|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 2:48:44 GMT -5
Wait an amazing thing.
Seems i am still waiting.....
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 26, 2007 6:33:33 GMT -5
Under which law?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 13:12:10 GMT -5
What do ya mean?
I am talking about these: I am still waiting for the list of places in the USA where animals are allowed to enter into legal contracts.
I am also awaiting the list of places in the USA where children are allowed to enter into legal contracts.
I am still awaiting the list of same sex couple only issues that would warrant the banning of same sex marriage.
I am still awaiting even one legit legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 26, 2007 18:35:58 GMT -5
What part of government by the people/ majority rules is not understood?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 26, 2007 18:37:03 GMT -5
The first two are ridiculous since animals and children do not possess informed consciences nor the rational abilities to enter into and sustain contracts.
For the third and fourth, I am asking you to which law you are referring? There have been (and are) several legal systems under which homosexuality is an offense.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 19:42:06 GMT -5
What part of government by the people/ majority rules is not understood? Since I have shown how neither of those apply in the United States... For the third and fourth, I am asking you to which law you are referring? There have been (and are) several legal systems under which homosexuality is an offense. And I still do not understand what you are asking. What same sex issues, that do not apply to opposite sex issues, would be legal grounds to ban same sex marriage? For example, I have heard that same sex couples spread STD's. Well, so do opposite sex couples. therefore this reason would also apply to opposite sex couples. When the same sex issue gets to the Federal level, the Feds are going to have to have a legitimate legal reason to allow the states that ban same sex marriage to keep said bans in place. Without a legitimate legal reason, the Federal Government will have no choice but to declare same sex marriages to be legal in all states. I am waiting for a legitimate legal reason because I have yet to hear one.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 26, 2007 19:59:48 GMT -5
And I still do not understand what you are asking. Well, you are asking for "legal grounds". "Legal grounds" are only "legal" within a specific code of law. So, for instance, if your question was asked of a canon lawyer, the answer would be simple, because Canon 1055, paragraph 1 defines matrimony: Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. Therefore any union between two members of the same gender could not be called a marriage since it fails to meet the requirement of being a covenant between a man and a woman. So as I've said since the beginning, it's not so much that a union is being banned -- it's that the term has a specific meaning. The fact that those unions fail to meet the requirements of marriage. Marriage is a sacramental union, and therefore is regulated by the Church, and not the State. If a case gets to the Federal level, my hope is that this reality is expressed very clearly.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 26, 2007 22:03:19 GMT -5
Well if they don't apply to the US you might want to inform Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 22:47:42 GMT -5
And I still do not understand what you are asking. Well, you are asking for "legal grounds". "Legal grounds" are only "legal" within a specific code of law. So, for instance, if your question was asked of a canon lawyer, the answer would be simple, because Canon 1055, paragraph 1 defines matrimony: Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. Therefore any union between two members of the same gender could not be called a marriage since it fails to meet the requirement of being a covenant between a man and a woman. So as I've said since the beginning, it's not so much that a union is being banned -- it's that the term has a specific meaning. The fact that those unions fail to meet the requirements of marriage. I am talking about the laws of the country, not any of the subjective theological laws of the hundreds of religions in the USA. The reality is that marriage is a legal contract. All the extra hoopla added by the various religious organizations is merely window dressing for the legal contract. The government has graciously allowed the various church leaders to sign the marriage license, provided they paid all the legal fees and have met all the requirements set by their local government, thus making the contract legally binding.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 22:49:55 GMT -5
Well if they don't apply to the US you might want to inform Congress. The majority of the people did not want seat belt laws. The majority of the people do not want abortions to be legal. The majority of the people want the ten commandments presented on government property. Majority rules is not legal grounds.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 26, 2007 23:18:32 GMT -5
Yes it is the primary problem is that the majority is silent. If they would get off their butts and vote for people who would work for what they want things would get done. 51% of the voting people in this nation can totally change everything in 6 years flat. The problem is that many people are way to lazy or don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 27, 2007 13:56:47 GMT -5
Yes it is the primary problem is that the majority is silent. If they would get off their butts and vote for people who would work for what they want things would get done. 51% of the voting people in this nation can totally change everything in 6 years flat. The problem is that many people are way to lazy or don't care. I will agree that that is the way it is supposed to be. However, the reality of the situation is, unfortunately, as you describe. Interestingly enough, those who are supposed to have the power (the citizens) have not used it in so long that they may well find that they no longer have it.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 28, 2007 0:59:29 GMT -5
I am talking about the laws of the country, not any of the subjective theological laws of the hundreds of religions in the USA. Sure, but hopefully you get my point. Law is not a thing set in stone. If we write into law a definition of marriage using verbiage similar to that in canon law, then there is legal grounds for refusing to call a homosexual union a "marriage". And there is the reason for so much divorce: a lack of understanding of the difference between contract and covenant. No, there is a very real distinction between contract and covenant. Contracts are nothing more than agreements which can be made and dissolved easily. Covenant runs much deeper. Obviously you have this backwards, as there was marriage long before any particular government. No chicken and egg mystery here.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 28, 2007 5:27:55 GMT -5
Obviously you have this backwards, as there was marriage long before any particular government. No chicken and egg mystery here. I do not have it backwards. At least when applied to the now.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 28, 2007 5:48:00 GMT -5
"The now" only has meaning in the context of history. Else we are just re-inventing the wheel with every generation...
|
|