Post #143,612
2/27/04 10:31:13 AM
|
marriage & the constitution
Why, it appears that we looked down a very similar road 90+ years ago. From a letter published in yesterday's Washington Post: On Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."
The amendment did not pass, even though the majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage and advocates argued this amendment was necessary to save the sacred institution of marriage. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7206-2004Feb25.html|http://www.washingto...06-2004Feb25.html] I guess a lust for moral engineering was in the air, since less than a decade later we had the 18th Amendment, and we know how splendidly that turned out. As deSitter has pointed out elsewhere, the document under consideration (for mutilation) was never intended, and ought not be employed, as a tool for implementing the social issue du jour. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #143,613
2/27/04 10:33:56 AM
|
"Seaborn Roddenberry"??
Sounds like a horse. Maybe it was.
The turn of the century was the last heydey of Republican "populism", spearheaded by that champion of the corp^H^H^H^Hpeople, Teddy "Big Stick" Roosevelt. After several years of this nonsense they settled down and returned to crass materialism without the base hypocrisy of popular support.
-drl
|
Post #143,634
2/27/04 11:48:47 AM
|
Uhh, Ross...You left of a word.
Sounds like a horse. Maybe it was.
It is left as an exercise for the reader as to which word Ross inadvertantly omitted. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #143,626
2/27/04 11:03:46 AM
|
it appears that it was a states rights issue
the last state to repeal my marriage as a felony was Virginia in 1967
thanx,
bill
when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #143,630
2/27/04 11:07:55 AM
|
Yeah, "What I states is always right"
-drl
|
Post #143,704
2/27/04 3:28:47 PM
|
Why don't you just marry your sister, then?
or your brother? Or both? Applying the same logic needed to justify same sex marriage (government shouldn't intervene in moral issues), why should we be tied to any of that old Judeo/Christian horseshit?
Discuss amongst yourselves...
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #143,706
2/27/04 3:32:16 PM
2/27/04 3:34:43 PM
|
Re: Why don't you just marry your sister, then?
I think the biggest problem with interfamily marriage is the gene pool, something about things that can be passed to one another like illnesses, diseases or genetic defects and cause the child to have a chance of being born worse off.
I'm not sure if that is the whole reason it's not allowed, but I know it's one of them.
Edit: As an afterthought though, what strikes me as funny, is in the beginning, brothers and sisters obviously HAD to marry one another, because there weren't any other people. I mean, how did those people after Cain and Abel marry anyone if they were originally produced by Adam and Eve? There weren't more people.
Nightowl >8#
"To become different from what we are, we must have some awareness of what we are."
Eric Hoffer
Edited by Nightowl
Feb. 27, 2004, 03:33:24 PM EST
Edited by Nightowl
Feb. 27, 2004, 03:34:43 PM EST
|
Post #143,708
2/27/04 3:47:02 PM
|
Fairy tale land
[i]As an afterthought though, what strikes me as funny, is in the beginning, brothers and sisters obviously HAD to marry one another, because there weren't any other people. I mean, how did those people after Cain and Abel marry anyone if they were originally produced by Adam and Eve? There weren't more people.[/i]
You're in fairy tale land there. Adam and Eve didn't have any daughters - at least that were mentioned in the Grimmest Storybook. Exodus is totally inconsistent there. Why did God put his mark on Cain to protect him from the wrath of other men? What other men?
Stupid inconsistent blather.
More likely scenario:
In the beginning, monkeys flew out of God's butt.
The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters.
-- Alan Kay
|
Post #143,711
2/27/04 3:55:23 PM
|
Ummm....
You write:
Re: Why don't you just marry your sister, then?
I think the biggest problem with interfamily marriage is the gene pool, something about things that can be passed to one another like illnesses, diseases or genetic defects and cause the child to have a chance of being born worse off.
And with same sex marriages the odds of concieving children with birth defects is lessened... Okay, that's a fact. Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #143,790
2/28/04 1:00:22 AM
|
Up to our old Jesuit tricks again, are we? Msgr. Reductio
|
