|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 8, 2008 19:57:43 GMT -4
I doubt if in this context the Roman's morals have anything to do with this thread. The empire didn't "fall" really, it merely wore out over time. You can only control with a firm hand so much territory for so long. With the increasing advance of new so called barbarian tribes on their borders, it was destined to collapse. The Romans brought order and discipline to conquered provinces and in many cases, increased justice in the courts. Marriage and Inheritance laws in Rome were actually more complex than today's. It started to worn because Rome absorbed every culture, to the point in which the figure of Empire started to fade and intestine problems arose as well. My point is, if a society accepts everything with no question, anarchy will spread. (I say so with first hand experience. Here, since we switched presidents, anarchy became normal because of an abuse of tolerance). Actually, it happened the same thing in Rome back then to what is happening to US in Iraq. The conquered provinces were unhappy with their conqueror, so they started rebellions. (I wonder if the Roman traditions brought to those provinces had anything to do with it...) It sounds like a contradiction, to absorb cultures and to have unhappy provinces, it's natural when one tries to impose something...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2008 23:39:57 GMT -4
So what? The founders lived over two hundred years ago and thought differently about many things. They also had slaves. Do you know why blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person in the original version of the constitution? Hint: It was the pro-slavery delegates who wanted to count blacks as a full person.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2008 0:17:33 GMT -4
I would also like to note that even with Proposition 8 now passed, California law still recognizes that "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." And "(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses. (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses."
As you can see, the issue was not legal rights - same sex couples already have every legal right a married couple has under California law. It was about forcing moral acceptance through co-opting the term "marriage" via judicial fiat.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 9, 2008 1:11:39 GMT -4
So what? The founders lived over two hundred years ago and thought differently about many things. They also had slaves. Do you know why blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person in the original version of the constitution? Hint: It was the pro-slavery delegates who wanted to count blacks as a full person. Irrelevent. The point was only that today people don't necessarily think the same way about things that they did two hundred years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 9, 2008 1:13:21 GMT -4
I would also like to note that even with Proposition 8 now passed, California law still recognizes that "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." And "(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses. (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are registered domestic partners rather than spouses." As you can see, the issue was not legal rights - same sex couples already have every legal right a married couple has under California law. It was about forcing moral acceptance through co-opting the term "marriage" via judicial fiat. Well, that certainly is interesting. Would they also be able to share in health benefits that someone has with an employer?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Nov 9, 2008 3:00:24 GMT -4
It is my personal opinon that churches should give up their tax exempt status and start exercising their right to free speech. They should never have gotten into bed with the government in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by George Tirebiter on Nov 9, 2008 3:36:59 GMT -4
[...]It was about forcing moral acceptance through co-opting the term "marriage" via judicial fiat. I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. Does this mean that your complaint is just about semantics? That if marriage-as-legal-contract had a different name from marriage-as-holy-matrimony you wouldn't have a problem with extending (legal) marriage to same-sex couples? I also don't understand how "judicial fiat" can force moral acceptance. A marriage license is not the same as holy matrimony, and allowing same-sex couples to get that legal contract does not mean that we would be forcing God or any church to recognize those licenses as (holy) marriages. Perhaps it's because I come from a long line of Catholics, but I've never understood how people could confuse marriage before the State with marriage before God.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 9, 2008 4:24:51 GMT -4
it was about forcing moral acceptance of their behavior through the co-opting of the term "marriage" by judicial fiat. And that's exactly what I'm talking about eliminating. Take government out of the "marriage" process entirely, then the churches can define it however they want. Which is exactly what happened when miscegenation laws were struck down.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 9, 2008 13:03:22 GMT -4
Hint: It was the pro-slavery delegates who wanted to count blacks as a full person. Only because they'd have been utterly outnumbered on a count of only full citizens It was desperation, not superior morality.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 9, 2008 18:13:54 GMT -4
Data Cable, you are absolutely right. A definitive breakaway from government should solve it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2008 3:03:03 GMT -4
You know, there are a fair number of religious organizations that will perform same-sex marriages without being forced, so the "religions don't want it" argument doesn't really fly with me. Some Christian sects having been performing the ceremonies for years.
There are some things where you just have to accept facts unless you're a bigot. The fact is, homosexuality is just as genetic as skin colour. Science has shown us that. Not accepting it is just as ridiculous as not accepting evolution. Oh, wait . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Nov 10, 2008 13:36:49 GMT -4
Can you direct us to the studies you think prove homosexuality is genetic? There are also studies that show homosexuality is a learned behavior.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 10, 2008 14:22:43 GMT -4
The latest and greatest study on the subject concludes that genetics contributes between 34% and 39% to homosexuality in men. As seems to be the case in this field, results are suggestive, not definitive. The PubMed abstract linked above
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Nov 10, 2008 15:13:33 GMT -4
Or, to put it in plain English, there is no gay gene. If there were, twin studies would have shown that where one identical twin is gay, the other one will be too. 100% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 10, 2008 16:25:35 GMT -4
Or to put it in plain English, but more completely. There is some interaction between genetic predisposition and environmental influences that results in human homosexual behavior. The exact contribution of these two factors and the interaction between them are poorly understood, but the average contribution of each factor among the population can be estimated.
From other information I've heard on this paper, the authors were less comfortable with the conclusions regarding women. Heterosexual women, as most of us know, will carry out public and private displays of affection with other women that heterosexual men will rarely do together. Such as dancing, hand holding and kissing. This adds difficulty in defining what actions among women, aside from evidence of direct sexual contact, are evidence of homosexuality.
|
|