Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
David Quinn and Gay Marriage
Options
Comments
-
Perhaps that's not conclusive proof, but it's certainly indicative of the general population's acceptance.
It's not proof, at best it's indicative of tolerance.Leaving aside your apparent assumption that ALL gay men in a relationship engage in anal sex, you presumably have no objection to at least lesbian couples being allowed to marry and adopt? Their relationship isn't "based on sodomy".
Sodomy is a particularly vile rejection of pro-creation by man, but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.0 -
Which again raises the question of why you cannot discuss this subject in a less hysterical fashion when other Christians who believe homosexual acts are a sin seem perfectly able to.
For example, why mention Satan at all. Sin is discussed all the time on this forum, very really requiring that Satan be brought into the topic. In the Bible homosexual acts are described as a sin. So is pre-marital sex. So is being disrespectful to your parents. So is using prostitutes. In fact quite a lot of things in the Bible are a sin.
Yet these subjects can be discussed without bringing Satan into it? It is a sin, one of many. You seem to be promoting it as a particularly bad one, and then bringing Satan into the mix and I'm not sure why but I hope you can understand why people got the impression that to you this is a particularly prickly subject.
Fail.
This is yet another thinly veneered attempt at ad homiem trolling and diversion, and an attempt to make it about me instead of the issue.
I refer to Satan regularly in other threads, particularly with respect to his control of the three very powerful and corrupted Vatican Carndinals Sodano, Bertone and Law.
I'll not be silenced regarding Satan, or the trick of trying to build marriage and child adoption around Sodomy in vile attempt to "normalise" homosexual acts and creat a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah.0 -
Sodomy is a particularly vile rejection of pro-creation by man, but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.
Yes, the bible is clear and makes repeated prohibitions of homosexuality. We don't base our laws on the bible, however. This ain't a theocracy.0 -
but the bible is quite clear that women should not lie with women, marriage is not for the societal normalisation of same sex acts, it's for the loving pro-creation of children and the human race as per God's will.
So, if marriage is for the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the human race, what does the Bible say about infertile couples marrying, and what is your own stance on it?0 -
So, if marriage is for the procreation of children and the perpetuation of the human race, what does the Bible say about infertile couples marrying, and what is your own stance on it?
How does any couple know they may or may not make a permanently infertile couple if they marry ? nor do they know what other incompatible genes etc. they carry even if they are fertile. Also there is no guarantee any couple will remain fertile, fertility is a very complex and never guaranteed/reliable for any couple over time. Also why should a heterosexual couple be denied further regarding the already limited amount of adopted children because a gay couples want to adopt as well ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, the bible is clear and makes repeated prohibitions of homosexuality. We don't base our laws on the bible, however. This ain't a theocracy.
You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?0 -
You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?
The Government is probably awaiting the results of the Supreme Court appeal by (now) Senator Katherine Zappone and her partner before making any plans. After all, why go to the expense of a referendum if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is allowable under the Constitution.
Plus, there's the fact that someone shouldn't HAVE to ask 4 million people for permission to get married...
0 -
You want to talk about democracy ? Excellent.
Why is "gay" "marriage" and "adoption" not being put before the people in a proper referendum ? Why is a referendum on these issues being avoided at all costs ?
You kinda answered your own question there, costs. Well at least that's one reason expense. It is quite costly to hold a referendum, particularlyif you're only going to hold one.
Secondly, the passing of a referendum would require a change in legislation and the introduction of a new piece of legislation to accompany a referendum is unlikely given the current state of the government. Amendments to parental leave, for example, have been pushed back to 2013 because of the government's "heavy legislative agenda."
Thirdly, while Labour has a stated desire to overhaul the constitution by means of convention, Fine Gael, being the larger party is probably going to dictate the nature and progress of constitutional reform. Their election manifesto makes it quite clear that Fine Gael have a mind to hold several referenda to reform the constitution including judicial pay, TD numbers and the abolition of the Seanad. However, they have also stated that:
"This referendum will not address the articles dealing with rights/social policy as we want the focus to stay on political reform."
Fine Gael have already stated an intention to fix the political issues first, before moving on to social policy issues, so it is pretty clear why there isn't an agenda on the cards.
None of this speaks to my original point, however, which is it is irrelevant in a legal context what prohibitions the bible contain since we don't base our laws on it.0 -
I'll not be silenced regarding Satan, or the trick of trying to build marriage and child adoption around Sodomy in vile attempt to "normalise" homosexual acts and creat a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Again with the hysteria over this issue. What makes homosexual acts more "vile" than any other sin?
Do you accept that non-Christians already have the legal right to do things that Christians consider a sin, and that if they do this that is between God and themselves, not an issue for other Christians.
For example, do you believe sex outside of a marriage should be illegal under the law, since it is a sin in Christianity? Do you believe that worshipping another god should be illegal, since it breaks the 1st Commandment?
If not then why are you picking homosexuality for special treatment? You sure it isn't anything to do with personal issues on the matter?0 -
How does any couple know they may or may not make a permanently infertile couple if they marry ? nor do they know what other incompatible genes etc. they carry even if they are fertile.
I would have thought that if marriage is that sacred an institution, and the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then the Church would ask prospective spouses to undergo some form of testing to ensure that children are at least possible. Obviously, that kind of testing wasn't around 2000 years ago, but it is today. I'm not expecting couples to be admitted to hospital for days on end, but aren't there simple enough tests that can at least check the basics?
And what's your stance on couples marrying when they know they are infertile, or have decided they don't want children and have taken the medical steps necessary not to procreate. Why do you think they should be allowed to be married?Also why should a heterosexual couple be denied further regarding the already limited amount of adopted children because a gay couples want to adopt as well ?
In my world, they would have the right to be assessed as prospective adoptive parents exactly the same way as a same-sex couple would be. The child would then go to the couple who would provide the best environment for the child, who would nurture and love the child and basically help them grow into the best human being possible. If that's the heterosexual couple, then I'll fully support that, but the same-sex couple shouldn't be denied simply because of their sexual orientation.
My understanding of your reasoning is that they should be denied because they are abnormal and dysfunctional. Unless you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were infertile?0 -
Advertisement
-
You kinda answered your own question there, costs. Well at least that's one reason expense. It is quite costly to hold a referendum, particularlyif you're only going to hold one.
No it isn't! The government plan a referendum on Childrens' right and are having a Presidential election anyway.Secondly, the passing of a referendum would require a change in legislation and the introduction of a new piece of legislation to accompany a referendum is unlikely given the current state of the government. Amendments to parental leave, for example, have been pushed back to 2013 because of the government's "heavy legislative agenda."
I don't understand. You are saying something like gay marriage or adoption should be is important enough to change the constitution but such issues are not important enough to demand legislation which is inferior in principle to the constitution? Bizarre!Thirdly, while Labour has a stated desire to overhaul the constitution by means of convention, Fine Gael, being the larger party is probably going to dictate the nature and progress of constitutional reform. Their election manifesto makes it quite clear that Fine Gael have a mind to hold several referenda to reform the constitution including judicial pay, TD numbers and the abolition of the Seanad. However, they have also stated that:
"This referendum will not address the articles dealing with rights/social policy as we want the focus to stay on political reform."
Fine Gael have already stated an intention to fix the political issues first, before moving on to social policy issues, so it is pretty clear why there isn't an agenda on the cards.
So what? Childrens rights is also a social issue. Why can't they have the social issues on one day and the political reform issues on another? all they need do is announce a few dates. But now you are arguing about whether the referendum on gay marriage should be later rather than sooner and not about whether a referendun in principle should happen at all. I fail to understand. do you believe this question should be dealt with in a referendum, Tá / Níl?None of this speaks to my original point, however, which is it is irrelevant in a legal context what prohibitions the bible contain since we don't base our laws on it.
Which is another point to which ~I would respond.
In fact we do base our jurisprudence on religion.
In fact in most courts people swear on the Bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence
is the theory and philosophy of law.
One of the four main philosophies of jurisprudence is natural law. While it is not exclusive to believe in God natural law can be interpreted in a religious manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-40There can be little doubt that St Paul's words imply some conception analogous to the 'natural law' in Cicero, a law written in men's hearts, recognized by man's reason, a law distinct from the positive law of any State, or from what St Paul recognized as the revealed law of God. It is in this sense that St Paul's words are taken by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries like St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine, and there seems no reason to doubt the correctness of their interpretation
In fact the entire basis of Western Law the Codex of the Emperor Justinian is entirely steeped in religious belief and in uniting the Church and State. Not that this only existed in antiquity ( actually - lest I be corrected on the example - Early middle Ages to be more precise) in fact many countries today e.g. Muslim countries and countries like the UK for example incorporate religion the Bible, Koran etc. into their constitution and laws.0 -
My understanding of your reasoning is that they should be denied because they are abnormal and dysfunctional.
I think your understanding is vague.
Put it this way. do you think it is better for a child to be brought up by two parents or by just one.( say in the case of death of a spouse or divorce separation or even say if one parent has to go to another continent to work or is put in prison for life?)
Now being brought up by one parent while not normal is not of necessity a dysfunctional family. But the question isn't whether such one parent families should be denied the right to exist. The question is are not two parents more preferable for a society? So should not society act to keep families together? e.g. in the above examples to prolong lie by having safe work practices or living conditions of the spouse; by trying to limit family breakdown leading to divorce or separation and if it happens by making sure children have access to both parents; by providing work at home and working against involuntary emigration; by allowing early release or family time for the families of prisoners etc. ?
A separate question is that of society believes the parents should be of different sex and that marriage means two heterosexual people why should everyone have to change that to accommodate those who want to call marriage something else?0 -
I think your understanding is vague.
I think my understanding of Monty's reasoning is fairly accurate. Earlier in the thread, the occurrence of homosexuality in the animal world was raised. Monty referred to those instances as dysfunctional and abnormal. When asked to explain why he thought that, he said:
"Maybe you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were homosexual ?"
So if he thinks that that homosexuality is abnormal and dysfunctional because it cannot result in offspring, then he must think the same of all people who cannot reproduce. At the end of the day, abnormal and dysfunctional are his words, not mine. I'm just showing him how they can apply across the board, and not just to gay and lesbian couples.A separate question is that of society believes the parents should be of different sex and that marriage means two heterosexual people why should everyone have to change that to accommodate those who want to call marriage something else?
Not to be glib, but that's not a separate question. That's the topic at hand
. 0 -
A separate question is that of society believes the parents should be of different sex and that marriage means two heterosexual people why should everyone have to change that to accommodate those who want to call marriage something else?
Sorry, but who are you to say what society or everyone wants?0 -
No it isn't! The government plan a referendum on Childrens' right and are having a Presidential election anyway.
It is stated clearly and repeatedly in the FG manifesto that there a number of issues of political reform which will require referenda. It is their intention to streamline this process by scheduling all necessary referenda on the same voting day, what they call Constitution Day. Therefore, they are not going to run a single referendum anytime soon.I don't understand. You are saying something like gay marriage or adoption should be is important enough to change the constitution but such issues are not important enough to demand legislation which is inferior in principle to the constitution? Bizarre!
No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the government's current legislative workload will be an important factor in the discussion of a possible referendum on gay marriage or adoption. I gave the example of the parental leave amendments where the government has had to push the changes to the law back to 2013 because of a heavy legislative agenda. The introduction of a referendum would require the drafting of new legislation to cover the amendment as well as making changes to existing laws or drafting new ones to apply the new amendment.
Take the 16th amendment to the constitution, for example. This changed the constitution so that bail could be refused to a suspect where there was reasonable suspicion that the suspect would commit a serious criminal offence while on bail. The passing of this referendum not only necessitated the drafting of the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1996, but also the introduction of the Bail Act in 1997.So what? Childrens rights is also a social issue. Why can't they have the social issues on one day and the political reform issues on another? all they need do is announce a few dates.
I agree. I was just pointing out that FG's stated intentions are not to deal with social reform issues until the political ones are dealt with.But now you are arguing about whether the referendum on gay marriage should be later rather than sooner and not about whether a referendun in principle should happen at all. I fail to understand. do you believe this question should be dealt with in a referendum, Tá / Níl?
I'm not arguing when the referendum should be. I was responding to Monty's question about why the government aren't planning on holding one in the immediate future. Yes, I think that there should be a referendum on gay marriage and adoption, the sooner the better.Which is another point to which ~I would respond.
In fact we do base our jurisprudence on religion.
In fact in most courts people swear on the Bible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence
is the theory and philosophy of law.
One of the four main philosophies of jurisprudence is natural law. While it is not exclusive to believe in God natural law can be interpreted in a religious manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-40
In fact the entire basis of Western Law the Codex of the Emperor Justinian is entirely steeped in religious belief and in uniting the Church and State. Not that this only existed in antiquity ( actually - lest I be corrected on the example - Early middle Ages to be more precise) in fact many countries today e.g. Muslim countries and countries like the UK for example incorporate religion the Bible, Koran etc. into their constitution and laws.
My that's a wonderful strawman you've built.
First off, I was talking about Christianity in particular and not religion in general. I made the point that we don't base our laws on what is written in the Bible nor should we.
Secondly, most courts no longer require a religious oath to be sworn. A secular affirmation is sufficient. In fact, a lot of courts, particularly in the US no longer use the sword swear, opting instead for affirm.
Thirdly, I was talking about actual legislation not jurisprudence. Practice not principle.
The natural law argument is so poor, I'm surprised anyone would still bring it up. First of all, it relies on an equivocation fallacy. Legislative laws are prescriptive, they demarcate what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Natural laws are descriptive, they are human concepts which describe some aspect of the universe and how it behaves. As Bertrand Russell said:
"We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."
The second problem with the natural law argument is that if you assume that there is a law giver in the first place, then the question arises where God got the laws from. Once again, as Russell notes:
"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary."
Anyway, since I wasn't talking about the influence of natural law on legislation I'll move on.
The Codex of Justinian, being one component of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis is not regarded by scholars as being influential on modern western laws.Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was distributed in the West but was lost sight of; it was scarcely needed in the comparatively primitive conditions that followed the loss of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Byzantine empire in the 8th century. The only western province where the Justinianic code was effectively introduced was Italy, following its recovery by Byzantine armies (Pragmatic Sanction of 554), but a continuous tradition of Roman law in medieval Italy has not been proven.
It has however, with significant adaptation been influential in the East, particularly in the legal code of Serbia.
In fact, the two largest Western nations, the UK and the USA do not in any way base their laws on Christianity, the US for reasons of religious freedom and the UK because English law predates Christianity.0 -
It is stated clearly and repeatedly in the FG manifesto that there a number of issues of political reform which will require referenda. It is their intention to streamline this process by scheduling all necessary referenda on the same voting day, what they call Constitution Day. Therefore, they are not going to run a single referendum anytime soon.
1. it isnt a single issue. It is a social issue which could be put in with other social issues such as childrens rights.
2. I could be done on the Presidential election day.No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the government's current legislative workload will be an important factor in the discussion of a possible referendum on gay marriage or adoption. I gave the example of the parental leave amendments where the government has had to push the changes to the law back to 2013 because of a heavy legislative agenda. The introduction of a referendum would require the drafting of new legislation to cover the amendment as well as making changes to existing laws or drafting new ones to apply the new amendment.
And I pointed out that the constitution is the superiour source of law! One does not get it backwards and draft laws and then change the constitution to suit them! One changes the constitution to allow such laws and then one brings in the law under the new constitution.
The "legislation to cover the ammendment" is in fact the wording of the new Article which will be put to the people. any other draft legislation can't be passed into law if it is unconstitutional.Take the 16th amendment to the constitution, for example. This changed the constitution so that bail could be refused to a suspect where there was reasonable suspicion that the suspect would commit a serious criminal offence while on bail. The passing of this referendum not only necessitated the drafting of the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1996, but also the introduction of the Bail Act in 1997.
If the government have no time to discuss gay marriage or bail it is not necessary to draft the legislation ( which has in any case already been drafted). they can still change the constitution to allow for whatever legislation they will subsequently discuss. Having the Bail Bill or Civil Partnership Bill is not constitutionally necessary although it might well be prepared in advance of the Referendum.
Of course other secondary legislation such as EU Law or the Good Friday Agreement for example is drafted before the referendum but while not constitutionally necessary it would make no logical sense to hammer out a deal agreed to by all parties after the Referendum to agree to the deal since that would be anachronistic. but that is only for secondary legislation.I'm not arguing when the referendum should be. I was responding to Monty's question about why the government aren't planning on holding one in the immediate future. Yes, I think that there should be a referendum on gay marriage and adoption, the sooner the better.
But you also seem to think the legislation has to be drafted and debated first as well. It doesn't.First off, I was talking about Christianity in particular and not religion in general. I made the point that we don't base our laws on what is written in the Bible nor should we.
But Natural law jurisprudence says we do base our laws on morally universally values such as those mentioned in the Bible.Secondly, most courts no longer require a religious oath to be sworn. A secular affirmation is sufficient. In fact, a lot of courts, particularly in the US no longer use the sword swear, opting instead for affirm.
So what? The fact that one can swear on the Bible means that it is enshrined in the law even if some people can opt out of swearing on the Bible.Thirdly, I was talking about actual legislation not jurisprudence. Practice not principle.
Positive law is a different outlook to natural law. Actual wording of legislation and the "spirit of the law" are different ways of looking at the subject.The natural law argument is so poor, I'm surprised anyone would still bring it up.
REally? Then care to tell me on what positive law were the Nuremberg Trials for WWII Nazis based? What crimes had the Nazis committed which existed prior to WWII being declared? The Germans had anti Jew laws for sure but what positive law allows anyone else to e.g. the Us to tell them they are wrong when the US constitution itself mitigates in favour of State Law and when the Civil Rights laws constitutionally preventing racism only came in long after WWII during the JFK administration?First of all, it relies on an equivocation fallacy. Legislative laws are prescriptive, they demarcate what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Natural laws are descriptive, they are human concepts which describe some aspect of the universe and how it behaves.
Unlike the Europeans Irish people prefer laws which say what you can't do rather than regulate what you can. Also positive laws have the problem of "what laws says I can't" for example it is not against the law for a woman to walk around topless in New York US. In York UK however a court might decide it was "indecent" as opposed to the spirit of common decency without having a description depending on context.
A similar problem is encountered with torture. every time the US try to frame laws saying the tortures they can't do they find they have to eventually break and change the laws. Also they can't fpor example even hold the Guantanamo Bay people in the US since they would have to answer to US law so they hold them on non US soil which they occupy in Cuba.
It was not always this way. Pre WWII the Us had more of a Natural Law outlook - which by the way was the basis for them acting against the Nazis since positive law against Naziism didn't exist.As Bertrand Russell said:
"We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."
You can't reduce decency emotions and human values solely to rational or utilitarian bases.The second problem with the natural law argument is that if you assume that there is a law giver in the first place,
Yet one can believe in "laws of physics" without a creator of such laws?The Codex of Justinian, being one component of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis is not regarded by scholars as being influential on modern western laws.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_CivilisThe Corpus continues to have a major influence on public international law. Its four parts thus constitute the foundation documents of the western legal tradition.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis#Recovery_in_the_WestThe present name of Justinian's codification was only adopted in the 16th century, when it was printed in 1583 by Dionysius Gothofredus under the title "Corpus Juris Civilis". The legal thinking behind the Corpus Juris Civilis served as the backbone of the single largest law
reform of the modern age, the Napoleonic Code, which marked the abolition of feudalism.In fact, the two largest Western nations, the UK and the USA do not in any way base their laws on Christianity, the US for reasons of religious freedom and the UK because English law predates Christianity.
You are mixing up "basing law on religious/theological knowledge of e.g moral principles " with "doing as the church commands and/or passing it into law just because a church official says so"
You are also ignoring the entire Muslim world which have a strong link between religious offices and temporal ones.
As for the UK. Until last year The Supreme court of appeal was the Lords which constitutionally incorporate Lords spiritual. Even without final appeal as a court Lords spiritual continue to have the power to draft and or pass legislation. Lords Spiritual are Anglican Bishops for those not aware of it.
The UK still has laws preventing a Catholic from being a Monarch. the head of the church of England is head of State and views their monarchy as God given.
As for the US State constitution which predate the US constitutional congress refer to God and or religion and continued to do so.0 -
Barrington wrote: »Sorry, but who are you to say what society or everyone wants?
I am just putting the point. That is the way the law is. It isn't my opinion it is the law of the land. I will accept that if a majority of people want to change the law to bring in civil partnerships then so be it. But I happen to agree with Senator Norris who objects to "Gay Marriage" because "Marriage" to him as a Church of Ireland member is viewed a sacrament between a Man and a Woman. If gay people want to derive rights they can form civil partnerships.
Nor is this limited to gays. If a farmer sells his farm at one end of the valley and moves in with another farmer at the other end of the valley who is not related to him in any way and they live together for say twenty years in a non sexual relationship and the second farmer subsequently dies then the first farmer could also derive new non marital rights under law e.g. the right to remain living in the house.
These can be dealt with by legislation and don't require gay or any other rights to marriage.
When we move on to "family" we introduce another tier to the discussion - children.0 -
ISAW, I'm going to try and condense my points where possible because I think that this is getting further and further off-topic.1. it isnt a single issue. It is a social issue which could be put in with other social issues such as childrens rights.
2. I could be done on the Presidential election day.
I agree. It could, and probably should be held on Presidential election day. I don't think it's going to be though. However, I don't agree with Monty's initial assertion that the government is avoiding the issue at all costs because I think there are legitmate factors in such a referendum not being held asap.And I pointed out that the constitution is the superiour source of law! One does not get it backwards and draft laws and then change the constitution to suit them! One changes the constitution to allow such laws and then one brings in the law under the new constitution.
The "legislation to cover the ammendment" is in fact the wording of the new Article which will be put to the people. any other draft legislation can't be passed into law if it is unconstitutional.
Once again I agree. However, my point is that a change in the constitution will require new legislation and possible changes to existing legislation as a result. Given the government's current excuse of heavy legislative agenda, I don't see this happening quickly.But you also seem to think the legislation has to be drafted and debated first as well. It doesn't.
No, not necessarily first, but at some point.But Natural law jurisprudence says we do base our laws on morally universally values such as those mentioned in the Bible.
Yes but the fact, that so-called natural law codes are contained in the bible doesn't mean that a) they originated there nor b) that the other moral prescriptions contained in the Bible are natural laws.
Quite simply, Monty has previously made reference to both Satan, sodomy and Sodom and Gomorrah in his arguments against gay marriage. I am arguing that we don't, nor should we base our laws on the Mosaic commandments found in the Bible. What do you think?So what? The fact that one can swear on the Bible means that it is enshrined in the law even if some people can opt out of swearing on the Bible.
There is no law that I can find requiring anyone to swear on the Bible (although I'm willing to be corrected). The traditional use of the Bible doesn't make it "enshrined" in any law.REally? Then care to tell me on what positive law were the Nuremberg Trials for WWII Nazis based? What crimes had the Nazis committed which existed prior to WWII being declared? The Germans had anti Jew laws for sure but what positive law allows anyone else to e.g. the Us to tell them they are wrong when the US constitution itself mitigates in favour of State Law and when the Civil Rights laws constitutionally preventing racism only came in long after WWII during the JFK administration?
OK, I don't think I was specific enough in my last post. When referring to the natural law argument I mean this:
Natural-law argument
I'm not disputing that there are certain moral codes that could be considered natural laws, a prohibition against murder for example. I don't see any evidence that requires this to be externally imposed by a deity though. These are merely human conventions developed as a consequence of living as a society.
The idea that natural laws exist because God intended them that way is an is-ought problem, a naturalistic fallacy. As well as that I don't see any basis for arguing against homosexuality using natural law.
I accept that you may not be arguing down this line and if so I apologise in advance.Yet one can believe in "laws of physics" without a creator of such laws?
Yes. I don't see any evidence which requires either natural moral laws or physical laws to require a creator.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis#Recovery_in_the_West
Yes, I stand corrected. My apologies.The article does say that.
However, the Codex contains laws which are found in no modern Western country like requiring all citizens to be Christian, for example.You are mixing up "basing law on religious/theological knowledge of e.g moral principles " with "doing as the church commands and/or passing it into law just because a church official says so"
What I am doing is arguing whether we do or should enshrine biblical commandments into our laws. Simple question: Should gay marriage be outlawed because the Bible condemns it, yes or no?You are also ignoring the entire Muslim world which have a strong link between religious offices and temporal ones.
Yes I am. I am dealing with Christian prohibitions on homosexuality.0 -
However, I don't agree with Monty's initial assertion that the government is avoiding the issue at all costs because I think there are legitmate factors in such a referendum not being held asap.
care to list these "legitimate factors" and define them?Once again I agree. However, my point is that a change in the constitution will require new legislation and possible changes to existing legislation as a result.
No it wont. Let us take the "reform agenda" for example. Changes to the constitution in the past allowed for legislation to alter the nature and scope of Seanad Panels. the constitution allows for this legislation say for example to put all universities into one single panel. The change to the constitution has already been made but no legislation ever drafted to make such reforms.
Abolishing the Seanad altogether however would require several major constitutional changes.Given the government's current excuse of heavy legislative agenda, I don't see this happening quickly.
But as you have stated it is an "excuse". For example political reform does not have to require huge constitutional reform.No, not necessarily first, but at some point.
Again successive governments over decades have had the constitutional ability to reform the Senate for example without any constitutional changes but didn't do it.Yes but the fact, that so-called natural law codes are contained in the bible doesn't mean that a) they originated there nor b) that the other moral prescriptions contained in the Bible are natural laws.
This is a genetic fallacy. The origin genesis and cause of something are not the same thing.
If for example galileo was the first person to write that the Earth moved it didn't suddenly begin moving when he stated those words but was always moving. That fact does not nullify Galileo's contribution to scientific literature does it? Even if
a) The movement of the earth ddidn't begin when galileo first wrote about it
and
b) That other prescriptive scientific elements referred to by Galileo are not Laws of Physics.Quite simply, Monty has previously made reference to both Satan, sodomy and Sodom and Gomorrah in his arguments against gay marriage. I am arguing that we don't, nor should we base our laws on the Mosaic commandments found in the Bible. What do you think?
I think if custom and historic writings in the Mosaic Law influenced the development of society culminating in a current Law against Murder or theft then that is a worthwhile thing which can trace its base to Mosaic Law.There is no law that I can find requiring anyone to swear on the Bible (although I'm willing to be corrected). The traditional use of the Bible doesn't make it "enshrined" in any law.
In Ireland Anyone professing to believe in the Bible is required to swear on the Bible when an oath is required unless they find swearing religiously offensive.
As for the US- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5567187.ece
OK, I don't think I was specific enough in my last post. When referring to the natural law argument I mean this:
Natural-law argument
But that is a different argument for the existence of God nothing to do with natural law being a basis for the law of the land today which is what we were discussing.
Quite clearly there may be secular natural law as well as that for believers but you have also been quite clear in your reference to written law i.e. what i have called "positive law"
and the problems associated with relying on positiver law alone.I'm not disputing that there are certain moral codes that could be considered natural laws, a prohibition against murder for example. I don't see any evidence that requires this to be externally imposed by a deity though. These are merely human conventions developed as a consequence of living as a society.
That is your opinion. I would differ but the point isnt about the origin or cause of natural law but about natural law as an overarching guide to the spirit of modern law as opposed to positive law i.e. the written word taken literally ( which ironically is what many atheists accuse Bible thumpers of doing)The idea that natural laws exist because God intended them that way is an is-ought problem, a naturalistic fallacy.
It is also a red herring and a straw man since I didn't claim god did it only that nature whether god or something spiritual or something universal has a unwritten overarching input on our laws and the spirit of our laws.As well as that I don't see any basis for arguing against homosexuality using natural law.
Where did i do that. I may have argued it is not normal and i mean "normal" in the mathematical sense i.e. what most of the population do.I accept that you may not be arguing down this line and if so I apologise in advance.
I'm not but I do think we should make laws for the masses and not be hung up on making special cases of every minor group awarding them rights. For example travellers rightsd to their own language or unionists right to Ulster Scots both of which are English.
...
sorry Ill continue the rest later I hope.0 -
why go to the expense of a referendum if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is allowable under the Constitution.
By that logic why hold a referendum on any matter ? As for expense it can easily be held on the same day as an election. Having said that, I can see why the normalise sodomy marriage and adoption agenda brigade are desperate to avoid a democratic referendum at all costs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again with the hysteria over this issue. What makes homosexual acts more "vile" than any other sin?
You sure it isn't anything to do with personal issues on the matter?
Again you're left having to resort to ad hominem. You've made several attempts to invent my emotional state and invent personal issues. I particularly enjoy the opportunity to remind everyone what the sophistry of Satan combined with the lust of Sodomy. This is a Christian forum, and the topic is "gay" "marriage". Satan and Sodomy are particularly relevant, and I refuse to condone the sin of sodomy by dressing it up in any other cosy term.0 -
I would have thought that if marriage is that sacred an institution, and the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then the Church would ask prospective spouses to undergo some form of testing to ensure that children are at least possible. Obviously, that kind of testing wasn't around 2000 years ago, but it is today. I'm not expecting couples to be admitted to hospital for days on end, but aren't there simple enough tests that can at least check the basics?
And what's your stance on couples marrying when they know they are infertile, or have decided they don't want children and have taken the medical steps necessary not to procreate. Why do you think they should be allowed to be married?
The bible is quite clear that God plan involves union is between man and women, it does not bar them from marrying if they cannot have children through no fault of their own. Your strawman is . . . straw.0 -
In my world, they would have the right to be assessed as prospective adoptive parents exactly the same way as a same-sex couple would be. The child would then go to the couple who would provide the best environment for the child, who would nurture and love the child and basically help them grow into the best human being possible. If that's the heterosexual couple, then I'll fully support that, but the same-sex couple shouldn't be denied simply because of their sexual orientation.
My understanding of your reasoning is that they should be denied because they are abnormal and dysfunctional. Unless you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were infertile?
You're back to wanting to build marriage and child rearing around the lust for sodomy and women lying with women. God forbids this. Don't expect any true Christian to condone these sins.0 -
Just going to pop in again to correct your assumption:A separate question is that of society believes the parents should be of different sex and that marriage means two heterosexual people why should everyone have to change that to accommodate those who want to call marriage something else?Irish Times Feb 09' wrote:A NATIONAL poll commissioned by a group campaigning for gay marriage has found that 62 per cent of respondents would vote Yes in a referendum to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples.Irish Times Sept 10' wrote:The Government has rejected gay marriage on the basis that a referendum to allow it would be divisive and unlikely to be approved by the electorate. Not according to this poll. It shows some 67 per cent of people feel gay couples should be allowed to marry.
Again, this majority extends across most age groups (with the exception of over-65s, who are divided on the issue). Even a large majority of Catholics (66 per cent) support the idea.The Journal March 11' wrote:ALMOST THREE-QUARTERS of people in Ireland are in favour of gay marriage according to a new poll published today.
A Sunday Times/Red C poll found that 73 per cent of people agree that gay couples should be allowed to marry with 53 per cent of those agreeing strongly with the idea.
Society disagrees quite strongly with your opinions, and the level of disagreement is growing year on year, you can hold them if you want but don't pretend you're in the majority in doing so. But Your point begs another question, can the majority deny the minority basic rights entirely because such rights make them uncomfortable, or because they disagree on no real grounds?
Monty.: Why should the law be based on your belief system? What about all the people who don't follow it? What about all the people who have civil marriages, not church ones, they are not married in they eyes of the lord no? Why do you care about the definition of civil marriage when it is a separate entity to religious marriage?0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »Just going to pop in again to correct your assumption:
Society disagrees quite strongly with your opinions, and the level of disagreement is growing year on year, you can hold them if you want but don't pretend you're in the majority in doing so.
It is the law of the land. Opinion polls have no basis in law. If there is a Referendum and most people vote to change the constitution then it will change. Until such a vote is made no opinion poll has any binding authority in law. It would be like an EU group saying that most people in Ireland want the Lisbon Treaty so therefore it is our law. But the fact is it isn't our law until a constitutional Referendum ( should that be necessary) says such a law is acceptable.But Your point begs another question, can the majority deny the minority basic rights entirely because such rights make them uncomfortable, or because they disagree on no real grounds?
Yes they can and in fact they did for example with women's right to vote votes and slavery. those things were wrong by todays standards but I don't argue that society is any more "progressed" whether we have slavery or even have laws. the point is the law said slavery was acceptable so what made it unacceptable. People at the time believed it to be "wrong" but "wrong" according to what? Obviously not to either the law since the law said it was acceptable nor to the majority since the majority in some cases may well have been slaves or people who could not vote.
And the "majority rule" is a red herring which may be used by those who believe they have a shot at a majority decision and can have a tyrrany of the voting majority.
A Republic is a democracy regulated by law so some laws do indeed mitigate against the tyranny of the majority. but if they do so they do so by appealing to a natural law which over-rules what most people might want.Monty.: Why should the law be based on your belief system?
Actually it is the well known gay Senator Norris' belief system as well!What about all the people who don't follow it? What about all the people who have civil marriages, not church ones, they are not married in they eyes of the lord no?
Apparently not. marriage as a sacrament is not entered into by them. civil partnership s are. There is a theological argument that a sacramental Marriage may exist however even in the absence of a legal civil marriage.Why do you care about the definition of civil marriage when it is a separate entity to religious marriage?
The point has been made that is is a legal arrangement and not a sacrament of marriage at all.
But the answer is quite simple. Atheistic regimes were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and far outstripped any deaths caused by Christian regimes.
A Christian might care about growing atheistic movements just as they were about naziism or communist dictators or Islamofascists which are and have different philosophical beliefs.0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »Why should the law be based on your belief system? What about all the people who don't follow it?
Why should it be based on yours ? What about all the people who don't follow your beliefs ? Why no referendum ?wonderfulname wrote: »What about all the people who have civil marriages, not church ones, they are not married in they eyes of the lord no? Why do you care about the definition of civil marriage when it is a separate entity to religious marriage?
Why should a state be involve in marriage ceremonies of any type ? Civil partnerships could offer all the same legal rights. Why no referendum ?0 -
You claimed to speak for societies beliefs, you asked the question why the law should be changed to suit the minority when the majority disagree, I showed they don't, now you change tact because you can't simply admit you are wrong. Opinion polls are a good basis for judging what should be brought in to law or go to referendum, which, by the way, it is wrong to just assume gay marriage would need to, there are strong indications it would not.It is the law of the land. Opinion polls have no basis in law. If there is a Referendum and most people vote to change the constitution then it will change. Until such a vote is made no opinion poll has any binding authority in law. It would be like an EU group saying that most people in Ireland want the Lisbon Treaty so therefore it is our law. But the fact is it isn't our law until a constitutional Referendum ( should that be necessary) says such a law is acceptable.
Funny how you can separate society and it's laws when it suits you, I may have used the word "can", but I believe the underlying point was pretty bloody obvious, is it morally right to hold people back because it fits your world view to do so?Yes they can and in fact they did for example with women's right to vote votes and slavery. those things were wrong by todays standards but I don't argue that society is any more "progressed" whether we have slavery or even have laws. the point is the law said slavery was acceptable so what made it unacceptable. People at the time believed it to be "wrong" but "wrong" according to what? Obviously not to either the law since the law said it was acceptable nor to the majority since the majority in some cases may well have been slaves or people who could not vote.
It is not his belief that he should not be allowed marry, yes they are both Christians, but they do not follow the exact same beliefs, and why, might I ask, is that point relevant? Woo a gay is Christian, that must mean we're right?Actually it is the well known gay Senator Norris' belief system as well!
There is a difference between atheist and secular, secular refers not endorsing any one belief or lack thereof, which is the way the state has been thankfully heading for a good while now, on your point about the deaths caused by athiestic regimes (which I would love for you to quantify by the way):But the answer is quite simple. Atheistic regimes were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and far outstripped any deaths caused by Christian regimes.
A Christian might care about growing atheistic movements just as they were about naziism or communist dictators or Islamofascists which are and have different philosophical beliefs.
The simple fact is religion, or lack thereof, is not to blame for genocide, individuals are, do you actually believe all you said there? And by the way gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, there are Christian sects that publicly support the idea, again, don't claim to speak for anyone more than yourself.Hitler wrote:I say: My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.0 -
I didn't say it should, lets try spell it out for you, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry another guy, don't allow gay marriage in your church, don't recognise it within your religion, your household, whatever, but don't presume to tell others that they cannot have such a right just because you personally disagree with it. I am not a religious person, I would never for one second think it right that you would be prevented from practising your religion merely because I disagree with it, why is this any different?Why should it be based on yours ? What about all the people who don't follow your beliefs ? Why no referendum ?
Do you have any idea what civil marriage actually is? It's not a ceremony it is a legal agreement that affords a multitude of rights, of course this is the states area, again there is a difference between civil and religious marriage which you fail to grasp, if civil partnership were to have all the same rights it would be marriage, don't get hung up on a word, it is not marriage in the sense that the church means.Why should a state be involve in marriage ceremonies of any type ? Civil partnerships could offer all the same legal rights. Why no referendum ?
Why do you keep asking why no referendum and what do you mean? Are you asking why one may not be necessary, or why one has not been held?0 -
wonderfulname wrote: »I didn't say it should, lets try spell it out for you, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry another guy, don't allow gay marriage in your church, don't recognise it within your religion, your household, whatever, but don't presume to tell others that they cannot have such a right just because you personally disagree with it. I am not a religious person, I would never for one second think it right that you would be prevented from practising your religion merely because I disagree with it, why is this any different?
You want me to condone the attempted normalisation of sodomy by building "marriage" around it and child adoption. I don't think so.
Why is abortion ilegal ? Why should anyone who feels like one be prevented from it ?wonderfulname wrote: »If civil partnership were to have all the same rights it would be marriage, don't get hung up on a word, it is not marriage in the sense that the church means.
Exactly, so why insist on calling it marriage ? Why is the state even involved in such a ceremony ?
There's no state baptism, state confirmation, etc.wonderfulname wrote: »Why do you keep asking why no referendum and what do you mean? Are you asking why one may not be necessary, or why one has not been held?
Why is one being avoided, why is the choice not being put to the people ?0 -
Advertisement
-
You really need to actually meet some gay people. Get over the sodomy thing, sodomy is an act, one enjoyed by many married heterosexuals I'll have you know, generally not lesbians, and certainly not all gay men, this is not about a sexual act, says a lot about what goes on in your head that all you can think about is where men put their wang.You want me to condone the attempted normalisation of sodomy by building "marriage" around it and child adoption. I don't think so.
Because there are questions as to the nature of the foetus and whether someone has the right to prevent a guaranteed life, kind of like how I have questions as to why you think you have the right to limit what someone else can do with their lives, the difference between abortion and gay marriage is that it is debatable that abortion causes harm, gay marriage hurts nobody and benefits many.Why is abortion ilegal ? Why should anyone who feels like one be prevented from it ?
Can you read? Civil marriage is different to religious marriage, why do you want the word changed to suit your limited understanding of both language and law? Should we force people of other religions to take on a different word for marriage because it's not your marriage?Exactly, so why insist on calling it marriage ? Why is the state even involved in such a ceremony ?
Yet again, a marriage is a formal recognition of a union between two people, when you add the prefix catholic it means a recognition of a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God, if you instead add the prefix civil it means a legal recognition of a union between two adults.There's no state baptism, state confirmation, etc.
I have seen a number of answers to this question on thread, why are you asking me and what answer do you want to hear? Evidently there is one.Why is one being avoided, why is the choice not being put to the people ?
All you have shown in that post is that you have misunderstood the definitions of a few words, and you have yet to explain why you should get to tell others what to do with their lives.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement