[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by ross hamilton hill

I stress I have nothing against gay marriage, I just don't think it should be equated with straight marriage as that is a ritual and state that legitimizes sexual intercourse and procreation. Neither of which (obviously) occur in gay marriage.

I think you are confusing a function that marriage once had with its present function. These days you can have sex and kids without getting married. So I don't think that's why most people get married any longer. Whatever it is people get marred for (a show of commitment, a romantic dream, tax breaks, a sense of security, because their friends did etc) it's not dependent on their sexuality; any of these reasons apply to both gay and straight couples.

In addition to which, what about hetero couples who marry and don't want to -- or can't have -- have kids. Should they have a ceremony with a different name?

But even if I were to accept that there's differences, (and you surely see the many similarities), why would it trouble you if the word 'marriage' is used in both cases? I don't see why it should follow that there would need to be two different names.

-Matt

P.s. gay people have sexual intercourse!

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Hi Ian,

For what it's worth, I think Charlie's correct to point out that he is not the only one here expressing his beliefs. Humanism takes an ethical position and so entails value judgements, beliefs about what's right and wrong; these beliefs are not founded on the results of scientific experimentation, or derived from logic, though it does tend to value reason and scientific method highly.

Personally, I believe that gay love, sex and marriage is without question just as valid heterosexual love, sex and marriage. Charlie believes it's a sin because it's so written in the Bible. Science isn't going to resolve this one for us.

best,

Matt

For sure. I was more talking about atheism. Michael never declared himself a humanist anyways; Charlie just pegged him for one because he didn't come out as a Christian and yet still seemed to be a decent human being. (Shock!)

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

You miss the whole point of the Constitution, Shaun. It is inflexible for a reason. But it gives and provides a way for the law to be changed and codified. It's called a Constitutional Convention. It is a procedure to protect the law already on the books so that the States can determine what the law should be. Is it really so hard for you to get that?

Look, let me explain it this way. Let's say in a few years that all the Supremes get killed in an earthquake. There is a (God-Forbid) Republican President in power. He appoints nothing but strict constitutional conservative judges to the bench and they overturn, gay marriage, abortion, you name it. You are going to be pissed that nine people can ruin so many lives or at least affect them detrimentally. Yes?

The Constitution provides a way to stop this abuse of power.

It isn't a living document. It's a damned close to perfect document bent on order and protection of the minority. If the Constitution were a "Living" document able to be tugged and pulled at by politicians, clergy and radicals, we would devolve into total anarchy, don't you see?

You really should read The Federalist Papers. It gives good, solid, valid reasons why the Framers of the Constitution set it up like they did.

Look at Prohibition, Look at the right to vote, or limits on the Presidential terms. Who wants to see 8 Bill Clinton terms? Or GWB for that matter?

Is the Constitution hard to amend? Yes. That's why its detractors often refer to it like you do— a living document.

But the amendment process is the legal and appropriate way to do this. Let the several states have their say, and if 38 of them agree, it becomes law.

Why place all the power in any one man or any nine men or women?

The Founders had it all figured out. They were right.

If you agree with what was done this week in the Court, you may very well live to see another thing work to your detriment.

I know I'm right about this.

Where are the really smart Constitutional scholars around here? Come on, people.

Maaannnnn.... I'm glad you have so much faith in the old white dudes who wrote the constitution, but I'm totally more skeptical of them. You're making a hypocritical argument: if you don't trust the 9 dudes on the bench now, why do you trust the 30 who made our constitution 300 years ago? Huh?

[Charlie Southerland]

Simply, Ian, Because the 9 folks on the bench right now didn't write the constitution then. FYI. It's closer to 234 years old and there were a few more signers than 30.

More importantly, many of the Old White Dudes who wrote it told what went into the process. They went all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome for answers. These men are heros. They risked their very lives to get to the point of a steady non-monarchal system that would stand the test of time. You can read all about it in US Constitution 101 in high school.

[Roger Slater]

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860's. Clearly its guarantee of liberty meant more than the abolition of slavery, since the 13th Amendment took care of that. So the question arises, what did the framers of the 14th Amendment mean by "liberty"? If they had something specific in mind, or meant to freeze our concept of liberty to that of the 1860's, they could have just said so, perhaps in a bulleted list of liberties. But the framers of that amendment, who were not at all lazy or stupid, made a conscious choice to use an open-ended term that would leave the contours of liberty flexible, to be revisited from time to time by the Supreme Court. (Judicial review and the authority of Supreme Court on such matters had been established more than fifty years earlier). So you are absolutely right to extol and praise the framers of these important constitutional protections, but you sell them short if you assume that they were sloppy draftsmen who used vague terms while relying on future generations to study the debates and essays of the day to discern their meaning. They wrote the 14th Amendment the way they wrote it because, unlike you, they saw the Constitution as a living, breathing document. That is why the Constitution has survived so long. If it were the inflexible, specific, never-changing document that you posit, it never would have made it this long.

[Ian Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

Simply, Ian, Because the 9 folks on the bench right now didn't write the constitution then. FYI. It's closer to 234 years old and there were a few more signers than 30.

More importantly, many of the Old White Dudes who wrote it told what went into the process. They went all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome for answers. These men are heros. They risked their very lives to get to the point of a steady non-monarchal system that would stand the test of time. You can read all about it in US Constitution 101 in high school.

Thanks for your condescension; however, I've been to high school and constitution 101. Those men may be your heroes; to me, they're definitely heroic, but not necessarily perfect individuals. It's possible they messed up, even though they certainly weren't dolts. Same with the people who sit on the Supreme Court now. Same, really, with anyone, you and I included. No need to put the founding fathers on a pedestal. If their document is a perfect one we shouldn't touch, would you also argue that there's no point at which it could become outdated? At which they could have failed to prepare for some contingency that has now come to pass? I'm sorry, I don't see them as clairvoyant, and I think there are issues our country grapples with today that they neither predicted nor implemented the exact machinery in the exact words of the constitution for us to fix. That's why we take some liberty with their ideas, as they took some liberty with the ideas that came before them. That, in a sense, is what they meant — that we have liberty. No?


EDIT: Case in point is the right to bear arms. It's interpreted in different ways by different people, but in the long run, it's not really important exactly what they meant — I think it's safe to say they'd be horrified by how guns are being used in America these days. Who knows — maybe they'd be super pro-NRA — but they were living in a very different time than we are when they wrote the second amendment, and that we can't get together the required political clout to change gun laws in America is not a reflection of the virtue of the constitution but of the nefarious influence of money (and idiots) in our political system.

[ross hamilton hill]

Roger I have said twice that I agree with gay marriage, I have also said there is a distinction between gay marriage and straight marrige, ie sexual intercourse and the possiblity of children, the fact that there are exceptions does not negate this.
Nor does making the distinction mean I am against gay marriage, I will say it again just to be absolutely certain I am in favour of gay marriage

[Roger Slater]

Ross, I wasn't addressing you in any way, nor did I have you in mind when I wrote any of my comments, so I have no idea why you are directing that last remark to me. I didn't know or wonder whether you supported gay marriage, but I'm glad to hear you do.

By the way, it may interest you to know that gay people do have sexual intercourse. You should Google it.

[Matt Q]

Ross,

I think you've confused Roger and I. I was the one who responded to your point.

I do realise that you are in favour of gay marriage, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise.

I was confused by your desire to have gay marriage named differently from straight marriage. As I said, whilst historically marriage may have been necessary in order to with have sex and babies, among other things, that's no longer the case. By and large gay and straight people get married for pretty much the same reasons, I believe. And besides, why not have equality? Distinguishing between straight marriage and gay marriage just doesn't strike me as equality.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's just marriage.

best,

Matt

[Janice D. Soderling]

Arrested? Arrested! Handcuffed, for heavens sakes.

And the flag is up again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYgb...ature=youtu.be