Mitch Evans stated on another thread:
“Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that’s another topic for another time…”
So I figured, let’s make this another time. Sure there’s an easy answer for the question of divorce. There’s always an easy answer for everything; that’s why they’re so attractive.
The easy answer for divorce is the same answer for gay marriage: ban it. Make it illegal. You want a divorce? Not in our country, Sunny Jim. Save the children. Save the family. Ban divorce.
So many people claim that being opposed to gay marriage has nothing, no NOTHING to do with the same type of prejudice that once prohibited marriage between blacks and whites or Jew and Catholic. Heavens no. It has to do with concern over saving marriage itself, even though not one shred of evidence has been produced indicating that gay marriage would somehow threaten straight marriage.
There’s the simple answer, then. Ban divorce. Put it on the voting referendums of every single state that banned gay marriage, watch it go down and flames, and expose them for the screaming hypocrites that they are.
Anybody else have simple answers they’d care to float about for difficult problems? War? Poverty? Terrorism?
PAD
• 
Luigi Novi:
“We
>>”We
Powell Pugh spewed:
“Gays glomming onto the Civil Rights fight is philosophically no different than what the “old Confederacy” land owners did. Let the blacks do all the hard work, right?”
So now you’re whining that Gays don’t deserve equal rights AND thet they are equivalent to slave owners?
Goddman you are stupid…
Personally, I’m sick of people telling me that, by not fighting against something, I’m allowing it to happen. And by allowing it, I’m endorsing it. In order to endorse something, you have to openly support it. I didn’t vote for Bush. I don’t think he should be president. But by not working tirelessly to have him removed from office, I’m technically “allowing” him to continue to be President. No way does that mean I endorse him.
>>”We
>>>”We
Are you saying that putting something into law is not endorsing it?
Correct. There is nothing in the law that prevents you from sawing off your own leg with a butter knife. This is not, however, something that any legal body has endorsed as a good idea. (Ditto smoking 4 packs a day, just to bring up things people might actually be more likely to do.)
So a 10 Commandments plaque in Courts of Law, school prayer, etc. etc. isn’t an endorsement of the Christian religion???? Good news …
This, however, is misreading the point.
Saying “a law exists permitting X” is very different from a courthouse display. When a governmental body, which ostensibly is supposed to interpret the law neutrally and fairly without regard to one belief over another, has a public display which is in clear support of one religion over another, that *is* an endorsement.
The more accurate parallel would be to say that the legal system permits you to display the Ten Commandments in your home, in your car, tattooed on your forehead, etc., and that that’s not endorsing anything — you could do those and someone else could do the same thing for a particular passage from the Koran. (Or the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, for all that it matters.)
That’s not the same thing as having the governmental body *itself* choose to take part in it.
TWL
Tim uses a disturbing phrase…”a law exists permitting X”
Laws are supposed to only be statements that restrict freedom. Judicial findings and rulings are interpretations of laws that define the limits of those restrictions. It does seem like today, there are so many prohibitions and restrictions on freedom, that it would take less time to state all the acts that are legal, as opposed to those that are illegal.
A couple of questions:
There are at least three versions of the 10 commandments: Jewish, Catholic, & at least 1 Protestant (For side by side comparisons http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm).This, of course, doesn’t take into account thousands of ytears of translations, re-writes & re-interpetations.
If posting the Commandments in a public building, which of the 3 do you post? And by choosing 1 how are you not favoring that religion over not only the other 2, but also over religions that don’t use the 10 Commandments?
*****************
The Jewish & Protestant versions of Commandment 2 says no graven images of anything in heaven, above, on or below the earth, etc. etc..
If you’re not Catholic, and you make a statue of the 10 Commandments, aren’t you violating the 2nd Commandment?
*************
If your display of the 10 Commandments is to tell others they should live by them, and you’re violating 1 of them to do so, aren’t you a hypocrate of the “do as I say, not as I do” variety?
***************
Lastly (for now), as for the “U.S. laws are based on the 10 Commandments claim, Thomas Jefferson wrote (in summary) that U.S. laws are based on British common law, which pre-date Christianity’s arrival in England.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0303-30.htm
Tim uses a disturbing phrase…”a law exists permitting X”
Laws are supposed to only be statements that restrict freedom.
A valid point — and my thanks for the correction. I think you can make the same argument using “there is no law preventing X” instead, and you’re absolutely right that I should’ve gone that route instead.
TWL
There are at least three versions of the 10 commandments: Jewish, Catholic, & at least 1 Protestant (For side by side comparisons http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm).This, of course, doesn’t take into account thousands of ytears of translations, re-writes & re-interpetations.
Let me state first my view on this matter: I don’t think posting the 10 commandments is a threat to the separation of church and state, but neither should it be a rallying call for conservatives. In my opinion, places where it has been historically present for a very long time, including at the Supreme Court Building itself, it is fine. But there is no need to post new versions (be it on the wall inside a courtroom or a stature outside). There is no question that the 10 commandments played a role in our history, but they are by no means the only source. (And since theologically I believe the 10 Commandments were given to show that we are sinners, not as rules to be kept to earn anything, posting them is really beside the point for anything other than true “museum” / “historical” purposes.) And asking them not to post it does not mean someone necessarily is anti-religion (though in some cases, they clearly are).
In regards to the ridiculous question asked: What most people do is go back to the original source. If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.
It is incorrect to say there have been re-writes of the original 10 commandments. There have been various interpretations, but that is human nature and has no bearing on the original document.
Iowa Jim
In regards to the ridiculous question asked: What most people do is go back to the original source. If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.
But they probably aren’t using the actual words from Exodus and Deuteronomy, being that the plaque (a hypothetical one in this case) is written in English – but that is neither here nor there. My real point is that in Hebrew the direct translation isn’t the ten commandments, rather the ten statements. I don’t want to get into the etemology of the language (which i can if you would like) but the reason in hebrew they are called the ten statements is becasue the first one is: “I am the lord your god who brought you out of egypt, out of the house of slavery.” That is not so much a commandment as it is a statement. They are understood as LAW since God is the one who said them, but gramatically, commandmants is incorrect.
Because there are different interpretations as to how the statements should be broken up, the government, by displaying one of those interpratations, is endorsing it by not using the others. Your ten commandments are different than my ten statements. Both equally binding (for religous purposes anyway), yet different non-the less, and we are both quoting from the bible.
Powell Pugh: Let me guess. You live somewhere where the population is like 90% white, right?
You guessed poorly. I grew up in DeKalb County, Georgia, which is 36% white, 54% black. During college I lived in Clarke County, which is 27% black. For the moment I’m living in adjoining Rockdale County, which is 76% white, 18% black (relatively close to the nationwide 75% white, 12% black).
If you quote the actual words from Exodus and/or Deuteronomy, then you are not endorsing any one religion.
Because, of course, EVERY religion uses Exodus and Deuteronomy as holy writ.
Um, wait a sec…
TWL
Because, of course, EVERY religion uses Exodus and Deuteronomy as holy writ.
Tim,
The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam. So in that context, it has nothing to do with other religions, but in choosing between the 3 mentioned (and/or the one left out).
Iowa Jim
Because there are different interpretations as to how the statements should be broken up, the government, by displaying one of those interpratations, is endorsing it by not using the others. Your ten commandments are different than my ten statements. Both equally binding (for religous purposes anyway), yet different non-the less, and we are both quoting from the bible.
Ok, I better undestand what you are saying. But you really are not changing anything if you quote directly (and that is what normally happens — there is a partial quote of each commandment). Yes, you may even break up the list differently, but the core idea is essentially the same. You still say murder and adultery are wrong, worshipping idols are wrong, etc. You never end up with any of these versions contradicting the other in what they are actually saying.
Iowa Jim
Uh, I was making a funny. Sorry to start a new derailment…
\\The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam\\
I didn’t include Islam because I didn’t know they follow the 10 Commandments. I thought they followed the Pillars Of Islam.
Can somebody clarify this for me?
Michael,
Good question. I do not think they follow them exactly the same, but they do treat the books of the law as being holy writings. Of course, I am not Muslim, so I would be curious to hear from someone who is.
Many protestant Christians believe the greatest commandments were to love God and to love others as said by Jesus in the Gospels. That is what I follow more than the 10 commandments. You could consider them the Pillars of Christianity.
Iowa Jim
The comment mentioned choosing between 3, and completely left out a 4th, Islam. So in that context, it has nothing to do with other religions, but in choosing between the 3 mentioned (and/or the one left out).
Even in context, the claim that posting the 10C’s “is not endorsing any one religion” is false. Simply saying “that’s not what I meant” doesn’t change the basic falsity of the statement, sorry.
TWL
You never end up with any of these versions contradicting the other in what they are actually saying
I don’t want to get into a theological debate, but the way the (for the sake fo clarity) commandments are broken up says a lot about subtle differences in the various religions philisophies.
If the protastant version is the one being displayed, then as Jew I’m being shown that the government is activily supporting this interpretation over mine. And that is an endorsement.
And as was was mentioned by TWL, there are religious people in this country whose religion is not based in the Bible. Displaying them at all can be percieved as an endorsement of the religions based in the bible. There are many layers to this.
It’s not the basic ideas mentioned in the commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, ect) rather the way they are being presented that cause an issue.
Even in context, the claim that posting the 10C’s “is not endorsing any one religion” is false. Simply saying “that’s not what I meant” doesn’t change the basic falsity of the statement, sorry.
Yes, I did not state my thought clearly. My statement was simply referring to a decision between the 3. But I can understand how that was not clear.
Iowa Jim
In my opinion, places where it has been historically present for a very long time, including at the Supreme Court Building itself, it is fine
However, iirc, they do display other, religious & non-religious statues, etc, which makes the Ten Commandments far more fitting.
Compared to, say, that judge in Georgia, who wanted the Ten Commandments only, and likely would never permit anything from other religions, ie, “those heathen bášŧárdš”. 🙂
We could always go the Judge Death route. Doesn’t get simpler than that.
\\We could always go the Judge Death route. Doesn’t get simpler than that.\\
Sounds good to me.
Fred Chamberlain:
“I honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to run for president. That doesn’t mean that I endorse their campaign. I have no interest in being the groom in a gay marriage ceremony, but I believe that people should have the right to choose to play that role if they desire to.”
I agree. And so does the law. Gays can have all the ceremonies they want to affirm their life choices. Endorsing them with governmental recognition and rewarding them for those choices is another matter entirely.
“The only effect that living next door to a gay, married couple only has on you is the effect you allow it to have on you and the focus that you give it. “
The focus given to it is that “marriage” becomes just another legal agreement that can be enacted by any two individuals, for any reason. The potential for two non-gay persons to enter into the marriage agreement for other business purposes is very high. What with the outrageous divorce rates, the reasons for many marriages are already suspect. So, opening up the possibility of increased perpetrations of fraud by granting special exceptions to unions that can’t possibly produce anything of value anyway (that is to say, children) is simply not worth the risk.
Bladestar:
“So now you’re whining that Gays don’t deserve equal rights AND thet they are equivalent to slave owners?”
Gays already have equal rights. What they don’t have is governmental endorsement to pretend to be something they are not: a genetically separate race. The argument that gays are deserving of special treatment based on the struggles of Black Americans is an incongruous analogy, and really nothing more than a greedy attempt to capitalize on pouring salt on old wounds.
Bobb:
“I didn’t vote for Bush. I don’t think he should be president. But by not working tirelessly to have him removed from office, I’m technically “allowing” him to continue to be President. No way does that mean I endorse him.”
I didn’t vote for BushJr, either. But this is another incongruous analogy. We *have* to pick a president every four years. Everyone will not vote for the guy who wins, and the way our system works, it’s possible the winner might not get the majority of the votes. Laws aren’t decided in the same manner, and most often end up with a bunch of compromise clauses tacked on. An election is a simple decision with no room for compromise. Although it could be argued that by paying taxes, you ARE endorsing him…
My greatest concern in this whole flap is that most people can’t seem to find their own footing to support their side of the argument. The Declaration of Independence has been referenced in this thread a couple of times. Unfortunately, to use the DoI, there are such troublesome hurdles in there as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which homosexuality pretty much flies in the face of; and “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” which generally tend to oppose homosexuality altogether.
The stated purpose of the DoI is to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” nation… which I doubt many Americans would oppose gays doing (but it’d sure be interesting to see how long a Gay Nation would last without being able to produce their own babies). As all analogies eventually break down, it’d be nice if people would stop stealing from documents like the DoI for their own greedy political ambitions.
“Marriage = One Man + One Woman” is such a self-evident formula that even the supposedly forward-thinking Founding Fathers didn’t write it down. Keep pushing those activist left-wing kook buttons, however, and watch the current American regime take care of that oversight.
So, one more time from the top:
Powell::
>>”The only effect that living next door to a gay, married couple only has on you is the effect you allow it to have on you and the focus that you give it. “
>The focus given to it is that “marriage” becomes just another legal agreement that can be enacted by any two individuals, for any reason.
Hat to break it to you, but it already is. There is no process in place, with the exception of when Americans marry citizens of other nations, to keep individuals from marrying for any reason. If you’re suggesting that the institution of marriage be made more difficult for all, I wouldn’t disagree with that.
>The potential for two non-gay persons to enter into the marriage agreement for other business purposes is very high.
The motivation for a couple’s marriage is really none of the government’s business, no more than my motivation for entering into any other legally binding contract.
>What with the outrageous divorce rates, the reasons for many marriages are already suspect.
True.
>So, opening up the possibility of increased perpetrations of fraud by granting special exceptions to unions that can’t possibly produce anything of value anyway (that is to say, children) is simply not worth the risk.
So don’t take part in a gay marriage. YThat is the only risk to you. As for those who are interested, your straw man doesn’t carry. Comparing the straight marriage rate to the marriage rate that the homosexual population may produce is impossible. On top of that, doesn’t the government receive a fee for every divorce filed as compensation? A healthy couple is typically stronger than an individual in the “product” you mention. If you are going back to the concept that babies are the only reason for marriage, than let’s dissolve all marriages since they are not necessary for the production of fetuses.
Powell:
>So, one more time from the top:
…second verse, same as the first…
I am late to this subject, and haven’t real all the postings yet, so this may have been mentioned. Has anyone out there seen the reports about the so called ‘Covenant Marriage’? As I understand it, Louisana and one other state (can’t recall which now) has passed some kind of legislation to make it much more difficult for a couple to get a divorce. They must first go through months of counciling before their marriage, and then should they ever want to get a divorce there is yet more mandatory counciling followed by a year wait before the procedings can go through. Not exactly banning divorce, but dámņ close, in my opinion.
I don’t know much about Covenant Marriage, but it sounds like the states are giving people the option of a more rigourous enforcement of their vows. So you would end up with a more binding contract.
While I see the point, I would think that the only people likely to sign up are couples who aren’t likely to get divorces anyway.
It sounds almost like an up-size meal at a fast food place:
So, would you like the regular marriage or the special covenant marriage?