Taurus,
[blockquote]Religion originally established the concept marriage.[/blockquote]
I don't think that is at all obvious. I suspect marriage originated in some very non-Judeo-Christian belief systems... I could be mistaken, but didn't marriage already exist at the beginning of the historical record? If so, there's little evidence either way that marriage was founded by religion, polytheist or not.
Assuming religion did establish marriage, however, that's only reinforces the point. If religion established marriage, there ought to be no laws discriminating based on marital status. Nobody can demand that the Church recognize gay marriage, or that the Church not discommunicate those who are married in a civil ceremony. Most liberals merely wish for the State to recognize gay marriage. Suggesting that married gay couples (whether by civil ceremony or through an imaginary Church of Mammals) damage society in a way that unmarried gay couples don't is really a pathetic argument.
[blockquote]life begins at conception blah blah[/blockquote]
If you'd read relevant parts of Roe vs Wade, you'd see that justice Blackmun goes into a detailed discussion of the "quickening" after which an unborn child exhibits the movement you seem so concerned about. He also discusses the history of Christian and Greek treatment of abortion, including a history of sexist discrimination against unborn females. You're right, further discussion will probably get the thread locked. I'd just urge everyone who hasn't read Part VI of Roe v. Wade to do so.
TRH,
Strict adherence to constitutional limits is my preference as well, but you can't just wish away the 14th Amendment or gut it by adopting a naive interpretation.
[blockquote] The Senate sponsor of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), said the Amendment would force the states to respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;... the right to keep and bear arms...." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, 2765 (23 May 1866)[/blockquote](Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed, p. 112)
Furthermore, your position that the BoR is composed of restrictions only on the Federal government does not square with the rather well-accepted and well-supported idea that most if not all of the first eight amendments are enumerated fundamental rights.
As for Roe v. Wade, Section 6 is what I'm talking about. There isn't much reasoning in there. It's mostly historical information.
Okay, apparently I've stumbled upon a Christian apologist who knows something about biology. Explain this: is the "life" in the nucleus of the skin cell, the mRNA of the egg, or is it floating around in the egg's cytoplasm? It's the skin cell's DNA that makes the egg viable, even though the egg hasn't been fertilized, agreed? Doesn't that confer special status to the skin cell? Or maybe "life" is floating through the ether and the Church can declare this cell "alive", some other one "dead". Some system.
Marriage is defined as single man and single wife in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but not elsewhere. Mid-east societies have a long tradition of polyamorous marriage. Sparta is certainly a rather isolated case, but it apparently recognized homosexual relationships in a way similar to heterosexual relationships. There are lots of cultures that haven't abided by the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage.
[blockquote]Religion originally established the concept marriage.[/blockquote]
I don't think that is at all obvious. I suspect marriage originated in some very non-Judeo-Christian belief systems... I could be mistaken, but didn't marriage already exist at the beginning of the historical record? If so, there's little evidence either way that marriage was founded by religion, polytheist or not.
Assuming religion did establish marriage, however, that's only reinforces the point. If religion established marriage, there ought to be no laws discriminating based on marital status. Nobody can demand that the Church recognize gay marriage, or that the Church not discommunicate those who are married in a civil ceremony. Most liberals merely wish for the State to recognize gay marriage. Suggesting that married gay couples (whether by civil ceremony or through an imaginary Church of Mammals) damage society in a way that unmarried gay couples don't is really a pathetic argument.
[blockquote]life begins at conception blah blah[/blockquote]
If you'd read relevant parts of Roe vs Wade, you'd see that justice Blackmun goes into a detailed discussion of the "quickening" after which an unborn child exhibits the movement you seem so concerned about. He also discusses the history of Christian and Greek treatment of abortion, including a history of sexist discrimination against unborn females. You're right, further discussion will probably get the thread locked. I'd just urge everyone who hasn't read Part VI of Roe v. Wade to do so.
TRH,
Strict adherence to constitutional limits is my preference as well, but you can't just wish away the 14th Amendment or gut it by adopting a naive interpretation.
[blockquote] The Senate sponsor of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), said the Amendment would force the states to respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;... the right to keep and bear arms...." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, 2765 (23 May 1866)[/blockquote](Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed, p. 112)
Furthermore, your position that the BoR is composed of restrictions only on the Federal government does not square with the rather well-accepted and well-supported idea that most if not all of the first eight amendments are enumerated fundamental rights.
As for Roe v. Wade, Section 6 is what I'm talking about. There isn't much reasoning in there. It's mostly historical information.
Okay, apparently I've stumbled upon a Christian apologist who knows something about biology. Explain this: is the "life" in the nucleus of the skin cell, the mRNA of the egg, or is it floating around in the egg's cytoplasm? It's the skin cell's DNA that makes the egg viable, even though the egg hasn't been fertilized, agreed? Doesn't that confer special status to the skin cell? Or maybe "life" is floating through the ether and the Church can declare this cell "alive", some other one "dead". Some system.
Marriage is defined as single man and single wife in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but not elsewhere. Mid-east societies have a long tradition of polyamorous marriage. Sparta is certainly a rather isolated case, but it apparently recognized homosexual relationships in a way similar to heterosexual relationships. There are lots of cultures that haven't abided by the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage.
