Who are We?

And that I can agree with. You have the right to think it is sad that something that you find morally objectionable is legal. That doesn't mean however that the law should abide by your morals. You may think it is immoral for a gay couple to be gay, much less to get married. However, the law guarantees equal rights for all, and if heterosexual couples have the right to get married, homosexual couples should have the same right.

Yes, many of our societal laws are the same as some common sense religious laws ... such as murder being illegal. But for the most part , many of the not-so-common sense religious laws have no business in being used as our societal laws and nobody would even think of using them, such as locking women up when they are on their period. What about honor thy father and mother? Should we lock up all the people that break this law daily, or make it illegal to stick your mom or pop in an old folks home?

Religion is not the basis of our society or our country. This country was based on freedom, not on religion. For those that want to claim that the founding fathers wanted us to be religious, here are some quotes from Jefferson. There are many many more, these are only some of my favorites, the first one is the one I absolutely love:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

 

Rather than just rely on Jefferson, some of whose comments are very strongly anti-religion and may be dismissed as biased by some, see here:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm

for a number of other quotes by founding fathers, a number of presidents, etc.

 

Actually I don't think it immoral to be gay or to act on being gay. My disagreement with gay marriage is tradition. I fully support civil unions with the full legal benefits of marriage. I am very much against a Constitutional amendment. I think it should be left up to the various states to decide.

lyo

 

I think America's identity is the integration of various people and their cultures into a harmonious society. Part of creating a harmonious society includes people learning a single language so that they can work together and better themeselves and the country. Laws also help to create a harmonious society.

I think our Core Values center around freedom and the pursuit of happiness. I see our core values reflected in the preamble to the Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

I agree...in order to have a harmonious society in which we can communicate effectively for Freedom and pursuit of happiness we must have a common language which binds us!

I do wish however that there were not so many choices these days when filling out census or other kinds of forms regarding background such as "Hispanic" or "Arab American" or whatever...I think once one becomes an American while they should preserve their heritage they should also proclaim themselves for what they now are -- an American!

 

This is a nice thought, but, in reality, these monikers are necessary so that businesses and others can promote/justify things such as minority hiring "goals," affirmative action programs, etc.

Maybe some day we won't have to track these demographics anymore, but I think that day is a long way off. (On a somewhat related note, here's an amazing statistic: 45% of NCAA Division I-A football players are black, but as of yesterday only 1.2% of Division I-A coaches are black. Yikes! [V])

 

Then we should have civil unions for all, and make marriage a strictly religious ceremony, done in a church. That makes it the churches decision to wed gays or to not do it.

Marianne

 

Gammonbabe: re immigrants except for Indians (Native Americans?)--if theory is in fact true, aren't they considered to have migrated from Asia via the land bridge that they think the Bering Strait and the Aleutian chain used to be? If so, we are all immigrants, parsed by a matter of degree.

I agree with you about civil union/marriage. It is a semantic distinction that is entwined with religious decisions because so much common law had its basis in religious law. Remember after the French Revolution (and the Russian) when to be viewed as married by the state one had to have a civil ceremony (and for a time in both places, religious ones were frowned on to the degree that for a while they were dangerous to seek)? Religious marriages by recognized churches should be acknowldeged as marriages, and a civil option should be available to everyone. Some may say that is separate but equal, therefore unacceptable, but the state cannot dictate to churches any more than churches can dictate to the state. Anyone who wishes a religious ceremony would have to take it up with their individual church.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Sounds good to me.

lyo

 

It is the way it is in Germany. Everyone who wishes to get "married" has to do this at a government office called the Standesamt. This is a strictly civil union, no church involvement at all, only the laws apply. Gay unions are legal in Germany, even divorce has been spelled out for gay couples. Once someone is joined legally, they have the option to get a religious ceremony performed where it is up the the particular church which rules to apply. When I got married my then husband was catholic, I was protestant, which meant we had to jump through some loops to be allowed to get married in a protestant church. However, this did not mean a thing legally, because we had already been married in a civil ceremony as is the law.

I don't understand why it seems to be impossible to get to that level here, it would solve so many problems.

Marianne

 

Islamic marriages have their own rules and regulations as well. There is the marriage ceremony which is usually performed very privately by a sheik or imam and then there is the legal registration of the marriage itself. In some muslim countries in order to have the entitlements of marriage, the marriage must be registered with the courts. Additionally, most islamic marriages will have what is very similar to a prenuptial agreement where the husband and wife have the opportunity to impose any stipulations or conditions as well as a dowry for the bride...and also some may have conditions to be met in the event of a divorce.

 

It's a free country, let gays marry if they want to. It really peeves me that the holy rollers insist this is the downfall of mankind and it must be stopped at any cost. Heteros haven't made a good example of "marriage" anyways, with such high divorce rates, etc. We have real issues to deal with... I don't understand why so much time is being wasted on this... If it's what they want to do, so be it, it's not hurting anyone!

The intolerant religious zealots need to go.

 

Then why not take it a step further and allow open polygamy? Who does that hurt? Nobody, but we still put people in jail for it. Societal standards are determined by the general beliefs of that particular society. Just because another society belives something is ok doesn't necessarily mean all other societies have to conform. Some societies (Holland for example) feel regulated prostitution is ok and harmless. Would you allow that in our society? No, because most people in our society find it to be morally unacceptable. It's not a religious thing but personal morals. Personal feelings of right and wrong. That's not to say society can't change. Society used to feel gambling was socially immoral and people who gambled where seedy. Now you can buy a lottery ticket at the grocery store or watch high stakes poker games on TV.
So maybe someday my wife will be able to take on another husband or two. I could sure use a break from the chores.

 

hmmmm...sounds like the most current messages are fully in line with what Huntington challenges in regards to America's changing identity and core values....

 

Please...show me where polygamy states the woman can take another husband! Curious minds want to know!


[/quote]
Then why not take it a step further and allow open polygamy? Who does that hurt? Nobody, but we still put people in jail for it. Societal standards are determined by the general beliefs of that particular society. Just because another society belives something is ok doesn't necessarily mean all other societies have to conform. Some societies (Holland for example) feel regulated prostitution is ok and harmless. Would you allow that in our society? No, because most people in our society find it to be morally unacceptable. It's not a religious thing but personal morals. Personal feelings of right and wrong. That's not to say society can't change. Society used to feel gambling was socially immoral and people who gambled where seedy. Now you can buy a lottery ticket at the grocery store or watch high stakes poker games on TV.
So maybe someday my wife will be able to take on another husband or two. I could sure use a break from the chores.
[/quote]

 

From Merriam Webster
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=polygamy&x=15&y=10

Or call it Bigamy if you like
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=bigamy

Either way I am just pointing out there are many things that "don't hurt anyone" that socially deems unacceptable behavior.

 

At the risk of sounding grotesquely bigoted, does the recent flow of the topic sound something like a reverse of the concept of "victimless crime"?

Yes, social mores can and do change all the time. I don't know if how we publically talk about things changes what people actually think about them at a gut level. Particularly when we get caught in the weeds of terminology that often masks the issue being discussed.

For instance, drug companies are free to advertise EDS remedies and Jasmine pills during family hour shows, and they can be viewed as a product like any other. But I always feel as if there's a bit of contribution to the general coarsening of common life when I'm sitting there with my kids and they come on. The ads are not obscene in any way, are psychologically suggestive in imagery but not blatant, but is that what I want to be thinking about right then? Maybe I could become a victim and be "free from" that?

Maybe it is the fundamental argument over privacy--I think sexuality is a private issue. It is my gay friends' or relatives' choice whether or not to discuss their sexuality with me, just as it is my straight friends' choice to do so. And is it my choice to be free from immersion in public sexuality if I choose, or does that label me as someone who is against "freedom"?

A troubling (to me) use of semantics in a related field was when people were raising awareness of children with AIDS and using the phrse "innocent victims". There was a huge backlash by some AIDS activists that the use of the term "innocent" negatively judged gay patients. The argument ran that no one sought the disease, and that's surely true. No one deserves a death like that.

But I also know from my life and travels that the open promotion and celebration of totally free sexuality (straight and gay) has created a culture slot where anyone who chooses can endanger themselves in a variety of ways. Any man or woman who wishes to play can go, in any major city, and on the spur of a moment choose almost any encounter with any stranger, and risk abuse and murder as well as a variety of diseases. I remember thinking at the time of the controversy, how does a hemophiliac child who will die from an infected transfusion equate to someone who shoots heroin or frequents pickup bars (of any sexual orientation)? Both will suffer equally, and both deserve equal treatment and care, but are both semantically (and eventually conceptually, because language is the first actualization of concept) equally "innocent victims"?

That is why I note the "separate but equal" argument used by some gay marriage activists who feel that civil unions are not enough. Do we blur the line between church and state in reverse to call what is legally recognized in law as a union "marriage", a religious term?

This may be what's unnerving some folks in the "values" discussion. I don't see it as a values discussion, but my concerns over the issue as it unfolds is the seeming fact that many of the same people who advocate total "separation of church and state" are the same people advocating that anything less than "marriage" is discrimination.

And where does that leave us in the blurring lines of semantics when this issue has been settled and we move on? Will everything be anything, and therefore possibly nothing?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

 

Barbara,

You raise some excellent points. I do think that how we talk about things as well as how issues are presented on tv do impact ultimately on what we think and believe and therefore accept. As one who has traveled extensively, it is still amazing what the perception of the typical American is coming from what someone who has never been to the STates but based on what one sees or reads.

 

Of course I would legalize prostitution. One of the reasons the rate of sex crimes is so much lower in countries like Germany and Holland is the fact that prostitution is legal. In addition, legalizing prostitution makes it safer, part of it is that prostitutes must have regular health exams keeping the rate of diseases lower. Prostitutes also pay taxes when it is leglize, bringing in a nice chunk of change for the government. And while legalization may not get rid of pimps, it makes them much less successful. Prostitution being illegal does not get rid of it, it just makes it more dangerous and adds more crime to a nation already riddled with real crime.

But for some reason sex is a bad thing in America. Just last week our government cut funding for college education , while on the same day raising the funding for abstinence education. Go figure.

Marianne

 

Welcome to: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/images/04new_map.jpg

and

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-mapdumb****istan.htm