Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:00 am

Where do you draw the line? I ask because we've established "keep the gummint out of marriage! You shouldn't legislate religion," but it seems to get hung up on "well, I mean, unless the people want it."
That's a good question, actually. The government shouldn't have any control or say over what the people do... but what happens in the instance where the people are the government?

This probably won't happen unless the entire nation turns communist as based on Karl Marx's ideas. Or we become a true democracy, which history has shown, tends to fail if it gets too big (e.g. every person votes on every issue every time). But until that happens (and I hope it doesn't) we'll have to stick with what the Constitution says and how it applies to the Federal government. We are a republic, after all, bound by the laws that created this nation. And yes, there is a provision to change these laws, if the people feel that it is necessary. But we'll get to that in a moment.
Here's an interesting question. Let's say the government completely backs out of marriage and leaves it to religious institutions. Where does that leave non religious folks who want to get married? Do we really want to dump all civil marriage because a (shrinking) portion of religious people disagree with who is allowed to get married?
If there was no financial incentive to get marriage and no laws protecting people based on their marital status, then what would be the reason to get married in the first place? From a non-religious standpoint, that is.

Basically, if the only benefits of marriage are spiritual, then why would non-spiritual people want it?

If you want to enshrine same-sex pairings in the Constitution then pass a new amendment because the 14th was passed with the understanding that it extended the civil rights already enjoyed by Americans to slaves (who were by all definitions already Americans). It didn't create new rights, and was never intended to be read as having done so.
More or less, you're right. About marriage, at least (I won't get into the rest of the argument about slavery, because that would be derailing even farther than we already have). If the definition of marriage is to be in the Constitution, it should be presented as a new Amendment. Personally, I don't think it should be in any way, shape or form, but I've already indicated that, so no need to hash out old arguments. ;)
Man, y'all really think that such strict construction is any way practical? Thought that should have died when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase.
That's an entirely different discussion, but I do have to wonder if the Louisiana Purchase should have been put to a public vote since it did use finds out of the U.S. treasury. Too late to do anything about it now, though.... ;)
Actually, it is the job of the Supreme Court, among other things, to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. If, for example, it ruled that states cannot impose bans on gay marriage as it violated the 14th amendment--well, that would be completely within its bounds.

...

Once again, the SC would simply be ruling on the constitutionality of state-level law, so I'm not sure where you think they've overstepped their bounds.
We could have differences of opinion on how the Supreme Court rules (I can count a few cases where I think the court took the wrong decision, for example). But our opinions don't matter too much once the court issues a ruling. And the decision could be, indeed, that the case is not under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they refuse to hear the case, and defer it back to the lower court's ruling (generally the circuit court of appeals). So you would be quite correct in your statements.

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:58 am

By the way, I forgot something:
If you want to enshrine same-sex pairings in the Constitution then pass a new amendment because the 14th was passed with the understanding that it extended the civil rights already enjoyed by Americans to slaves (who were by all definitions already Americans). It didn't create new rights, and was never intended to be read as having done so.
This isn't about creating new rights. At all.
If there was no financial incentive to get marriage and no laws protecting people based on their marital status, then what would be the reason to get married in the first place? From a non-religious standpoint, that is.

Basically, if the only benefits of marriage are spiritual, then why would non-spiritual people want it?
The benefits of marriage are not just spiritual, unless you have a pretty broad definition of "spiritual" that also encompasses emotions and life goals/desires/etc. It's like asking "So... you don't believe in God, right? So you don't believe in marriage as a spiritual institution, right? Well, what's even the point if you can't make or at least save any money?" in such a way that it appears you're asking atheists/agnostics if they have any capacity to feel love or something :P

(I realize the irony of all this, too--since marriage historically quite often involved money or gain of some kind, for the families if not for the two individuals)
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:25 pm

If there was no financial incentive to get marriage and no laws protecting people based on their marital status, then what would be the reason to get married in the first place? From a non-religious standpoint, that is.

Basically, if the only benefits of marriage are spiritual, then why would non-spiritual people want it?
The benefits of marriage are not just spiritual, unless you have a pretty broad definition of "spiritual" that also encompasses emotions and life goals/desires/etc. It's like asking "So... you don't believe in God, right? So you don't believe in marriage as a spiritual institution, right? Well, what's even the point if you can't make or at least save any money?" in such a way that it appears you're asking atheists/agnostics if they have any capacity to feel love or something :P
What kind of benefits? Perhaps it's just me being excessively frugal, but if there is nothing to gain from all the hassle and expense of marriage, then why bother doing it at all? I've known a few couples that have stayed together for years - decades even - that never wanted to get married. They never felt the need to go through a special ceremony in order to demonstrate their love for one another.

So if there are no legal benefits, and you don't believe in the spiritual benefits, wouldn't a marriage simply be an expensive, unnecessary show?

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:46 pm

Because the desire to join one's life to another in a ceremonial way is not restricted to those with a belief in a higher power? I dunno man. Just because you don't get the reasoning doesn't mean it isn't there. It's emotional, not rational or pragmatic.

I mean, there are definitely people who choose not to get married, as you said, but not everyone chooses that path.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:05 pm

Please explain. Pretend I am a cold-blooded, reptilian anthropologist who is interviewing you strange, furless monkey-like people and trying to understand the intricacies of your culture. ;)

What would drive someone to go through such a ceremony if not motivated by religious, financial or legal reasons?

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ArchAngel » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:43 pm

First of all, we're Apes, or Hominids, and not monkeys.

But, this aside, are you seriously confused why someone gets married outside of those 3 reasons?
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:20 pm

First of all, we're Apes, or Hominids, and not monkeys.
Really? *takes notes* That's interesting. I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused. In my parallel universe, it's all you strange, fuzzy things that died off when the comet hit the Earth. So there's a lot we don't know about you!

;)
But, this aside, are you seriously confused why someone gets married outside of those 3 reasons?
Seriously, yes. If there's no motive for such actions or expenses, why bother doing them?

Keep in mind that there are lot of things people do that make me wonder why (as well as make me lose my faith in humanity a little more - it's one reason I've made a resolution to not read the news as much as I had in the past. Maybe it'll make me feel better about people if I'm not constantly exposed to human stupidity). I can understand people getting married for religious reasons, or for financial purposes, or for legal purposes. But to go through all that expense and hassle "just because..." seems odd to me. But like I said, it could be due to my frugal nature. I have mentioned that I have Scottish ancestry, haven't I? ;)

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:18 am

I would marry my fiancee whether or not I were Christian because I adore her and we enjoy a party with friends. I don't get what's hard to get about the emotional component? People still love each other without a God in their life, and marriage is also deeply rooted in culture and tradition, neither of which have to be spiritual.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:22 am




Maybe this will break it down in simplest terms to even the cheapest, most practical, stony Scottish heart?

I'm being facetious, but I'm flabbergasted
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:26 am

I don't get what's hard to get about the emotional component? People still love each other without a God in their life, and marriage is also deeply rooted in culture and tradition, neither of which have to be spiritual.
People can still love each other without having to go through the hassle and expense of marriage, too. But I think you did hit on one of the other reasons there.


You may ask, how did this tradition get started? I'll tell you. I don't know. But it's a tradition.
(Amusingly enough, I was just singing a song from this musical before I started reading this reply. ;) )

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:30 am

Because not everything has to be done with efficiency and practicality in mind.

Two people want to (more or less) publicly express their desire to be partners in life and love together. One potential way found in most cultures is marriage. It is often accompanied by a joyous celebration of joining two lives and two families.

"OK BUT WHY SPEND THE MONEY, CHICKENSOUP"

Because it isn't about the money? Because why do you do anything nice for people?

Sometimes it doesn't even involve a ceremony. Sometimes they just want to assign a name to their relationshop that signifies their bond. That doesn't even require money (in a world without government interference, anyway).

EDIT: Let me put it this way. I forget if you are married or not--let's assume you are. Would you be comfortable saying "if not for God or tax returns, I probably wouldn't be married to her?"
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:59 am

Because not everything has to be done with efficiency and practicality in mind.
Then it is illogical. It should be done in an efficient, practical fashion, or it shouldn't be done at all.

Oh wait... I'm being lizard-guy, not Vulcan. ;)
Because why do you do anything nice for people?
Because God wants me to.

Seriously. If I didn't have my faith as a guide I'd be afraid of what I could turn into.

I've occasionally said that, if it happened that I gained a superpower, one I would absolutely not want would be mind control. The temptation to use it for evil would be way too strong.

"You bother me. Go kill yourself. Take your family with you."

And what makes it even scarier, if I was that amoral, I probably wouldn't feel bad about it, either. :shock:
EDIT: Let me put it this way. I forget if you are married or not--let's assume you are. Would you be comfortable saying "if not for God or tax returns, I probably wouldn't be married to her?"
I am married and have been for 18 years. And if it wasn't for our Christian faith, I don't know if we'd be married or not. We were together for a couple years before we were married, after all. (We've actually been married twice, but that gets into LDS stuff at that point.) Even if we weren't married, I'd still love her dearly and want to be with her all the time, and she feels the same way. :)

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:38 pm

Because God wants me to.

Seriously. If I didn't have my faith as a guide I'd be afraid of what I could turn into.

I've occasionally said that, if it happened that I gained a superpower, one I would absolutely not want would be mind control. The temptation to use it for evil would be way too strong.

"You bother me. Go kill yourself. Take your family with you."

And what makes it even scarier, if I was that amoral, I probably wouldn't feel bad about it, either.
Considering there are no statistics or evidence that supports this, it's probably time to consider that this model just isn't realistic and doesn't hold up with reality.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:12 pm

Because God wants me to.

Seriously. If I didn't have my faith as a guide I'd be afraid of what I could turn into.

I've occasionally said that, if it happened that I gained a superpower, one I would absolutely not want would be mind control. The temptation to use it for evil would be way too strong.

"You bother me. Go kill yourself. Take your family with you."

And what makes it even scarier, if I was that amoral, I probably wouldn't feel bad about it, either.
Considering there are no statistics or evidence that supports this, it's probably time to consider that this model just isn't realistic and doesn't hold up with reality.
Actually, the question ChickenSoup asked was "why do you do anything nice for people?" I figured he was asking me personally. Do I need scientific evidence to explain my own motives and thought processes? ;) I wasn't replying for humanity as a whole.

But based on what I've read in the news, I figure this kind of attitude is commonplace. It's one of the reasons why I'm trying not to read too many news articles this year. Maybe I'll come across something that will restore my faith in humanity if I'm not constantly inundated with evidence and signs that humanity is just a big waste of space.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Should Ginsburg and Kagan withdraw?

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:06 pm

The very existence of society is evidence of Man's constructive and cooperative nature over his hostile and destructive tendencies. It is exponentially more difficult to build than to destroy and given that all we have around us isn't rubble is testament that we are more constructive than we are destructive, but exponentially more so.

The fact that the news focuses on ghastly stories is because they are rare. How often is reporting done on car accidents? They'll blast a kidnapping till the story is good and dead, but those are exceptions. Nobody wants to hear a news story and how we all are working well together. All this is a bias that takes only a small mental exercise to realize it.

I'm just a little more than weary of hearing this overly cynical view of life and humanity. More than being entire unproductive, it's untrue.

I did find to my surprise, that when I moved to atheist, I became more convicted in morality and it's importance and more optimistic in the nature of man, and I embrace a more complex view of the world. That last part is key. Complex. The universe is complex and deserves to be understood complexity, and there is nothing we know more complex than the human mind.

Sstavix, I'm very seriously challenging you to challenge these biases and preconceptions. It doesn't work either as a value or truth proposition.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron