How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


100 posted 04-19-2004 01:20 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

[edited]

I can't think anymore.
This issue is too much of a mess.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-19-2004 01:54 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


101 posted 04-19-2004 01:30 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
Me, too. Including  ALL of the options that you and I enjoy.


Unless you're aware of some law or policy I've never heard of, I believe homosexuals have the same right I do to be wed to somebody of the opposite sex.  

As far as the need for provisions, they seem to be a necessary evil in countering your persistence in arguing that there is no difference between non-procreative heterosexual sex and non-procreative homosexual sex.  To me, the facts are self-interpreting.  I don't understand why others find them so confusing.  

Jim
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


102 posted 04-19-2004 04:35 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise:

I honestly can't swallow drawing a line between a 12 year old and a 13 year old as where pubescence is the only marker. Regardless, I'm not going to argue the semantics, the issue is that members of the church church are responsible for  reprehensible behaviour. Whether defined as sex with children or with an adolescents, the church has been guilty of both.

Society focus's have shifted many times before and with them their morals and traditions. Taking into account the recent shift, one could argue that marriage as it exists is outdated.

I was simply flipping Stephanos argument. He argued that the sexual revolution is evidence that a lack of morals lead to/accelerated the insane outcomes we've been speaking of, and I argued that even these problems exist in even the most 'Moral' parts of society.

I don't think it's immature arrogance to suggest there's something wrong with hindering homosexual rights or the claiming homosexuality is an illness. Discrimination against women was once commonplace. Would you argue that it's elimination(for the most part) was a bad thing? Or were those open-minded female pioneers justified? How about racial discrimination?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


103 posted 04-19-2004 07:22 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Raph, some of my family thinks I procrastinate. I keep telling them I'm patient. Very similar words, describing exactly the same thing, with the choice of word being determined largely by attitude. I see much the same thing when I hear one person use the word traditional and another uses archaic.

"That's the way it's always been done" is a lousy reason to maintain a practice. It's an equally lousy reason, however, to eliminate a practice. Calling sexual attitudes archaic or insane tells us more about your conclusions than your line of reasoning. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread, rather than take this one into new directions, and explain to us why prevailing sexual attitudes makes so little sense to you?

quote:
Unless you're aware of some law or policy I've never heard of, I believe homosexuals have the same right I do to be wed to somebody of the opposite sex.

LOL. Don't confuse rights with choices, Jim. When you married the person you love, you lost the legal right to wed anyone else, opposite gender or not. Do you really want to limit everyone else's choices to the one you made? Or even the ones you made?

quote:
As far as the need for provisions, they seem to be a necessary evil in countering your persistence in arguing that there is no difference between non-procreative heterosexual sex and non-procreative homosexual sex.  To me, the facts are self-interpreting.  I don't understand why others find them so confusing.

First, I'm not arguing there are no differences, Jim, only that there should be no distinctions. The way you love your son, for example, is surely different than the way I love mine. That doesn't make one love better than the other. Differences should be celebrated, not twisted into a reason to call each other names.

Second, I've found very little in life  that is self-interpreting. It is only our presumptions and prejudices that sometimes make it seem that way. If you find yourself unable to articulate a justification for the way you feel, perhaps that just means there is no justification? History would suggest that is often the meaning of "self-interpreting."
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


104 posted 04-19-2004 08:08 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph,

Semantics is important when discussing issues to ensure that people are on the same page, and not blurring issues and working from different definitions in their discussions. But you're right, the church members are guilty of both, pedophilia to a lesser degree and homosexual abuse to a greater degree, and I would imagine that you could even thow in some heterosexual abuse as well. I would disagree, though, that the church is guilty. The majority of the church leaders did not participate in the abuse or participate in covering up the abuse. That guilt falls only on the individual members who did participate.

Yes, one could argue that marriage is outdated and one could also argue that every societal change in focus or whim does not necessarily make a time-tested institution outdated. The pendulum could just as easily swing the other way in another generation or so. And change is not always necessarily change for the better. Sometimes it can be change for the worse.

I agree with Stephen that the sexual revolution is evidence that a lack of morals does lead to/accelerate what we now have today, and I agree with you that they do exist even in the most 'moral' of societies. And I don't think that Stephen would disagree with that either. It's the prevalence that we are seeing today to which he was alluding, I think.

No, I wouldn't argue that any discrimination is ever justified. But I, like Jim and Stephen, don't agree that it is discrimination in not changing the definition of marriage. Marriage isn't a right given to "couples", it is a right given to "individuals", available equally to all individuals within the legal parameters that define it.  
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


105 posted 04-19-2004 08:23 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

"Marriage isn't a right given to "couples", it is a right given to "individuals", available equally to all individuals within the legal parameters that define it."

~ And here is where we can agree, Denise. So, if the legal parameters change to allow homosexuals to marry... enough said. So be it.
  

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


106 posted 04-19-2004 09:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Nope, I wouldn't say so be it, Opeth. I'd work within the system to attempt to have marriage changed back to what I believe is its correct definition.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


107 posted 04-19-2004 10:04 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

For sure, just as others would do the opposite. afterall, that is what a democracy is all about, isn't it?

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


108 posted 04-19-2004 10:24 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Denise:
quote:
I would disagree, though, that the church is guilty

Whom are you disagreeing with? I was pretty clear in stating earlier
quote:
..I don't for a second believe its ALL members of the church acting in this manner,

nor is the generation growing out of the sexual revolution responsible for some of the things mentioned

Ron:
quote:
Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread, rather than take this one into new directions, and explain to us why prevailing sexual attitudes makes so little sense to you?


I don't think I was the only one changing the conversation's direction. For my part I thought it was neccessary to offer a counterpoint to the kind of thinking that deems that homosexuality is a sin,unnatural and my favourite a neurological impairment that requires treatment.

And I apologize, but I think thinking that claim children being born out of wedlock is a problem (as if being wed makes better parents), thoughts that condemn sex before marriage, or condemn contraception seem a little archaic.

I'll withdraw so that this thread can get back on course because it is an important issue, but it's one that requires an open mind and a restructured thinking.


'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?'
~Gluteus Maximus
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


109 posted 04-20-2004 01:14 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Aenimal:
quote:
STD's have existed throughtout history and part of their spread can easily be attributed to catholicism's/christian's frowning upon condoms in third world countries where those christian views on sexuality are most strongly held.



STDs are virtually elimated when and if the Judeo-Christian model of marriage/ sexuality is followed in practice and not just in dogma.  Regardless of what the RC Church has said about condoms, the fact remains that the primary cause of STDs is sexual promiscuity and a failure to adhere to the pattern of committed monogamy.
  

quote:
I'd attribute divorce more to the changing roles of men and women in society, than on sexuality.



Maybe so (that's a whole other issue) ... but "looser" views about what's okay sexually contributes to the problem too.  It's so much easier (to the fleshly side of us) to dabble in the feel good of sexual immorality, than to remain committed and work on a stormy marital relationship.  And these breaches of trust tend to erode trust and relationships, until divorce looks like the only way out of a bad situation.  


quote:
I think it's based on the fact that marriage, as it exists, is on of the most outdated institutions in society. An instituion which, like many aspects of religious society holds women below men.



Outdated??  lol.  I guess then, instead of the homosexuals being "progressive", they are really trying to venture into a backward and oppressive social institution that should've been done away with?  What are they doing trying to follow us dusty old traditionalists into stagnation, if marriage is so counter-intuitive and undesirable?


quote:
Children born out of wedlock and rape? Do you read history and enjoy literature? Do you honestly think they are more prevalent now than anytime in history?



No.  I wasn't talking about comparing this time with History in general.  Societies, like individual fruits, tend to rot within their own skins.  I was comparing this time with earlier American history, pre-sixties, when the Judeo-Christian ethic was more widely held.   I'm not so naive to think that Ancient Rome and other societies were not also sexually decadent.  


quote:
Read some of the bios on the early Popes or the Crusaders conquests ...

Pedophilia? I don't mean to be mean but honestly, should we really go there considering the scandals involving priests and church, the very adherents and enforcers of the morals you speak of?



We can go there.  The corruption of authority doesn't invalidate the standard they teach.  Actually it confirms it.  The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word.  Hypocrisy is a serious problem.  But it can't validly be used to cast doubt upon a standard of ethics.  For any accusation of hypocrisy, has to adopt that very standard (to some degree) just to make the action seem despicable.



Stephen.
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


110 posted 04-20-2004 01:27 AM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

As Nell Carter once said, "Give me a break."

"STDs are virtually elimated when and if the Judeo-Christian model of marriage/ sexuality is followed in practice and not just in dogma."

~ Please do tell me when that has ever occured? I'll answer it for you. It has never occured. Even the most dedicated and faithul "christians" have not been able to be the "model of marriage." Basically, those who are born without the physical prowess or sexuality, if you will, hold to this "virtue" much more than those who are "blessed" with a sexual endowment.

Of course, this has nothing to do with homosexuality by itself and is merely a moot point.

"Regardless of what the RC Church has said about condoms, the fact remains that the primary cause of STDs is sexual promiscuity and a failure to adhere to the pattern of committed monogamy."

~ My above response answers this... again, this could be applied to either heterosexuality or homosexuality.

"Maybe so (that's a whole other issue) ... but "looser" views about what's okay sexually contributes to the problem too."

~ Once again, this applies across the board of sexuality.

"It's so much easier (to the fleshly side of us) to dabble in the feel good of sexual immorality, than to remain committed and work on a stormy marital relationship."

~ Yep. When the husband beats the ****  out of his wife, she should stay... when the husband abuses the kids, she should stay... I could go on and on... What does that have to do with gay marriages? Nothing.

"And these breaches of trust tend to erode trust and relationships, until divorce looks like the only way out of a bad situation."

~ Especially when that "bad situation" is a punch in the mouth.

"We can go there."

~ Of course you can... but then how much contempt do the so-called "born again" christians have for the catholic church anyway?

"The corruption of authority doesn't invalidate the standard they teach.  Actually it confirms it.  The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word."

~ Just priests? I beg to differ. Many preachers do the same... it is just not popular news, that is all.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


111 posted 04-20-2004 02:07 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
this has nothing to do with homosexuality ...

I was responding to Raph's challenge of the Biblical view of sex in general.  He obviously thought it was related enough that, if he could cast doubt on the traditional views, then the exclusively heterosexual position on marriage would be shown as doubtful too.  You're really questioning his judgement as well as mine, in making that connection.  I just so happen to agree with him in seeing the relation.


Stephen      


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


112 posted 04-20-2004 02:14 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
how much contempt do the so-called "born again" christians have for the catholic church anyway?



What does that have to do with anything?


I don't agree with all of their doctrines (especially some of the extrabiblical ones), but I hold no contempt for the catholic church.  Some of my favorite Christian writers are / were Catholic.  Peter Kreeft, G.K. Chesterton, John Michael Talbot.  I respect many of them, and would be apt to say that their Christian fruit often exceeds my own.  


quote:
Just priests? I beg to differ. Many preachers do the same... it is just not popular news, that is all.



Who said "Just"?  I'm afraid you imagined that part.


Of course moral failure isn't limited to the RCs.  But whether Protestants or Catholics or both are guilty of these things, my point to Raph is the same.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


113 posted 04-20-2004 12:56 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

What kind of democracy would we have today if we didn't change on the basis that some religious beliefs and definitions didn't change?   Would we be in a democracy at all?

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


114 posted 04-20-2004 01:17 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Outdated??  lol.  I guess then, instead of the homosexuals being "progressive", they are really trying to venture into a backward and oppressive social institution that should've been done away with?  What are they doing trying to follow us dusty old traditionalists into stagnation, if marriage is so counter-intuitive and undesirable?


Who knows Stephanos, I'm simply arguing for their RIGHT to be as outdated and regressive as the rest of society.  

Ok so THIS one is my last deviation from the topic, I promise  

My problem with your argument Stephanos is that you've linked excess with openness when you attack the sexual revolution. I'm not an advocate of promiscuity, or the things you assume are a result of the sexual revolution, I'm simply for openess in matters of human sexuality. My counterpoint to yours was that excesses will occur regardlesswhat model of society is used.

The problem with the sexual revolution is obvious, give an inch take a mile. In other words some humans will not excercise the restraint or recognize the consequences. This is what you were arguing and I don't disagree with. Except that not ALL humans are incapable or irresponsible. That flaw in the ideology, however, was recognized and with that understanding came sexual education, awareness and promotion of contraception and condom use.

The problems with the moral and bible views on sex are equally evident. They restrict human impulse to procreation and anything beyond that boundary is taboo and sin. The more you chain human impulse the more it will rebel. Where the sexual revolution recognized it's flaw with regards to human behaviour, the church has not. That's where my argument on archaic views came in.

If we locked humans in a room, limited all access to temptations and interaction with other humans, the occurence of STD,violence etc would be drastically reduced. But is that living?

Ok AS PROMISED that's my last on this subject, feel free to start the new thread if you feel a need, as for this thread let's get back on topic:

Homosexual couples deserve the right to be as miserable and suffocated as their heterosexual counterparts..also known as the right to get married

'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?'
~Gluteus Maximus
Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


115 posted 04-20-2004 01:47 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Let's put your reply into context, shall we?

"The shameful things you speak of are a result of a breach in action of what these priests uphold in word."

~ Ross Perot once made a similiar fupaux [sp?]. Becareful when defining a group as "these..." You left out protestant ministers and other "men of the cloth," not I.

"Some of my favorite Christian writers are / were Catholic."

LOL... Archie Bunker once said the same thing about black people being his friend.  

~ So, Stephaons... are Catholics saved? I mean, they are not "born again" are they?



"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


116 posted 04-20-2004 03:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If the people's will and ways change so much, it seems there is no choice, but the democracy must change too.  
How can it continue to deny people their will if they become greater and louder as individuals, societies, and movements?  The extremists on both sides shall increase.  The government must change to keep a mean that is respectable for everybody, to keep those extremes away.  
I would rather have that mean that tries to appease as many as possible within reason and equality, than see those extremes that come from such obstinancy on one side and feelings of disparities on the other.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-20-2004 05:23 PM).]

Opeth
Member Elite
since 12-13-2001
Posts 2224
The Ravines


117 posted 04-20-2004 03:28 PM       View Profile for Opeth   Email Opeth   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Opeth

Interesting observation, Essorant... indeed.

"I have gone away. The bed is cold and empty. Trees bend their boughs toward the earth. And nighttime birds float as black faces.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


118 posted 04-20-2004 08:52 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Whether defined as sex with children or with an adolescents, the church has been guilty of both.


Yep, I know what you had said earlier, Raph, but this later statement of yours didn't make that distinction, and I just wanted to make mention that I disagree with that statement as it stands without that distinction, that's all. I used to work for lawyers, what can I say?! I'm very conscious of missing words and how it can change the understanding of what is conveyed, intentional or not. Similar to semantics.  

Opeth, Stephen was replying to a statement by Raph wherein Raph mentioned the Catholic Church and the priest scandals. Preachers and Protestants weren't brought into the subject by Raph simply because he was talking about a specific topic, the recent scandals in the Catholic Church, so Stephen certainly wasn't leaving them out. They just weren't part of the current discussion.

What exactly IS the topic of this thread anyway?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


119 posted 05-06-2004 06:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Denise,

I think I remember that the topic was ...


"What will become of Marriage, after an arbitrary redefinition is forced upon popular society by activist judges who legislate at will?"

or

"What will be the consequences when something with such deep anthropological, cultural, and religious roots as marriage, is arrogantly changed around by an "enlightened" post modern society, which presumably doesn't need to count such a tradition as anything of value, because it is, after all, just a tradition, and therefore surely can't have any real reasons, other than ignorant bigotry, behind it's long history of prevalence."


or something like that.  



Stephen    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


120 posted 05-07-2004 01:06 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Instead of being a manner of definition for a Monarchy or Aristocracy, it shall be one for a Democracy.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


121 posted 05-07-2004 10:56 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant ...

Only most Americans feel homosexual marriage is wrong, and are against it.


Judges, in a tyrannical and arbitrary way have overturned laws, calling them "unconstitutional".  We didn't appoint Judges to legislate, but to enforce law.  Where is the "democracy" in this?  Or maybe (hopefully) that's what you were getting at?


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


122 posted 05-08-2004 12:52 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Stephen, I know they no longer teach Civics in high school, but the information is still available for those who want to learn it. The judges are doing exactly what they have been mandated to do -- insure legislators can't create bad laws and the majority can't usurp the rights of the minorities.

That you dislike a specific ruling doesn't obviate the checks and balances that have worked well for several hundred years. On the contrary. You are the reason those checks and balances are necessary.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


123 posted 05-08-2004 01:36 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I agree with Ron
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


124 posted 05-10-2004 05:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:

quote:
The judges are doing exactly what they have been mandated to do -- insure legislators can't create bad laws and the majority can't usurp the rights of the minorities.
That you dislike a specific ruling doesn't obviate the checks and balances that have worked well for several hundred years. On the contrary. You are the reason those checks and balances are necessary.


Ron, maybe you could use a remedial in "Civics".     The passing years have clouded your memory.  This trend of Judicial abuse, has not been going on for "several hundred years".  If the Judicial branch is given such power, who holds them accountable?  These "checks and balances" you speak of are seemingly absent when it comes to those in black robes.  Are we to deem that a law is unjust just because some liberal judges SAY it is?  Who functions as a check or balance for the judges?  No one.  Not even the people.  That's why you can conveniently say that their role is to protect the "minorities" from the usurpation of the majority.  What a convenient way around democratic ideals.  And with no one to hold judges accountable, this amounts to oligarchy.

quote:
 The notion of judicial supremacy, that the court has the final say on the meaning of the law and Constitution, is nowhere to be found in the thoughts of the Framers or the text of the Founding document. It is a power the courts have arrogated to themselves over time with little resistance from the legislative or executive branches of government. Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton contains not so much as a hint that the courts constitute the supreme branch of government or that judicial rulings irrevocably settle issues in dispute. Such a notion of unaccountable, unanswerable, unfettered judicial power does violence to the whole notion of separated powers. (Richard Lessner)



http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030809-110415-3918r.htm


Essorant,

I'm curious why do you agree with Ron that our judges should have the right to overturn laws at will, regardless of the majority of Americans think about it, independent of  any other branch of Government that might hold them accountable?  


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-10-2004 08:39 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors