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  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
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


125 posted 05-10-2004 08:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It is Judges' craft to know better than they, so they should have hand over making and bettering law.  If the majority's will is not even, the Judge must yet be even, If the Majority's will is not constitutional, the Judge must still be constitution, lawful, right, reasonable, equal, just.  That is why I believe a judge should be able to judge different than other heads of Government, and the Majority.  The Judge judges best (or at least is supposed to)
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


126 posted 05-10-2004 08:37 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
It is Judges' craft to know better than they
  


If it's the judges "craft" to know better concerning legislation, then why don't judges comprise the legislative branch of our Government?


quote:
If the majority's will is not even, the Judge must yet be even, If the Majority's will is not constitutional, the Judge must still be constitution, lawful, right, reasonable, equal, just.  That is why I believe a judge should be able to judge different than other heads of Government, and the Majority.



You assume that a Judge's "judgement" is always right?  How idealistic.  If a judge should be vested with the power  to judge different than other "heads of Government & the majority", then who is able to judge over the judge if he is wrong or unfair?  
  

quote:
The Judge knows best (or at least is supposed to)



Yeah, or at least is supposed to.  Would you change your tune, if a judge established something you considered to be fundamentally unfair?

For example, if homosexual "marriage" were legal, and more conservative judges refused to allow state recognition of such marriages, would you still agree that judges know best?


That kind of argumentation only jives when the dictating powers enforce something you happen to like.  


Where are the checks and balances?  How do we determine whether or not exclusively heterosexual marriage is "unconstitutional"?  Such weighty questions should not be soley determined by a few with gavels, who want to impose their own ideologies upon the whole nation.  


Remember, for example, that there are many who feel very strongly that abortion violates a constitutional right of the unborn ... yet judicial tyranny (again) determined the opposite, and rendered the unborn without protection.



Stephen.

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


127 posted 05-10-2004 09:36 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Wish I had a time machine. I'd let you use it, Stephen, to return to the Sixties when our high schools actually taught people how our government works. Failing that, maybe this link will provide a brief (and incomplete) summary of our system of checks and balances. One thing not mentioned in the summary that you might like is that Federal judges, like Presidents, can be impeached. And if a law should be held to be unconstitutional, the legislative branch even has the power to amend the Constitution. (They just don't get to choose to ignore it.) The framers of our Constitution were as paranoid about giving anyone absolute power as … well, as I am.

BTW, I was just kidding. If I had a time machine I suspect I could find better uses for it.

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


128 posted 05-10-2004 11:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yep, the legislature has the power to 'check' the judges decisions, just as we saw on the state level with the Florida legislature in the Terry Scaivo case in response to the public outcry at the court's mandated starvation decree. They even have the authority, given to them in the Constitution, to decide what types of issues can or cannot be addressed by the court.  So if renegade judges are ruling the day, the legislature is ultimately to blame for not dealing with it, as they are the only ones who can do something about it...if they really want to. The question is, why aren't they dealing with it? Why do they sit on their hands and blame the judiciary instead of exercising their Constitutional authority? I can only guess that they either do not find the court's rulings outrageous, despite what they tell their constituency, or they are being influenced not to use their authority, probably for the advancement of their own political careers.

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


129 posted 05-11-2004 01:08 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos
I just feel if the judge is working utmost in the substance of democracy and the constitution, that he or should not be forced to make a judgement about something only according to some other head of the government, or the Majority, he or she should be able to judge by his or her own Expertness, within reasonable discretion of course, and due process, but still give a ruling that his or her own ruling.  Otherwise, if Judges simply must do what is always the way the majority will or another branch of government demands, then there is no point in having Judges.  Judges should do for the democracy of all people, not just the majority.
But ultimatly, the system still seems -inevitablly- to go by the Majority in our Democracies.  Most people like unruralization, therefore there is ever the more urbanization, and minimization of natural landscape.  Most people like greasy McDonald, therefore there is a McDonalds on every avenue, they like cars, therefore there half the city is acres of car dealerships.  Most people don't care that pornography is being sold in their community, so it is in the phonebook, in stores, on certain TV, on the Internet, influencing the mainstream.   So it seems it doesn't really matter whether it is good or bad for you.  If the Majority will make din and have it, they will eventually get it.


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


130 posted 05-11-2004 01:54 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The question is, why aren't they dealing with it? Why do they sit on their hands and blame the judiciary instead of exercising their Constitutional authority?

Probably, Denise, it's because they don't have the votes. Passing legislation is easy enough, with quorums and mutual back scratching, but real cooperation is in short supply in Washington, especially on controversial issues.

Changing the Constitution can only happen when a whole lot of people agree it should, which is exactly as it should be.

Besides, at the end of the day, the lack of cooperation in Congress isn't the fault of Congress. It's the fault of the voters.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 06-19-2003
Posts 13093
SE PA


131 posted 05-11-2004 11:30 AM       View Profile for LeeJ   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LeeJ

Essorant, hi, don't wolves mate for life?


Guess my age is showing again

Some of the most wonderful & inspiring people in my life were gay men...
What they do in the privocy of their homes is their business...but gay marriages in my mind carries things beyond the norm.  

When did sex and personal affairs become so free and airy...when did airing dirty laundry become acceptable behavior?  Oh I don't know...we opened a great big can of worms over 30 years ago, and liberal thinking became absurd and way to far to the other end of the spectrum?  

I'm old fashioned, deem myself a child of God...and I do not attend church or am a working member of a religion, but am a believer.  I feel, there are way to many things out in the open that should be kept privet and between the two people involved, a sacred union.  

Just b/c I think one way, doesn't mean I get to cram my beliefs and habits down anyone else's throat.  Just b/c I think one way about an issue, and the gays think another, doesn't make them right and me wrong.  Its a matter of personal belief.  My God, how far will we go, or is the concept...how far can we go?

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


132 posted 05-11-2004 08:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Ess, I'll take ruralization any day over urbanization!

Ron, I agree. The voters bear responsibility. But I also think the greater fault lies with the non-voters.

LeeJ,

quote:
My God, how far will we go,
I don't know.

quote:
or is the concept...how far can we go?
Sometimes it seems to be.


  


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


133 posted 05-11-2004 10:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

How far have we come?
Errandghost
Junior Member
since 09-10-2003
Posts 18
Thoroughly Abroad


134 posted 05-13-2004 11:33 AM       View Profile for Errandghost   Email Errandghost   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Errandghost

"When a match has equal partners then I fear not. "  
- Æschylus
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


135 posted 05-17-2004 03:12 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

The union of a man and a woman under HOLY matrimony....cut and dry...Anything else is a farce
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


136 posted 05-17-2004 04:06 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

                         two people
The union of a man and a woman under HOLY matrimony.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


137 posted 05-17-2004 04:56 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Okay, "the union of two people under "matrimony"...there's nothing holy about same sex marriage...
Don't take me wrong Ess....everyone should be able to do in their own privacy what they want to...I have no ill feelings towards anyone for something like this...personally, I have a brother in law that is gay, and, he's one of my best friends..he's a very talented person, musician, Master's degree in psychotherapy, treats many gays, he, and many of his patients suffer from depression, he will be the first to admit his lifestyle is perverted, and has no want of marriage though does live with a partner. Does that make it any less of a sin?..NO...does the "sin" as defined biblically any worse than any other sin?..NOpe...sin is sin and heaven knows I'm one hell of a sinner...worse than most..LOL...I do not try to justify my sins, nor do I think anyone else should....then again, I would never ask God to "bless" my sin either....
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


138 posted 05-17-2004 06:20 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Humans show manifold personalities, differences and similarities, masculine or feminine, whether they are male or female, which proves the argument against "homosexuality" in marriage basically physical.  
The only difference shows--basically --the physical state of being in the same sex, and having sex unnormally.  And that should be put over the state of loving each other above all and wishing to get married?  
What right do you and others have to treat a group of people based on imagination of the way they have sex in the bedroom?  The first mistake is treating them as sexuals; you don't know if they even have sex.  Of course, in common sense, you know they probably have sex, but you don't have any proof, so you don't even know that they are having sex in that manner that you seem to judge them by so harshly.  The second mistake is that you and others, now treat them, as if their relationship, if sexual, is sexual based--based on having sex, and being sexual.  Basically the ideal man and woman get away with being treated as true lovers without a doubt (whether they are or not) when they wish to get married, but when two people are man and man, woman and woman, now they are treated as "how those people have unnormal sex in the bedroom" people; and people that keep calling it sin still have yet to show why homosexuality is a sin.
If it is said in the bible, That is not enough; we don't live in a bibliocracy.  Show me why it is a sin, and what makes them unable to do anything that a man and a woman may together other than have sex so invariablly normal as men and women.
And then tell me how this or that justifies society making other peoples sexuality and sex lives its business and problem, if it is not that couple's problem, and if it is mature and lawful.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (05-17-2004 08:42 PM).]

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


139 posted 05-17-2004 06:23 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Then all 'sinners' should be barred from Holy matrimony. Name one person on the planet who could be married? Cast the first stone. Let's forget the HOLY and focus on just matrimony.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


140 posted 05-17-2004 06:41 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

During the years I was learning to become an adult, I heard much the same from many people. "Some of my best friends are blacks," they would say, all the while pushing them to the back of the bus.

The laws given by God in the OT would appear to have little to do with what is being questioned here. There is no passage that cites who can and can't sign a DNR order in the hospital. The scriptures are silent on current tax and inheritance laws. The question of health insurance isn't even mentioned in the Bible. These and other rights of a person to choose whom they love and trust with their life aren't being denied in the name of God, but rather in the name of bigotry.

There are no laws currently on the books that would force a priest, minister, or rabbi to bless the union of two people, be they same gender, different races, or opposing creeds. Nor has anyone suggested such a law. What you advocate and practice in your church or synagogue is between you and God. What the State does, however, concerns all civilized men and women. Discrimination is illegal.
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 12-20-2003
Posts 1200
Pennsylvania


141 posted 05-17-2004 09:14 PM       View Profile for Michelle_loves_Mike   Email Michelle_loves_Mike   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Michelle_loves_Mike

The marriage i have experienced,,,,was a deep pit of depression, teamed with an emotional and financial vampire that took all I had, and left nothing of, or for me,,,,,the marriage I dream of is one of sharing, caring, respect and harmony when it comes to bathroom time,,i feel I have found the best man for the job, my Mike,,,,,I mean,,,I adore Ringo,,but, we'd make an awful couple,,,lmao....luv ya Ringo!

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

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


142 posted 05-17-2004 10:48 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
What you advocate and practice in your church or synagogue is between you and God. What the State does, however, concerns all civilized men and women. Discrimination is illegal


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


143 posted 05-18-2004 07:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
How far have we come?



It's too easy to confuse corruption with "progress", and to praise one as the other.  That was the fundamental mistake with the building project in "Babel", and the same is true now, I suspect.


Stephen.

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


144 posted 05-18-2004 07:28 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

(unless the definition of marriage is retained)


            any number of      
The union of two people under HOLY matrimony.


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


145 posted 05-18-2004 07:50 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
What you advocate and practice in your church or synagogue is between you and God. What the State does, however, concerns all civilized men and women. Discrimination is illegal



In other words, religious ideas should remain irrelevant to any form of public policy ... privatization.  


And the state is called to higher ethic than the Church.  In other words, the church can teach something as fundamentally wrong or right or whatever.  But Ron apparantly believes that the "tolerance" of the state reflects a more sublime ethic than the disagreeable tenets of scripture.


And discrimination is not illegal ... discrimination may also be used with a positive connotation.  Whether such "discrimination" is proper or not is the question.  Any time we pose limitations, we discriminate against something.  And no, homosexual marriage remains illegal in many states, so legality cannot be used as an argument for homosexual marriage.  


The fallacy is to claim that forbidding homosexual marriage is the same as something like segregation.  Upholding one argument with the merits of a very different one.


Stephen
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


146 posted 05-18-2004 11:11 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I realize all have different opinions...I think Perversion is sin, no sin is worse than any other but by law have different consequences,  but don't believe either should be "blessed" under HOLY matrimony...maybe it's just definition, got me...don't care....I live my life within the realms of what's morally correct for me, and others do the same I'm sure, if they have morals at all...

[This message has been edited by Toerag (05-18-2004 12:15 PM).]

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


147 posted 05-18-2004 12:46 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


The union of two people under HOLY matrimony.


Where is the religious definition of marriage not retained in the above?  
Two people includes "a man and a woman".


Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


148 posted 05-18-2004 02:47 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I guess then, it should be "okay" for brother to marry sister, brother to marry brother, son to marry mother, son have many wives, sister marry sister, son marry anyone that is of age or not of age, do we ever draw a line?..Does it matter?...I guess if we're to throw the bible out all together, (which in most cases we are doing so or trying to do so), and, if nothing is sacred anymore, and if morals don't mean diddly anymore, and if everyone wants to marry same sex partners, it will mean the end of civilization...hell, we can go on and on and throw it all out?....Of course this is ludricous, but why can't two "buddies" just get together, get married in Sodom Mass. and collect the bennies from insurance and taxes etc?....Who needs marriage otherwise?...Is it for those bennies?...How about if your mother is widowed, why not just okay marriage to her son for the benefits?...Then put her on your insurance policy?...What are the ramifications?....None I guess, anything goes these days?...What's the harm?...What's the difference?....How about a sister? She needs medical care?...She's ugly and fat and can't find a husband?....Why should she be "discriminated" against?..Just cuz she's a sister?....How about my neighbor?...Can't get out and find a girl..a guy?...Should I just marry him?...Don't have to have sex, just help him out?...Is there anything sacred anymore?...Do morals only come from Thou shalt not steal, kill, etc.?......Is no definition needed anymore?...I'm just confused I guess..
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


149 posted 05-18-2004 03:41 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Have you read the thread through? People have already offered answers for those questions. Besides if you're going to indulge in sarcasm and silly scenarios than at least mention people with multiple personality disorders marrying themselves. Now that's the stuff. Also, nobody is saying throw the bible out, if you believe in the book by all means. Our society is diverse and encompasses all sorts of beliefs and practices, that have nothing to do with state.
 
 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