Ender's Game

And here I was thinking this was a 5 page of discussion about anticipating the movie.

 

Free speech is defined in the First Amendment.

Exactly, it is -free- regardless of how moral people think it is to say what is said.

That's true. Free speech is a civl right (which is to say a right belonging to civilians and protected by the government. Here, the relevant part is "belonging to civilians" as opposed to "belonging to government'. Government creates law. Ipso facto, as government creates law and free speech is a right belonging to the people (rather than belonging to government), the law itself does not come under free speech protection.

Sure you can. To take another example, we define "forgery" in law as a specific form of altering a document. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to define theft as a bunny rabbbit (it'd be confusing to the common man), but it could be done.

I'm beginning to think your confusion is stemming from the fact that we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. A Democracy is defined as two wolves an a lamb voting on what's for dinner. In a democracy, you'd be right. But, we're a Republic. In a Republic, law protects minorities regardless of what the majority thinks is moral. That, again, is why we have a First Amendment which does not say "you have the right to say whatever you want to as long as we think saying it is moral".

 

Here we get to the core hypocrisy. I'm content with JJ_Max' church not performing gay marriage ceremonies as long as other churches' (and other non-churches') gay marriage ceremonies are legal and recognized by the government.

I'm content with it because I value diversity. Anyone who is not content with it does not value diversity.

The core hypocrisy is when people who do not value diversity complain that I don't.

 

Well, what if the government said you could designate someone as your 'government beneficiary' and they would get the same rights and money as married people do currently, would you be content?

 

Sigh. Democracy is not defined as two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. That may happen in a democracy, but it is not the definition of democracy. This is some sort of logic error on your part.

Secondly, you can not maintain law and define theft as bunny rabbits. It is impossible. When the law is not generally agreed to be just and moral, the social contract breaks down into anarchy or tyranny. It is annoying to argue with someone who uses an irrelevant fact to prove his argument. The social contract is a meta-construct of all civilizations; it doesn't matter if it's a monarchy, a democracy, a republic, or a communist state.

When you define a moral concept in law, you are saying that it is a true moral concept, that it does represent the views of the people, and that deviation from this concept is immoral. That does not mean that all morality is defined in law. But it does mean that the concepts that are defined are meant to be nearly universally acceptable and agreed upon (murder, theft, rape, and arson are all defined as immoral acts). Thus, since the moral concept of marriage is in dispute, it shouldn't be defined by law. And since the law only deals with financial matters regarding marriage, it doesn't have to.

Finally, one cannot objectively say that diversity, by its very nature, is valuable. That's just an opinion. The United States Government shouldn't be legislating diversity; it should reflect society and protect citizens, not engineer society and indoctrinate citizens.

 

We've tried "separate but equal" before. It didn't work.

 

Let me ask you this, from a refreshed POV this morning: It would seem that we are striking some modicum of agreement that there is (should be) a difference between the legal contract with the State and the religious ceremony performed by one's place of worship. I think we both see that there is a difference, though unfortunately the seeing of that difference is hard-won because the two things go by the same name.

Why are you so invested in the word itself, marriage?

I have my answer. I make a living as a federal court interpreter and translator for the USDOJ District of Puerto Rico, Federal Courthouse, San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is my business to translate and interpret everything that is said and written in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law. I know for a fact that a single misplaced preposition can alter the meaning of a law. I often do translation work for extradition packages for countries such as Columbia and Venezuela. The language I use must mean exactly what it needs to mean to keep the fidelity of the law intact.

There are countless laws that contain the word and answer to the concept of marriage, from the federal level down to the state and local. It is in countless reams of paper and files shelved in offices and storerooms across the land and across time. My personal need for the word to be marriage is so that whatever is won is not lost in the legal loopholes of wording that does not match up, and I see such loopholes spring out of the ether on a daily basis. That is my reason. I have no wish to sully or disrespect your religion. I don't even participate in that epistemology. I have no emotional drive or investment to want to hurt it.

 

In a writing forum, I use a figure of speech and you reply with "that is some sort of logic error on your part". Wow.

The law can define a term anyway the lawmakers want to. Why not?

You think the Bill of Rights is irrelevant to a discussion on law in the United States?! I'm speechless.

No, you don't. You say that anything that is illegal is immoral (and even that is questionable, for example, the Underground Railroad was illegal). That is not the same as saying that anything that is legal is moral or that anything that is immoral should be illegal. We don't, for example, make lying illegal.

Society, however, needs diversity in order to evolve/adapt/maintain itself. If, for example, we didn't have early adapters of every social advance we've ever had, we would have had none of those social advances. The US Government absolutely should be protecting diversity. The Bill of Rights rests on the premise that the US Government should protect diversity.

 

The thing is it doesn't really matter to me. Call it whatever you like. The time is coming where the majority or at least the vocal minority will make it legal everywhere. What can you do?

I just continue to live my life the right way and raise my children to stand firm in their faith. That's all.

There's a church near where I work and this church has multiple homosexual flags hanging from its outer walls. I never thought I'd see the day and it makes me sad every time I see it. But I'm not going to go rip the flags down and demand the church do this or that. Like I said, everyone will eventually answer for their own actions to God. I can only answer for how I conducted myself and lead my wife and children down the 'straight and narrow', no pun intended.

 

It made many southerners sad when blacks started attending their churches as well.
In the case of OSC, however, he is not just frowning and walking away, he is contributing money to support the fight to keep gay rights from being legalized.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Some churches may have twisted Christianity to further their racism, but it's not biblical. Just like some Muslims twist their own religion to kill people. Advertising a group on the basis of sexual orientation in the house of God, which asks us to be pure and good, is what makes me sad. Whenever people mix sex and church I find it sad. That is my own opinion and feelings. You are free not to agree, but don't equate me with racists.

 

Those racist churches thought their position was Biblical - the same way that those fighting gay marriage think their position is Biblical.

I do disagree. After all, sex is part of the human condition. I think churches can have a role to play in teaching about sex.

 

We will have to agree to disagree because I am firm in my position.

I would be happy to discuss the solid biblical teachings regarding homosexuality as sexual immorality, but not in this thread, which has already strayed way too far off topic.

Feel free to shoot me a PM if you wish.

 

And as long as you aren't trying to prevent anyone from having equality (such as gay marriage), I've got no problem with you being firm in your position. It takes all kinds. I am, after all, a Libertarian.

As for the faux "Biblical position' against homosexuality, I'll start another thread in a bit.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think I will be joining in on that conversation. Conversations about trying to discern the heart of God with people who are separated from God by their sin and are not Christians is a fruitless exercise. You may still PM me if you would like

 

I believe that by discussing God with you, I might be able to help you reconcile with him. He loves you and wants you to come to him. I hope that one day you will.

 

The term "is defined as" is not a figure of speech in a debate about definitions and laws. I've never heard some one say, "A forest is defined as a place where animals sometimes fart." This is exactly what you did.

There is a distinction between technically possible and practical and normal. Lawmakers are elected to make laws and decisions that their constituents consider just, moral, practical, and smart. Laws are meant to reflect the generally accepted moral absolutes of their people. I won't reiterate this point again; it is true.

Is the Third Amendment relevant?

Nope. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government can't violate. If the law in question doesn't violate any of the amendments, then the Bill is irrelevant to the discussion. You brought it up out of the blue to try to prove that laws don't represent generally agreed upon morals or logistic realities.

Not all things that are immoral are illegal. But all laws relating to legalities should be based on generally agreed morals. Anything made illegal should be immoral. I do not use the descriptive approach to law.

That's circular logic. You define advance as rewarding diversity and then say diversity is needed for advance. Actually, from a darwinistic point of view, for a society to evolve, it must allow ideas, points-of-view, and other diversities to die during competitions. That would select for the most powerful/adaptable element of society. But that's not I, or anyone else, wants.

Also, the Bill of Rights rests on the ideas of John Locke on natural rights -- not diversity. Our educational system is actually teaching this stuff? Diversity as a positive concept in this way is very new. Our founding fathers wanted to protect the rights of everyone not because that would increase diversity, but because they believed everyone had rights. These are very different ideas. One comes from a perspective of social engineering. The other comes from a perspective of lasting, non-abusive, government that protects the people from the twofold threats of tyranny and anarchy.

Edit: [MENTION=3885]Wreybies[/MENTION]

You are attached to the word marriage because you want the legal benefits of marriage? My previous solution, the lengthy excising of the word marriage from law, fixes this. This is perhaps the simplest solution to the most grievous of political rifts in America. Whenever such a debate comes up, I bring it up in the hopes of spreading the idea. And I can instantly tell who cares about equality, and who cares about turning the law against their opponent. It makes me sad how so few, on both sides, don't want a compromise; they want a victory.

 

I am a child of God, a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ. I study the Word of God and discern the heart and will of God.

You may accuse me of not being Christian if you wish, because I know that today's society has created so many false teachers. The things you say are very similar to the serpent in Genesis.

Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

You would try to prove to me that all the references in the Bible regarding homosexuality are misinterpreted or mistranslated and if you can remove the negative verses about homosexuality, then you are left with the Bible saying nothing about it. Then it is your next move to proclaim, "See? God approves of homosexual acts!"

The heart of God is through the context of His word. From Genesis to Revelation His perfect plan for our earthly relationships is laid out. God is the head of the man, the man is the head of his wife, and the children are under the parents. This is God's perfect heirarchy.

 

And I agree with this in principle. Believe me, as a gay person and as a linguist, the idea that a huge part of this argument arrises from a semantic debacle is an irony that is not lost on me. The problem is that I work within the halls of the legal system. I know its powers and its debilities. An expunging of the word in place of another that describes a legal contract for all, gay or str8, is impractical.

 

More evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. You call my views "darwinistic" AND "social engineering". Those terms are mutually contradictory.

 

I didn't. That is a fundamental misreading. I said the non-protection of diversity was darwinistic (as part of a digression). You are for diversity. How could you think I was talking about you?

Edit: I looked back. The exact phrasing was, "from a darwinistic point of view."

It was a digression related to policies that make society evolve.

 

So, when straight couples marry in church, it's not advertising their sexual orientation but when gay couples marry, it is? I'd love to hear how you can justify this position logically.

Also, you described members here as:

just because they disagree with your conservative interpretation of the Bible. There are numerous other Christian churches who are completely gay-friendly so you are misrepresenting Christianity with your statements.

What you said is offensive and judgemental. Who are you to judge any of us here as sinners just because we believe in equal rights for all? This is abusive JJ, and you should apologise as well as refrain from spreading fundamentalism on a multicultural forum.

 

He should refrain from expressing his view-point because the forum is... accepting of all view-points (multicultural)?

 

What is the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples? By definition the difference is in physical sexual attraction. Heterosexuals don't have a flag, we don't need one. The church was showing support for sin in order to garner more patrons. It's also no coincidence that this church is located near a prominent college.

It is sad that Catholics, along with so many other organized Christian denominations are choosing to follow societal pressures instead of standing firm in their faith.