RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship

RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 5:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub simply the definition of the word marriage...again religion does not enter directly. That's not an answer. Why does the government, state or federal, feel the need to define the term at all? SSI Benefits.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 5:55:07 PM)
Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law.

cloudboy -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 6:02:54 PM)
To me this thread was not about the merits of individual laws or lawmaking, but about the process which makes law. In general, the electorate, legislators, and judiciary work together as team --- each checking the other and trying to improve the judicial, legislative system. Sure, its imperfect, but I don't blame judges for engaging in "common law" because often times laws are unclear, need interpretation, and call for front line application. To me a mix of common law and statutory law is best --- beating a code of laws that covers everything and every situation --- to be followed in robotic fashion. As for dictatorship: the closes approximation we have to it in our system is CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. In that realm, THE SUPREME COURT has FINAL SAY. No one can overrule the supreme court.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 6:37:54 PM)
Not even Oprah?!!!

dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 6:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. Isn't there a chance that their views of what is immoral and unethical are shaped by their perceptions of God's law?

TheHeretic -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 9:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. Isn't there a chance that their views of what is immoral and unethical are shaped by their perceptions of God's law? I'd say a pretty darn good chance, DC.

Irishknight -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 10:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. I am soooooo gonna have to disagree with that staement. "Defense of Marriage" laws exist so that one group of people can force their narrow viewpoint on others. They are most definately religiously motivated. Whether the people who support them realize it or not, they are acting as bigots and asking our government to do the same. The most common argument I hear is that "gay marriage will weaken the foundation of the institution." How would 2 guys/2 girls getting hitched damage anyone else's marriage? If that could happen, the marriage had NO foundation to begin with. Speaking financially, the wedding industry would bring in more money to the economy as would the following divorces that would take place. It would be good for everyone but the churched who would call it the downfall of society and then would have to tell that same lie over and over for 100 years when the world didn't fall apart because of gay marriage.

Ozzfan1317 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee That's hardly a slide into dictatorship. Sometimes the many need so be smacked upside the head by the few and told to friggin' smarten up. Wouldn't be the first time. Now allowing people to steal elections and get into wars for profit while oppressing political opponents - that's a threat to democracy. Yep unfortunately we elected someone who has done exactly that. As far as same sex marriages are concerned. If you love someone I don't care if their purple or transgender you should have the right to marry them. Thats just my honest opinion. Z.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 5:57:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. Isn't there a chance that their views of what is immoral and unethical are shaped by their perceptions of God's law? Absolutely. I'm just telling you what I've learned from the bit of learnin' I've had studying the law; which, does not 'rely' on the bible or any one religion. Of course, we had to come up with morals, and ethics from somewhere. A bible is definitely a good place to begin. (not that I agree with denying people the right to marry, just 'cause they're not just like me)

xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 6:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. I am soooooo gonna have to disagree with that staement. "Defense of Marriage" laws exist so that one group of people can force their narrow viewpoint on others. They are most definately religiously motivated. Whether the people who support them realize it or not, they are acting as bigots and asking our government to do the same. The most common argument I hear is that "gay marriage will weaken the foundation of the institution." How would 2 guys/2 girls getting hitched damage anyone else's marriage? If that could happen, the marriage had NO foundation to begin with. Speaking financially, the wedding industry would bring in more money to the economy as would the following divorces that would take place. It would be good for everyone but the churched who would call it the downfall of society and then would have to tell that same lie over and over for 100 years when the world didn't fall apart because of gay marriage. I believe that instead of following 'the bible' we would do best to follow Christ's admonitions to treat others as we would have them treat us... If that were the case, there wouldn't be such perceived differences between races, genders, and sexual orientations. But...we take what we've been given; and many were brought up to believe that if you don't believe everything the 'bible' says, you are going to hell. It's going to take a lot of time, a lot of talk, and a lot of understanding to get us where we need to be.

pinksugarsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 6:07:50 PM)
Merc. the democratic system includes the concept of 'checks and balances' in which 3 different branches of government can review, revise and alter the action of another.....and the Executive is just one person...and their staff. So no, i don't see a slide into dictartorship from what You referenced...although i do see it in the passage of the Patriot Act and similar legislation as well as certain (usually federal) action which blatantly violate someone's civil rights....but we take no action because we don't happen to care for whomever is being violated, or so we think. As for gay marriage, i think it is eminently and obviously sensible, reasonable and constitutional, and should be allowed, with gay marriages controlled by the same body of law and court system already in place for different sex marriages. Kinda the same way i feel about some other issues; if the religious right didn't have such a stranglehold on this country's federal government, things would be much better for all of us. pinksugarsub

Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 6:09:40 PM)
The legal arguments in the cases leading up to the Defense Of Marriage Act did not rely on religious scripture...hardly surprising given their lack of weight in a modern court of law. But that is no real proof as to the actual motivations of it promoters, such as Bill Clinton, who simply states it as his 'belief', not up for review, without specifying where he got his beliefs about gay people.

dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 7:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Celtic; the reason that the defense of marriage law exists is that those who created this law feel that people marrying others of the same sex is immoral, unethical, and against the public good. Not because it is against God's law. Isn't there a chance that their views of what is immoral and unethical are shaped by their perceptions of God's law? Absolutely. I'm just telling you what I've learned from the bit of learnin' I've had studying the law; which, does not 'rely' on the bible or any one religion. Of course, we had to come up with morals, and ethics from somewhere. A bible is definitely a good place to begin. (not that I agree with denying people the right to marry, just 'cause they're not just like me) If, as we all seem to be agreeing, DOMA's supporters based their views--at least indirectly and, if memory serves me aright, in some cases quite overtly--on religious beliefs, isn't the measure somewhat theocratic?

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 7:58:02 PM)
quote: Of course, we had to come up with morals, and ethics from somewhere. A bible is definitely a good place to begin. This is why DOMA may be viewed as an intrusion by the state into what is essentially a religious arena. Laws define what is legal. Laws do not--and cannot--define what is moral. Laws like the DOMA are a bad idea because they are a foolish attempt by government to intrude into the moral arena that should be the exclusive province of churches and similar spiritual institutions.

Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If, as we all seem to be agreeing, DOMA's supporters based their views--at least indirectly and, if memory serves me aright, in some cases quite overtly--on religious beliefs, isn't the measure somewhat theocratic? Not particularly, the religious ceremony that people can choose to have or not have after getting the license is not addressed or affected by this law.

dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice If, as we all seem to be agreeing, DOMA's supporters based their views--at least indirectly and, if memory serves me aright, in some cases quite overtly--on religious beliefs, isn't the measure somewhat theocratic? Not particularly, the religious ceremony that people can choose to have or not have after getting the license is not addressed or affected by this law. True, but aren't some people being denied licenses on the grounds of other people's religious beliefs?

Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:20:44 PM)
In all seriousness, I have no idea why so many liberal icons are supporting policies that seem to play right into the hands of conservative religious dogma...DOMA, DADT, and so forth... Still, as in other cases of covert discrimination, you'd have to come up with some evidence, not just conjecture, no matter how corect.

dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:23:25 PM)
Well, I was speaking broadly about the fact that, in most places, two men or two women can't get a marriage license.

Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:26:55 PM)
If they are two atheist men or women, wanting a civil license for a civil ceremony, how are their religious rights affected by this ruling?

Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 8:31:13 PM)
Mis-post

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125