>: The Declaration of Independence, which outlines the reasons behind the
>: American Revolution,
>
> and holds no legal force whatsoever.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
Perhaps not with Lidofsky -- but then who gives a shit for so
blatantly dopey an assertion.
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. To lead his life in any harmless
way he sees fit.He is NOT to be restricted by prejudices and
animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY wish to restrain
him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate the public
interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Eric Bohlman (eboh...@enteract.com) wrote:
Since it was a capital crime in Pre Christian Europe it MUST needs be
a capital crime today.
The reasoning power of a cobble-rock!
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Erendil (ere...@enter.net) wrote:
>: The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
>: society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
>: would impose their religious laws on others?
>
> It depends on whether the law is purely religious. I doubt that
>the murder laws would ever be overturned to allow for human sacrifice, for
>example.
>
>: religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
>: is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
>: institutions.
>
> Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
>with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
>purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
>with minimal interference by the state.
I LIKE that one -- surely you have some sort of reference to
demonstrate that marriage was defined with the purposes of a
republican and a low-tax republican at that.
Susan Profit
>having sex with a virgin.
No, not as such. (Checked with an attorney who recently retired after 30
years in practice in the state.)
Laws about all kinds of sexual activities that ARE illegal, even a law
that defines a woman who has neither given birth nor charged anyone
with sexual assault as a virgin -despite- her marital status (allows for
anullments if certain other conditions are met), but no law against having
sex with a virgin unless s/he meets other standards for illegal sex
(underage, nonsonsensual, certain types of sex acts, etc.)
@}->- :) Tinne ;) Laughter Heals :D -<-{@
John De Salvio
(Bart Lidofsky) wrote:
Most of the minors would be much better prepared if they didn't have
parents who were so afraid of talking about sex to their children, and who
in the same breath forbid the schools to teach them about sex.
That is why we are the laughingstock of Western Europe.
John De Salvio
(Bart Lidofsky) wrote:
> Erendil (ere...@enter.net) wrote:
> : The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members of
> : society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that
> : would impose their religious laws on others?
>
> It depends on whether the law is purely religious. I doubt that
> the murder laws would ever be overturned to allow for human sacrifice, for
> example.
>
> : religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
> : is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> : institutions.
>
> Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
> with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
> purpose of marriage is for children,
Technically the purpose of marriage is the disbursement of properties
between two families.
> in particular, bringing up children
> with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
> some of which pre-dates Christianity.
>
> : to receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
> : mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
> : States of America.
>
> Not religious at all. For many years, it was thought that
> circumcision helped prevent certain kinds of cancer. It turns out to be a
> wash.
That was only one reason.
It was long believed it would curb masturbation.
> : The taking of an oath upon a Bible.
>
> Not required by law.
>
> : The closing of
> : businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays.
>
> Has been legally challenged and defeated many times.
>
> : The
> : Pledge of Allegiance,
>
> Added during WWII; nobody may be legally punished for refusal to
> recite it.
>
> : Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
>
> What do they have to do with religion?
They have no basis in logic; only in religious beliefs.
Gold and Tanzanite
> I heard that there is a law in the state of Washington, which bans
>technically you have to leave the state to deflower your virgin bride. I
>wonder if it was the Chamber of Tourism who managed to have that law passed.
Crap
--
Chris Fox
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"One day America may allow homosexuals to enter into the single most important commitment that adults make, the formal bond to another human being for (one hopes) life. When that happens, gay culture's long adolescence ends. ... "In sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part": These are words spoken by grown-ups.
-- Jonathan Rauch
http://www.indegayforum.org/
It takes a long while for a naturally trustful person to reconcile himself to the idea that God will not help him.
-- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), _Notebooks_
AntiSocial
tac/mokosh wrote:
> I just got this head movie about opening up a little house just over the
> Oregon line; "Legalization, ten bucks." Of course, as a woman, I would
> happily take care of all the virgin boys, but I would need to hire help for
> the girls...
> Mokosh )O(
>
> Erendil wrote in message <385d...@news3.enter.net>...
> > I heard that there is a law in the state of Washington, which bans
> >having sex with a virgin. Even if you are married. The result is that
> >technically you have to leave the state to deflower your virgin bride. I
> >wonder if it was the Chamber of Tourism who managed to have that law
> passed.
> >;)
> >
> > Blessed Be,
> >
> >Erendil
> >Adam Arthur <na...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> >news:83do2s$opk$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Laws such as these are what I oppose with much vigor. I honestly don't
> >have
> >> much problem with people's beliefs. But when those beliefs are imposed
> >upon
> >> me by a majority I become quite angered. There are many such laws. Did
> >you
> >> know it was illegal for minors to have sex in California? WHY? Sex is a
> >> biological function. Of coarse, the law isn't enforced. If you are
> going
> >> to make a law regulating under-18 sex--why not make a law requiring the
> >use
> >> of condoms. THAT would have a good and clear purpose. Anti-prostitution
> >> laws are religious in scope. I see it as a business that could be
> >regulated
> >> because of real social problems like the transmission of diseases and
> >such.
> >> But to outlaw it is unjustified.
> >>
> >> Erendil <ere...@enter.net> wrote in message
> >> news:385a...@news3.enter.net...
> >> > The question is, should religious laws be imposed upon members
> >of
> >> > society who don't belong or believe in the tenants of those religions
> >that
> >> > would impose their religious laws on others? Let me set a few
> >parameters
> >> > while I'm at it. The question pertains to the society of the United
> >> States
> >> > of America, where it is generally understood that there is separation
> of
> >> > Church and State. In theocratic countries like Iran, it would be a
> moot
> >> > question.
> >> > You may ask, what religious laws are imposed upon people who
> >don't
> >> > belong or believe in the tenants of those religions that would impose
> >> their
> >> > religious laws on others. The ban on same sex marriages, after all
> >> marriage
> >> > is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> >> > institutions. Religious institutions can not legally marry two people
> >> > without them first getting a civil license. That is if the people want
> >to
> >> > receive the benefits accorded a marriage by the State. The automatic
> >> > mutilation of male genitalia by hospitals throughout most of the United
> >> > States of America. The taking of an oath upon a Bible. The closing of
> >> > businesses on Sundays, including the ban on Liquor sales on Sundays.
> >The
> >> > Pledge of Allegiance, and the affirmation of God upon our currency.
> >> Sodomy
> >> > and Fellatio banning laws.
Steven
wrote:
>
>: Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
>
> What do they have to do with religion?
Nothing. I'm sure nobody has ever heard Christians denouncing Sodomy.
<G>
Steve
paul...@my-deja.com
> You said "murder wrongfully
> deprives the victim's dependents, peers, and associates of the
murdered
> person's resources. " what secular reason can you give making it
"wrong"..
Sheer economics. You have deprived me of resources without making
acceptable recompense. You can argue that there is no secular basis for
regulating such transactions, so that even economic necessity becomes
based on morality...in which case, the morality if that of survival,
since economics derive from the necessary balance of cost to profit
required to maintain a desired standard of living.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
michael erik naesby
(I've always felt that the Old Man Upstairs had a serious problem with
sex.)
Anyways
In Denmark marriage between couples of the same sex is legal.
God hasn't destroyed us yet. -
But may off course have given up on us?
:-)
mike
Danish but straight
--
---
-------------------------------------------
senselessness is in the eye of the beholder
-------------------------------------------
---
spamkiller:
*to reply: make sense*
---
---
Steven <dono...@email.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:385f23a4....@news.iglobal.net...
Bear and or Gypsy
affirm" in court is because the Quakers and some of the other Anabaptist
groups believe it's wrong to swear an oath of any kind, and so got affirming
allowed legally. Same with conscientious objector status in wartime.
In Her Light,
Gypsy
Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> paul...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : > The ban on same sex marriages, after all marriage
> : > is first and foremost a civil contract, recognized by religious
> : > institutions.
> :
> : standing of marriage without marrying, but you know what? No legal
> : contract except marriage is binding in some cases (eg. executor for
> : living wills, automatic rights of inheritance, etc.).
>
> In general, the benefits that gays are seeking are the economic
> benefits of marriage. Now, the dilemma has to do with the fact that these
> economic benefits were put into place to help facilitate the creation and
> raising of children. The flaw is that they benefit childless couples, as
> well, and it is that flaw which gays are using as their wedge. But then,
> you have additional consequences to worry about, such as making marriage
> of convenience much easier than it was. It's tricky legal territory.
>
> : What makes you think circumcision is inspired by Judaism when applied
> : to gentile babies? Until it became fashionable to do so for hygeinic
> : reasons after WWII, most gentiles resisted circumcision of their
> : offspring because it WAS a Jewish custom. The practice is under fire
> : medically now,
>
> Not terribly. What has been found out is that the chances of it
> doing harm were almost identical to the chances of it doing something
> equivalently good, making it a wash, especiallly since the chance of
> either bad thing approaches zero.
>
> : > The taking of an oath upon a Bible.
> :
> : In Maryland, court oaths are "under penalty of perjury." In any state,
> : for a generation or more, it has been possible to request to make
> : affirmation (swear a secular oath) rather than on the bible. Where do
> : you live, anyway?
>
> You may recall, in the famous Scopes Trial, William Jennings
> Bryan, when taking the stand, was offered the opportunity to take the
> affirmation instead of the oath.
>
> : > Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
> :
Gregory Gadow
> Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
> with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
> purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
> with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
> some of which pre-dates Christianity.
So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children. Therefore, let me
once again propose for your edification and entertainment the REAL Defense of
Marriage Act:
1) Only heterosexual couples of proven fertility will be granted a marriage
licence.
2) If no children are born during the first three years of marriage, the marriage
licence will be revoked.
3) Married couples who have had children may remain married indefinitely as a
benefit of having procreated.
4) Children may be adopted only by married couples who already have children of
their own (otherwise, gay couples might be allowed to adopt, and we can't have
that.)
This is the *only way* you can implement your "marriage exists for procreation
ONLY."
Gregory Gadow
> The cities that God destroyed because of its sinful ways?
More specifically: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she
and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did
not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things
before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it." (Ezekiel 16:49,50;
RSV at http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html) Please note that the
Hebrew word here translated as "abominable" is TVH, the same word used for
describing pigs, shrimp, and crabs in the dietary laws... these
"abominable things" might have been merely eating ham and cheese
sandwiches or shrimp cocktails.
How many of these fundamentalist churches, "christian" preachers and right
wing fanatic conservatives throw grand $100 clambakes to raise money that
will help them with their latest hate agenda, all the while ignoring
Jesus' command to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless
and comfort the grieving? Talk about things that make you go "Hmmm...."
Yeah, *those* sinful ways :-)
Bart Lidofsky
: > : Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
: >
: > What do they have to do with religion?
:
: They have no basis in logic; only in religious beliefs.
They have basis in discouraging sexual behavior that does not
result in making babies for the state/church. Secular, in either case.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
system:
Ward Stewart (wste...@hawaii.rr.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:25:43 GMT, ba...@escape.com (Bart Lidofsky)
: wrote:
:
Bart Lidofsky
: >
: >: Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
: >
: > What do they have to do with religion?
:
I have heard Christians denouoncing stealing. Does that mean that
laws against stealing are religiously based?
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: >
: > Adultery was a serious crime in pre-Christian Europe, as well as
: >most other pre-Christian societies.
: >
: > Bart Lidofsky
:
: Since it was a capital crime in Pre Christian Europe it MUST needs be
: a capital crime today.
:
: The reasoning power of a cobble-rock!
Ward, consider reading the topic of the conversation (assuming
that you can in fact read).
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: Just to add an interesting historical note, the reason you can "swear or
: affirm" in court is because the Quakers and some of the other Anabaptist
: groups believe it's wrong to swear an oath of any kind, and so got affirming
: allowed legally. Same with conscientious objector status in wartime.
It has to do with the NT stating, "Let thy yea be yea and thy nay
be nay", or something to that effect. In other words, since one is
expected to tell the truth anyway, swearing to do so is taking the name of
God in vain.
According to the Society of Friends (aka Quakers) at least.
Didn't work too well with Richard Nixon, though..
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: Bart Lidofsky wrote:
:
: > Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
: > with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
: > purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
: > with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
: > some of which pre-dates Christianity.
:
: So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
of children. I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
without being hit by lightning. The question is, since mutually infertile
mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
couples also be entitled to them.
:
: This is the *only way* you can implement your "marriage exists for procreation
: ONLY."
Sophistry does not become you, and adds nothing to a conversation.
But you should know that since you said, "I am a moron who doesn't know
how to put on my pants in the morning" (hey, two of us can misquote).
Bart Lidofsky
Andrew Milmoe
> John De Salvio (des...@monitor.net) wrote:
> : > : Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
> : > What do they have to do with religion?
> : They have no basis in logic; only in religious beliefs.
>
> They have basis in discouraging sexual behavior that does not
> result in making babies for the state/church. Secular, in either case.
But that means the state is banning a behavior, then making an exception
only if it benefits the state. If you look at other behaviors, banning is
only done when that behavior is seen as "wrong". So by what secular
reason is sex, in general, seen as "wrong"?
&&a _O_ |"...the company of the gods rejoice when thou risest|From the
(O)~~~ | | and when thou sailest across the sky..." |stars we
|\_ | ---part of a hymn to Ra from the Papyrus of Hunefer|come, to
|====Andrew Milmoe (mil...@students.cso.uiuc.edu)====|the stars
===========/ NAR #70548 *** No guts, no galaxy |we shall
"Go up, young (wo)man." -- what Horace Greeley would say _today_|return.
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow (tech...@serv.net) wrote:
> : Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> :
> : > Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
> : > with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
> : > purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
> : > with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
> : > some of which pre-dates Christianity.
> :
> : So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
>
> I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
> reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
> of children.
"Brought in to being" by whom? And if marriage "was brought into being" for the
procreation and the raising of children, that such should be the *only* reason for
marriage. If it is not the only reason for marriage, then marriage should be
avilable, in a secular society such as the United States, equally to all, as
procreation is the only thing that a same gender couple can not do that a mixed
gender couple can.
> I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
> without being hit by lightning.
How nice for you. And this is relevant how?
> The question is, since mutually infertile
> mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
> couples also be entitled to them.
Yes. Marriage is primarily about (nowadays, at least) creating a common family
within your community, whether or not children or real property are involved.
> :
> : This is the *only way* you can implement your "marriage exists for procreation
> : ONLY."
>
> Sophistry does not become you, and adds nothing to a conversation.
Nor does blindered ideology.
> But you should know that since you said, "I am a moron who doesn't know
> how to put on my pants in the morning" (hey, two of us can misquote).
You accuse me of misquoting, yet you provide no evidence that I have done so.
Demonstrate your charges or risk being called a liar (not that it would be the first
time.)
Now, I challenge you: tell us if you can what benefits heterosexuals are entitled to
regarding secular marriage that homosexuals should be prohibited from having.
Specifically, please. And given that you are writing to only one Christian group out
of the five that this message is cross posted to, the others being an Atheist group,
a Pagan group, a Wiccan group and a political group, try to give non-sectarian
answers. Please.
John De Salvio
(Bart Lidofsky) wrote:
> John De Salvio (des...@monitor.net) wrote:
> : > : Sodomy and Fellatio banning laws.
> : >
> : > What do they have to do with religion?
> :
> : They have no basis in logic; only in religious beliefs.
>
> They have basis in discouraging sexual behavior that does not
> result in making babies for the state/church. Secular, in either case.
You might want to cite some source for this rather novel interpretation.
Letao
ba...@escape.com (Bart Lidofsky) wrote:
> Gregory Gadow (tech...@serv.net) wrote:
> : Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> :
> : > Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other
> : > and
> : > with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
> : > purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up
> : > children
> : > with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and
> : > law,
> : > some of which pre-dates Christianity.
> :
> : So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
>
> I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
> reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
> of children. I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
> without being hit by lightning. The question is, since mutually infertile
> mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
> couples also be entitled to them.
Actually, no; it's the question you'd apparently like to have posed but
our legal system doesn't work that way. The question is: What
justification do you offer in refusing to grant a marriage license to a
couple applying when both parties are of the same sex?
Remember, as citizens those wishing to engage in a marriage contract
still retain their legal rights to due process.
> :
> : This is the *only way* you can implement your "marriage exists for
> : procreation
> : ONLY."
>
> Sophistry does not become you, and adds nothing to a conversation.
> But you should know that since you said, "I am a moron who doesn't know
> how to put on my pants in the morning" (hey, two of us can misquote).
"Technically" sophistry becomes no one. "Technically" marriage has been
many things throughout the ages - and a couple can raise a family
perfectly well without a marriage license from the state if they so
choose. Marriage exists as a legal contract between two adults - not as
a baby-making license.
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
James Doemer
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38721dbe.9371860@news-server...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:43:02 GMT, ba...@escape.com (Bart Lidofsky)
> wrote:
> >:
> >: So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
> >
> > I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
> >reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
> >of children. I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
> >without being hit by lightning. The question is, since mutually infertile
> >mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
> >couples also be entitled to them.
>
> The use of the word "technically" carries with it the suggestion that
> this is some sort of reality based material based, perhaps, on
> scientific or historical or philosophical "Technique."
>
> It actually springs from a void in all three fields -- even a careless
> reading of history or anthropology will reveal that marriage has and
> always has had a far closer connection to property and its management
> than to virginity, stephanotis and illusion lace.
>
> One might cite "who gives this woman." There is no reference to the
> 'giving' of this man -- it is an exercise in transfer of an asset.
>
> ward
>
I've also got some news for him, technically, the purpose of my marriage is
whatever the hell my wife and I say it is. I would reserve the same right
for others.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>:
>: So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
>
> I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
>reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
>of children. I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
>without being hit by lightning. The question is, since mutually infertile
>mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
>couples also be entitled to them.
The use of the word "technically" carries with it the suggestion that
this is some sort of reality based material based, perhaps, on
scientific or historical or philosophical "Technique."
It actually springs from a void in all three fields -- even a careless
reading of history or anthropology will reveal that marriage has and
always has had a far closer connection to property and its management
than to virginity, stephanotis and illusion lace.
One might cite "who gives this woman." There is no reference to the
'giving' of this man -- it is an exercise in transfer of an asset.
ward
------------------------------------------------
"All members of the SS and police must be in the
forefront of the fight to eliminate homosexuality
from the German people."
--Heinrich Himmler, 3/7/1942
-------------------------------------------------
Fate's Knight
Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> Gregory Gadow (tech...@serv.net) wrote:
> : Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> :
> : > Marriage has a lot to do with contracts, both with each other and
> : > with the state. Therefore, it is a state interest. Technically, the
> : > purpose of marriage is for children, in particular, bringing up children
> : > with minimal interference by the state. It is based on customs and law,
> : > some of which pre-dates Christianity.
> :
> : So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
>
> I said "technically".
How are you defining "technically"?
Merram-Webster's Law Dictionary "The State of being united to a person of the
opposite sex as husband and wife in a legal, consensual and contractual relationship
recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."
American Heritage College Dictionary "The legal union of man and woman as husband
and wife"
Catholic Code of Canon Law Can.1055 ss1 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man
and a woman estbalish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by
its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education
of the offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ
the Lord to the dignity of the sacrament."
Josh and Eva Loucks "Prison"
The last one always seemed the most apt to me, but then I'm single.
<Snip>
Fate's Knight
Bart Lidofsky
: But that means the state is banning a behavior, then making an exception
: only if it benefits the state. If you look at other behaviors, banning is
: only done when that behavior is seen as "wrong". So by what secular
: reason is sex, in general, seen as "wrong"?
It has long been known that if a group can control someone's
sexual energies, then a large portion of those energies can be subverted
for use by the group. That's where you get fanatics from, for example.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: > : So marriage exists for procreation and the raising of children.
: >
: > I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
: > reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
: > of children.
:
: "Brought in to being" by whom?
Initially social custom based on tribal survival. Later on, it
became codified in religion and law. As the laws became more complex due
to the concept of property and inheritance, the marriage laws came to
encompass far more than just raising children, although that was still a
major concern.
There are a number of legalities of marriage, the lack of which
cause major suffering among long-term gay couples. Examples include if one
member of the couple becomes sick, the other member has no say in that
member's medical care. The inheritance and social security rights can be
limited, which can be especially damaging if one of the members of the
couple acted as homemaker. In many states, a member of a gay couple can be
thrown out of his or her home when their partner dies. Certainly, these
and other similar problems need to be remedied. Legalizing marriage
between gay partners is certainly the simplest way, but is not the only
way. Note that state-approved marriages can only be dissolved in
state-approved ways, which brings divorce law to gay couples as well,
which complicates things greatly. Also, it is not unknown for mixed-gender
couples to marry for reasons other than sexual partnership. Perhaps two
levels of marriage should be created: Marriage in contemplation of having
children, and a simpler but legally binding marriage partnership, which
would have the advantages of marriage, without the complications that were
placed in marriage laws to protect the issue of the marriage.
: > I have used butter knives as screwdrivers, many times,
: > without being hit by lightning.
:
: How nice for you. And this is relevant how?
Just because something is designed for one type of use doesn't
mean that it is the only possible use of that thing.
: > The question is, since mutually infertile
: > mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
: > couples also be entitled to them.
:
: Yes. Marriage is primarily about (nowadays, at least) creating a common family
: within your community, whether or not children or real property are involved.
Well, at least we agree about that.
:
: > :
: > : This is the *only way* you can implement your "marriage exists for procreation
: > : ONLY."
: >
: > Sophistry does not become you, and adds nothing to a conversation.
:
: Nor does blindered ideology.
:
: > But you should know that since you said, "I am a moron who doesn't know
: > how to put on my pants in the morning" (hey, two of us can misquote).
:
: You accuse me of misquoting, yet you provide no evidence that I have done so.
: Demonstrate your charges or risk being called a liar (not that it would be the first
: time.)
That's simple enough. Please produce the original message where I
said, "marriage exists for procreation ONLY", a remark that you
specifically quoted, and that I never made.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: Bart Lidofsky wrote:
: > I said "technically".
:
: How are you defining "technically"?
:
: Merram-Webster's Law Dictionary "The State of being united to a person of the
: opposite sex as husband and wife in a legal, consensual and contractual relationship
: recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."
While Merriam-Webster (I assume that it's just a typo) is a
recognized authority on lexicography, it is not a recognized authority on
law. In addition, you leave out the definition of "husband and wife".
: American Heritage College Dictionary "The legal union of man and woman as husband
: and wife"
Which has even less to do with the law, and does not define
"husband and wife".
: Catholic Code of Canon Law Can.1055 ss1 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man
: and a woman estbalish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by
: its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education
: of the offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ
: the Lord to the dignity of the sacrament."
Which has to do with Catholic law, and does happen to mention
procreation and bringing up of offspring.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: > I said "technically". It can be used for other things, but the
: > reason it was brought into being was for the procreation and the raising
: > without being hit by lightning. The question is, since mutually infertile
: > mixed-sex couples can get the benefits of marriage, should same-sex
: > couples also be entitled to them.
:
: justification do you offer in refusing to grant a marriage license to a
: couple applying when both parties are of the same sex?
:
: Remember, as citizens those wishing to engage in a marriage contract
: still retain their legal rights to due process.
Since the ERA was never passed, discrimination based on gender is
still allowed by the Constitution (although prohibitied in most cases by
legislature). Therefore, it is a legislative rather than judicial problem,
unless the state constitution prohibits discrimination based on gender.
Even in Vermont, the court decision did not legalize same-gender marriage;
it created a requirement that the legislature pass laws either legalizing
it, or providing some equivalent.
: "Technically" sophistry becomes no one. "Technically" marriage has been
: many things throughout the ages - and a couple can raise a family
: perfectly well without a marriage license from the state if they so
: choose. Marriage exists as a legal contract between two adults - not as
: a baby-making license.
Actually, it exists as both. And as a systems analyst, I firmly
believe that if one does not properly define the problem, then one can
never achieve anything approaching an ideal solution.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: I've also got some news for him, technically, the purpose of my marriage is
: whatever the hell my wife and I say it is. I would reserve the same right
: for others.
in the world you live.
Bart Lidofsky
Letao
ba...@escape.com (Bart Lidofsky) wrote:
The ERA is irrelevant to marriage since marriage is regulated by the
states, not the federal government. The Hawai'i Constitution does have
an ERA clause and the amendment regarding the limiting of marriage to
man and woman conflicts with it. One of them will eventually have to be
declared unconstitutional.
Vermont's Supreme Court has put the issue of marriage back in the hands
of the legislature who has the constitutional authority, and obligation,
to ensure that the laws protect all of the citizens. Marriage is a
complex contractual arrangement, and the plaintiffs identified over 300
state benefits and responsibilities that come with it. The legislature
needs to do what it is being paid to do by examining how marriage is
contracted and ensure its availability to all citizens. If they're
smart, they'll forego the "separate but equal" route and issue the
marriage licenses to same sex couples.
> : "Technically" sophistry becomes no one. "Technically" marriage has
> : been
> : many things throughout the ages - and a couple can raise a family
> : perfectly well without a marriage license from the state if they so
> : choose. Marriage exists as a legal contract between two adults - not
> : as
> : a baby-making license.
>
> Actually, it exists as both. And as a systems analyst, I firmly
> believe that if one does not properly define the problem, then one can
> never achieve anything approaching an ideal solution.
Actually, it doesn't. There is no requirement that a marriage produce
children, especially since Griswold v Connecticut, if I'm not mistaken.
If you think there is, please post the relevant statute that supercedes
Griswold.
I think you need to do a bit more work on those problem definition
skills. Just my opinion.
Fate's Knight
Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> Fate's Knight (Fates...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> : > I said "technically".
> :
> : How are you defining "technically"?
> :
> : Merram-Webster's Law Dictionary "The State of being united to a person of the
> : opposite sex as husband and wife in a legal, consensual and contractual relationship
> : recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law."
>
> While Merriam-Webster (I assume that it's just a typo) is a
> recognized authority on lexicography, it is not a recognized authority on
> law. In addition, you leave out the definition of "husband and wife".
All you mentioned was marriage.
>
>
> : American Heritage College Dictionary "The legal union of man and woman as husband
> : and wife"
>
> Which has even less to do with the law, and does not define
> "husband and wife".
Definitions are definitions. If you want solely legal definitions. I can get you some from
all 50 American States, as well as several other countries.
>
>
> : Catholic Code of Canon Law Can.1055 ss1 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man
> : and a woman estbalish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by
> : its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education
> : of the offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ
> : the Lord to the dignity of the sacrament."
>
> Which has to do with Catholic law, and does happen to mention
> procreation and bringing up of offspring.
I didn't feel the need to put in many pages of Catholic rhetoric. If you want it all
posted, let me know.
>
>
> Bart Lidofsky
Fate's Knight