Since his elevation to the head of the Catholic faith, I have become a fan of Pope Francis — a pontiff who has become truly revolutionary in his faith and his lifestyle. As someone raised in the Catholic Church, I have never seen his equal. He has washed the feet of a Muslim female prisoner, declined the pomp and formality of past popes, and remained a humble priest in his lifestyle. Now, Pope Francis has written a long letter to a non-Catholic saying that he believes that even atheists can go to heaven and that God cares more about your heart than your profession of religion. At one time, such views would have gotten you burned at the stake. Even today, conservatives in the Catholic Church, like those associated with Opus Dei, are grumbling about this new Pope. Mark recently discussed the same view of the Pope on non-believers and now there is a report of a possible consideration of dropping celibacy for priests.
What is interesting is to see the continued effort to make Pope John Paul a saint when Pope Francis may be the most truly revolutionary man to ever hold that religious office. In his letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, Francis stated that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences. He said “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. . . . Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
It is a remarkably tolerant and enlightened view of faith at a time of extreme orthodoxy and religious intolerance. It is all the more remarkable given the increasingly antagonistic language directed against non-believers. There is obviously a rising concern among political and religious leaders that faith is declining in society. Thus, even though the non-religious is now a majority in places like England, politicians are ratcheting up such rhetoric. The Pope’s words are in stark contrast to those of people like Tony Blair with his comparisons of atheists and agnostics to terrorists.
The Pope’s reforms also now include the possibility of allowing priests to marry — a major change in religious doctrine. Italian Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s second-in-command, told Venezuela’s El Universal newspaper that celibacy is not dogma. As such, it is not unchanging divine law. Many have argued for years that marriage could bring a broader array of people to the priesthood and reduce the sexual scandals that have plagued the church.
David,
The closest analogy to what you are proposing as a kind of “separate but equal” (at least in your world view) status for a segment of the population reminds me of a time that probably was before you were born. Here are a few photos from Google Images of what separate but equal looks like in the real world.
https://www.google.com/search?q=separate+but+equal+doctrine&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=XS86UqzdMOjl4AO8uIHgCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1152&bih=498&dpr=1.67#q=separate+but+equal+signs&tbm=isch
Do you really support this? And don’t tell me it is not the same. The Natural Law argument was used for this as well.
OS – No, I do not support separate but equal.
Sexuality is not the same as race. People are born of a particular race, and no environmental influences or cognitive functions are involved. In contrast, sexuality involves environment and cognitive choices in addition to genetics. Therefore, public policy regarding sexuality affects what happens to society as a whole. In regards to gay marriage, there are even more differences in regards to the ramifications of sexual relations. You are trying to make something equal that is not equal, so “separate but equal” does not apply.
As we go down your road, we are going to start looking more like South Africa with laws that do not apply to everyone equally. We will have civil marriages that recognize same sex unions, and religious marriages that do not recognize same sex unions. Then we will have to add another set of laws for non-religious people who do not recognize same sex unions as marriage, but are willing to fight for rights for same sex unions to be recognized as domestic partnerships. Something is amiss when the law must follow a path that does not allow the same law to be applied to everyone equally. I am fighting for laws that apply equally to everybody because they are based upon natural law and not positive law created by your favorite oligarchy who just happens to be in power at the time.
OS – have you ever seen signs like these in regards to sexuality? Ever see a water fountain for homo’s and another water fountain for straights? Ever see a waiting room for homo’s only? Ever see a sign for a town named homotown? Ever see a restroom that says, “homo’s only”? Ever see a bus or subway train have a sign with “homo’s seated in rear”? Ever see any schools segregate into homosexual schools versus straight schools? Have you seen any statistics showing homosexuals to be an economically depressed minority?
Surely you would answer no to all these questions. How you can possibly classify sexuality the same as race defies intelligent reasoning. The only explanation for why you think this way is bigotry on your part. It is your own prejudice created by a propaganda machine called the homosexual agenda.
This is getting pretty tiresome David. The world and especially our civil law does not revolve around your or your religion’s definition of morality or marriage. And that is a good thing because you would put a label on people who do not think or worship the way you do and make them criminals for loving whomever they please.
rafflaw- what is tiresome to me is that you still don’t recognize that I have no religion, nor have I ever argued to make anyone a criminal for how they behave sexually or who they love. Is it really that hard to treat same sex unions and opposite sex unions as different simply because they have different characteristics? Your bigotry toward me is astounding.
The duties and obligations all relate to the relative legal status of the married parties as relates to third parties, property rights and the government. That is because . . . wait for it . . . the valid governmental interests in marriage are contractual in nature. As of 2004, the GAO identified 1,138 statutory provisions where marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and/or privileges. Even spousal abandonment which is recognized in many states as grounds for a divorce is a form of breach of contract – a breach of the promise and the attendant duty to care for and share your life with your spouse.
However, since you seem to labor under the impression that you know more about the law than lawyers do, you can do your own research if you want more specifics.
Gene:
I wonder if states that have a clause in their constitution similar to this one (WA)
ARTICLE I SECTION 23 BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, ETC. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.
If two same gendered couples, married in a state where this was legal, went to another state that by law banned this, that their state constitution would ban such activity due to an obligation of contracts clause.
Darren Smith –
The U.S. Constitution already has this Contract Clause in Article 1 Section 10.
“No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”
This is why it is important to recognize how the courts have declared marriage to be more than a contract. Gene does not seem to understand the legal quagmire he creates when he changes the legal definition of marriage into a some kind of specialty contract that he has yet to define.
Some States require marriages to be consummated by sexual intercourse, and the law specifically states what they mean by that in a way that would be very problematic for two same sex couples to fulfill.
There are so many changes to laws that must be done to treat same sex unions as a same sex marriage that one begins to wonder why the marriage contract could not just be dissolved by agreement among the parties like other contracts rather than requiring the law to dissolve the marriage.
I’m saying sex within the marriage is the business of those involved and nobody else – including you – unless those agreed upon parameters are violated creating a breach.
Marriage is a specialty contract, but it is so far as legitimate governmental interests go still a contract. And like any other contract, it can have many valid forms although as a specialty contract, some duties and obligations are mandatory. Government approved sex (outside of the aforementioned exceptions which all constitute breach or a criminal violation) isn’t one of them.
Gene H wrote: “…some duties and obligations are mandatory.”
Such as?
Because I never made that argument, David.
Sex or even the absence of sex within the marriage is solely the business of the parties involved unless that sex is involves fraud of some sort, is non-consensual or involves a lack of capacity to grant valid consent (which are criminal matters). If a married couple wishes to live asexually, that is their choice, but that does not mean that they should be barred from entering the marriage contract – which is about a lot more than sex. Sex is an implicit term of the contract, not an explicit term, and at the parties discretion, no one else except for in the aforementioned criminal and/or civil infractions.
You really don’t understand marriage.
It’s not now nor has it ever been primarily about making babies.
It’s about two people making a commitment – an exchange of promises for something of value – to love and care for one another as exclusive partners (although they may at their option have non-exclusive sexual relationships outside the marriage which even when done with consent – a so-called open marriage – is something I personally disagree with, however, I’m not a moralizing busy body so I don’t think sexual infidelity should be the business of government unless one party takes issue with it as breach of contract and used as grounds for annulment or divorce).
Gene H – It sounds to me like you don’t think there is a definition of marriage. Is that what you are saying? Marriage is just a contract between two parties and so marriage can be whatever the two parties agree for it to be? There are no implied duties and obligations in marriage, such as marital fidelity? I sincerely am trying to understand your position.
Oh my goodness this was a long debate. I hope you guy realize that Mr. T gets all these comments. whew. And it really doesn’t matter what us humans on earth debate because God left his instruction book. He will have the last word. That we can believe.
“Gene is the one who argued that marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations.”
Nice straw man you’ve got there, but I argue nothing of the sort.
I argue that procreation has nothing to do with marriage as a valid state interest and is solely a private matter between the parties where the government has no proper involvement.
Sex is not just for reproduction, but for pleasure and companionship. I understand that may be difficult for you to comprehend since you spend so much effort denying yourself the sexual pleasure your natural proclivities demand of you. You deny yourself pleasure so it’s only fair that you resent those who have sex for pleasure instead of reproduction.
I already went into great detail explaining sex has something to do with marriage and in certain circumstances a lack of sexual consortium can even be the basis of an annulment.
But I never said marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations.
Maybe if you were just honest with yourself you might be able to learn to argue in an honest manner instead of spouting the fallacious gibberish you rabidly and pathologically spread. Or is that fellatious reasoning? Anti-fellatious? Only the Shadow knows.
And that deep dark bitter mote of resentment that burns deep in your soul on those cold empty nights when you wonder why true happiness eludes you.
Also, it’s not my interpretation of the 14th Amendment I’m relying on, but rather the court’s in a long litany of cases. That’s known as arguing the law for what it is, not what I think the law should be. Laugh all you want. The joke is on you.
“Men and women are equal; therefore, there are no differences between men and women.”
Straw man and your material misrepresentation is a false equivalence. Equal rights and equal protection under the law are not the equivalent of biological differences.
“There are no differences between men and women; therefore, a union between a man and woman is exactly the same as a union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.”
Specious reasoning based on your straw man carrying the implicit assumption that the biological diamorphic difference is a requisite to contract for marriage because procreation is the defining characteristic of marriage legally speaking when it is nothing of the sort.
“Same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions;”
As a contractual matter, yes.
“therefore, the definition of marriage should be changed so that all the laws that exist for opposite sex unions should now apply to same sex unions.”
No. Therefore the relevant state interests in the relationship (all contractual in nature) are the same and the meaning, function and utility of the word “marriage” at law is the same for homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.
You seem to be absolutely incapable of making an honest argument, David.
Which is sad, but perfectly understandable now that we all know you spend most of your time lying to yourself about your self.
You are a practically textbook example of the kind of cognitive dissonance that denying your own nature can cause in a person.
Gene H wrote: ” I never said marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations.”
Can you please explain what you meant by your comment below?
David M wrote: “With this kind of reasoning, why not eliminate sex completely from marriage.”
Gene wrote: “You can. It’s a private choice left up to the parties. Just like homosexual sex is.”
If sex can be eliminated completely from marriage, just like gender diversity can be eliminated from its definition, then what is left other than a permanent roommate situation? Why do you now claim that you never said that marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations?
David,
Your fallacy is in the assumption same sex unions are sexless. Or that heterosexual unions always have sex. Both those are wrong. Additionally, sex is only one part of marriage. Same with procreation. There are plenty of abused and neglected kids to go around that adoption is a viable alternative to having kids the old fashioned way. As I mentioned before, there are always test tubes and turkey basters. How do you think Mary Cheney made Darth Dickus a grandpa twice over?
OS wrote: “Your fallacy is in the assumption same sex unions are sexless. Or that heterosexual unions always have sex.”
These are not MY assumptions. Gene is the one who argued that marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations. The fallacy you point out is Gene’s, not mine.
Your arguments here deal with exceptions and you try to craft a new definition or rule based upon exceptions. That is a fallacy.
Marriage is foremost about gender diversity, and secondarily about reproduction. These aspects of marriage should not be stripped from the understanding that these are the driving forces of natural law that has created the institution of marriage in the first place. You want to violate natural law because you find certain exceptions, like the birth of hermaphrodites, or the situation of seniors or disabled people getting married for sexless companionship (a purpose which is open to argumentation as being unethical although legal). Such exceptions are no reason to ignore natural law and the biological reasons and sociological reasons for why civilized society has articulated a concept of marriage which has enshrined it as a civil institution. You want to dismantle that civil institution because of your false notion of equality and your disregard for gender diversity and your lack of understanding of human sexuality and the purpose of sex.
Gene, I put sherbet in the sorbet wannabe category.
LOL…..Once again, David is suffering from foot and mouth disease.
David said: “If you want to observe uncivilized society, go to one of the African tribes who practice polygamy and homosexuality and see what kind of society you get. Is that what you want our society to become?”
Name an uncivilized, African tribe(s) who practice polygamy and homosexuality, creating ‘the kind of society that we-the-people-of-the-USA will become like.’ If you can name 1 or 2 to back up your claim, then I will not call you a bigot or racist.
I am assuming that this society/cultural’s norms will be very horrendous in comparison to America’s societal norms, according to David.
Didn’t know that allowing 3-7 million people, out of 310 million, to be married will create a different society in the present and the near future of America.
RWL wrote: “Name an uncivilized, African tribe(s) who practice polygamy and homosexuality, creating ‘the kind of society that we-the-people-of-the-USA will become like.’ If you can name 1 or 2 to back up your claim, then I will not call you a bigot or racist.”
This is hardly the forum to educate about the culture of African tribes. You could start your investigation with the Zambian tribes such as the Bisa, Lala, Lamba, Chewa, or Kaonde. You might consider the Turkana tribe or Bukusu tribe in Kenya or the Ugandan tribes of Lango, Acholi, Iteso, Karamoja, or Gishu. Even South African tribes of the Ndebele and Zulu. The problem you will want to watch out for is the influence of Western civilization upon the shaping of these societies. This is particularly notable in South Africa that has some of the longest influence through Christian missionaries which discouraged polygamy and homosexuality, and British rule. South Africa is interesting because their laws recognize different types of marriages. Civil marriages do not allow for polygamy, but if someone belongs to a particular tribe and gets married there within that tribe by tribal law, it is recognized as a customary marriage and polygamy is allowed and recognized by law.
In any case, if you study this issue from both a historical and modern sociological point of view, you will find interesting patterns of polygamy and attitudes toward homosexuality, the problem of AIDS and other STD’s, and an overall perspective that societies which historically have embraced these more sexually liberated positions end up with societies that border on being uncivilized and are unattractive to most Westerners. For more than 100 years, there are numerous changes happening in Africa leading to more civilized cultures, which includes movement away from polygamy and toward monogamous heterosexual marriage.
RWL wrote: “I am assuming that this society/cultural’s norms will be very horrendous in comparison to America’s societal norms, according to David.”
Well, some people might be shocked by a society where some 40% of the people suffer from AIDS. Then consider the economic conditions, dirt floors, no running water… well, yeah, I would say horrendous in comparison to America.
RWL wrote: “Didn’t know that allowing 3-7 million people, out of 310 million, to be married will create a different society in the present and the near future of America.”
The problem is the destruction of the legal system, departing from natural law in order to create laws according to the wisdom of the ruling oligarchy instead of either natural law, or which should be of interest to you, divine law. You are not just allowing a minority to marry. You are destroying the understanding of marriage for everyone. You are creating a culture accommodating sexual hedonism and promoting a culture that leads to less productivity, more crime, more drug abuse, more sexually transmitted diseases, more unhappy people, etc. It is all connected.
“You ignore the distinct biological differences that make same-sex families different from opposite sex families. They deserve ”
Full stop. You are committing the Moralistic Fallacy again; arguing an “is” from an “ought”. Repeating that same error over and over will not yield a different result.
“With this kind of reasoning, why not eliminate sex completely from marriage.”
You can. It’s a private choice left up to the parties. Just like homosexual sex is.
“If it is my lack of understanding of the law, then why am I the one quoting the law to define marriage?”
Because you think you are smarter than you are, but what you don’t realize is that you don’t have the proper context to understand what you are talking about. Again, you are playing at being a lawyer when in fact you are anything but. And again, I’ve been arguing what the law is, not what I want it to be. That would you trying to blame your argumentative and logical error on me; a common tactic among propaganda trolls and morons.
“Did his parents abandon parental authority over him, or was the commune simply an adjunct to his parenting?”
Apparently you don’t understand what a communal relationship entails.
A commune is where duties are shared by all members of a community and involving the sharing of work and property. It’s called English. Get some.
“I think you know that scientific studies show that children raised by two opposite sex biological parents fare much better than children raised by single parents.”
I think you know that kind of straw man is doomed to fail. What you omit by way of mischaracterization is that I said children are “self-confident, open, warm, independent and mature provided the necessary environment of basic trust exists (which may or may not exist in a nuclear family either).” Some single parents do awesome jobs raising their kids and without any of your moralizing condescension.
As usual, you say a lot and none of it is of any substantive value.
Gene H wrote: “Full stop. You are committing the Moralistic Fallacy again; arguing an “is” from an “ought”. Repeating that same error over and over will not yield a different result.”
LOL. Unbelievable. You are the one committing the moralistic fallacy, arguing for a form of equality that does not exist but what you believe ought to exist based upon your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Randyjet already demolished your thinking in this regard.
As I outlined before, marriage is a natural consequence of the male / female condition, the differences between the sexes being complementary, the biological function of reproduction being the necessary aspect of the male and female coming together, the extra benefit that comes from two parents being in partnership together to raise the children rather than men acting like animals and knocking up as many women as he can to spread his seed as far and wide as possible. Marriage moves men away from promiscuity and toward monogamy, toward assuming responsibility for raising children and providing for them. This benefits women. Women benefit men in the marriage relationship by their naturally greater ability for nurturing and innumerable other qualities that exceed what exists in the male. I am NOT talking about what ought to be, but what *IS*.
Your logical fallacies are framed along these lines:
=============
Men and women are equal; therefore, there are no differences between men and women.
There are no differences between men and women; therefore, a union between a man and woman is exactly the same as a union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.
Same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions; therefore, the definition of marriage should be changed so that all the laws that exist for opposite sex unions should now apply to same sex unions.
=============
If you indeed do intend to justify these logical fallacies of yours, then you will have convinced me to say that I do not believe in gender equality (at least not in the way that you define it). I certainly believe in giving men and women equal opportunities, and I also believe that men and women stand equal before the law, but I do not believe that men and women do everything equally as well or that no differences exist between men and women. That is the moralistic fallacy which you embrace, fallacy that is completely contrary to the condition of nature which actually DOES exist and not what I want to exist.
DavidM wrote: “With this kind of reasoning, why not eliminate sex completely from marriage.”
Gene H wrote: “You can. It’s a private choice left up to the parties. Just like homosexual sex is.”
Seriously? You think marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations?
What is marriage? Glorified permanent roommates? Please give me a full definition of marriage according to Gene.
You have asked me for a harm that happens if we change the law to have marriage include same sex unions. Well, this is one of them. The concept of marriage has become virtually meaningless. It destroys marriage for everyone. I look forward to reading your definition of marriage as you would draft it for the purpose of law.
Bron,
The larger point you’re missing that Rand promotes is that society doesn’t exist as a collective, only as individuals, and that is simply not the case. And I’ve got bad news for you. You live in a commune to one degree or another wherever you live in any social unit larger than a tribe.
Gene H:
No, not at all. You think I am against socialism, I am not if a group of individuals want to form a commune, please be my guest. I just dont desire to live in a commune.
Thomas Jefferson thought socialism was good for around 70 to 100 people. I think he is right.
It also depends on the type of individuals involved in the commune. I have read some really bad stories about communal living. So that ugly word individual rears its head yet again.
What about sherbert in this brave new world of yours, nick?
With over 70% of black babies being born out of wedlock, if I ruled the world we would be having more discussions about that crisis, and less about this topic. Of course, if I ruled the world ice cream, frozen custard, gelato and sorbet would be free, and reality TV would not be legal.
Speaking of marriage.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1239562/-Two-Years-Ago-Tonight
Bron,
Rather ironic that was accomplished by communal effort, don’t you think?
Bride,
Thanks for illustrating that a legal dictionary, even on as authoritative as Black’s, often doesn’t account for changes in jurisprudence until subsequent editions. See United States v. Virginia et al., 518 U.S. 515 (1996), holding that tradition is not sufficient reason to deny people equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), holding that intimate, adult consensual conduct was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the 14th Amendment’s due process protections.
Jurisprudence is a living evolving continuum.
Gene H:
probably your friend had a lot of love and was valued as an individual. that is usually how loved and valued human beings end up.