Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should there be a Constitutional "Marriage Amendment?
Yes 2 (14.3%)
No 12 (85.7%)
Total Votes: 14
Constitutional Amendment; A theological perspective
Topic Started: Jun 4 2006, 08:22 AM (649 Views)
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Please read Theological analysis of gay unions overdue.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
From the article:
Quote:
 
Of course, there are enough non- theological reasons for caution about such sweeping bans. For one thing, a mature electorate should always be slow to amend its constitution. Amendments frustrate normal legislative debate and action. Genuine conservatives pause over that.

This is what I'm trying to say in Before the Law, and more, it frustrates debate in the public square, where such matters should be decided first.


Also from the article:
Quote:
 
So what does the state have to do with this theologically based conception of marriage? More than you might think. The state has a distinct interest in the preservation of the family as the most basic unit of society and of marriage as the commitment upon which the family is founded. I don't believe the state should outlaw promiscuity, but society has a real stake in the deeper monogamous commitments.

Whoa! What happened to the individual being the basic unit of society as maintained by Mises, Hayek, Rand, and others?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Whoa! What happened to the individual being the basic unit of society as maintained by Mises, Hayek, Rand, and others?


let's see........could they be wrong? :whistle: :floorrollin:
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Think about it. Remove the family, you still have society in other associations and contracts. Remove the individual, you have nothing. :unbelievable:
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lon Frank
Member
I voted 'NO'. This is abject political foolishness at it's worst. Okay, so society has a stake in 'families'. Gays can't have 'families', huh? Can't adopt, can't foster parent, can't be members of a stable community, can they?

Then, how about we legally forbid medically sterile people from marriage, too? Or, how about dysfunctional families, Lord knows, they are a drain on society, right? Maybe, when someone has a handicapped child, or a kid who is 'in trouble a lot', we could make their marriage void, and prevent them from marrying again. We could perhaps, even forbid legal union to those people who disregard the proper church-type upbringing; or perhaps in time, even those who don't comply and join the 'proper' church - you know, the state-sanctioned one, the one the Emperor likes. (All Hail George II!!)

I simply love the look I get when I tell the ignorant hyper-religious about a little tale in Hebrew folk lore. It seems that there was once a man, who was prone to drink a little; okay, he was a famous drunkard. He also had homosexual relationships. To make matters worse, he had incestuous homosexual relationships with his own sons. But, guess what? The Bible (the Christian Bible, no less) tells us that this very man was so LOVED BY GOD, that he was the very first to prophecy the coming of Jesus. If you want to look it up, here's a hint - it ain't under 'drunk queers' in the concordance of the good old King James.

Of course, it's always easier to accept the passage about homosexuality being a 'stench unto the nostrils of God', and simply feed our righteous intolerance through faith-based homophobia. Works for George!


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
I was going to vote "Yes", on the condition that the Constitution also be amended to ban 3-ton 4WD Guzzlemobiles, too - especially the white ones, 'cause I just HATE white cars, doncha know?
But then I got to thinking - aside from being a bit offensive to me and stinking up the neighbourhood a little, those Behemoths don't affect me adversely and have done NOTHING to harm the enjoyment, comfort and security of MY vehicle.

If you're seeing a parallel in this somewhere.... it's purely intentional. ;)
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member
"It seems that there was once a man, who was prone to drink a little; okay, he was a famous drunkard. He also had homosexual relationships. To make matters worse, he had incestuous homosexual relationships with his own sons. But, guess what? The Bible (the Christian Bible, no less) tells us that this very man was so LOVED BY GOD, that he was the very first to prophecy the coming of Jesus."

The extent of God's love for the everyday sinful man/women is mind boggling. What did this prophet do to deserve God's love, patience, confidence and to honor him to prophecy the coming of Jesus?? It should give us all a little more hope for ourselves. :)

edit: I vote no for amending the Constitution on this subject.
Banan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
Wonder if the upcoming mid-term congressional elections have anything to do with this subject rearing it's head again.

Naw...I am just being cynical.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
You mean why divert attention from all the war, economy, immigration, health care, and other problems being dealt with so ineffectively?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
The federal government has no business regulating marriage. That has been the perogative of the states, but even they should remove the term marriage and substitute domestic partnership, civil unions etc. for all (gay and straight). With it including all the next of kin, tax deductions etc. that married people now get. The concept of marriage should be kept in the church, with the different denominations deciding which unions they will bless. Which by the way would in no way affect civil legal status covered under the domestic partnership/civil union laws. This would finally separate church and state with regards to "marriage" laws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
tomdrobin
Jun 4 2006, 08:41 PM
The federal government has no business regulating marriage. That has been the perogative of the states, but even they should remove the term marriage and substitute domestic partnership, civil unions etc. for all (gay and straight). With it including all the next of kin, tax deductions etc. that married people now get. The concept of marriage should be kept in the church, with the different denominations deciding which unions they will bless. Which by the way would in no way affect civil legal status covered under the domestic partnership/civil union laws. This would finally separate church and state with regards to "marriage" laws.

I'm trying to find a problem within your post, Tom.... but I don't think I can.
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
A question popped into my head listening to Bush today. True, we want to avoid if not stop judicial activism but who is he kidding with special interest-controlled politics that the legislature represents the people. We also need to avoid if not stop legislative activism. Let the people debate these social matters and decide for ourselves.


Oh, also, noted he did not refer to marriage as the basic social unit, but institution. I wonder....
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
The federal government has no business regulating marriage. That has been the perogative of the states, but even they should remove the term marriage and substitute domestic partnership, civil unions etc. for all (gay and straight). With it including all the next of kin, tax deductions etc. that married people now get. The concept of marriage should be kept in the church, with the different denominations deciding which unions they will bless. Which by the way would in no way affect civil legal status covered under the domestic partnership/civil union laws. This would finally separate church and state with regards to "marriage" laws.


But, without the Fed gov in it, each state's laws would not necessarily be recognized in another state. you might end up in jail in Texas for something that was perfectly legit in New York. etc.
And then, there's the SS issue.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
Everyone knows the gay marriage ban amendment doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being ratified. So does GW. And, I really think it is not an issue with him personally. Political pandering at it's worst to shore up sagging popularity poll numbers IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
tomdrobin
Jun 5 2006, 09:12 PM
Everyone knows the gay marriage ban amendment doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being ratified. So does GW. And, I really think it is not an issue with him personally. Political pandering at it's worst to shore up sagging popularity poll numbers IMO.

Gee, YA THINK?

And just when I was about to reveal my deep envy, to be living in a country with no greater pressing problems to face....
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply