Hello,
Here is our first show.
Show notes:
- Special intro by Ragman
- Topic 1: Gay Marriage, focus on the latest California ruling. How this ruling affects the institution of marriage from view of religion and government.
- Topic 2: Term limit for the House and Senate. Should congress also have similar term limits like the executive branch, i.e. The President.
- Show and site related information by Lambo
Enjoy!
Loading ...
5 Comments
do the comments work???
Thank you for putting out this show. I agree with you that there needs to be more rational debate about important topics.
A few comments on your first show:
Something that no one has pointed out concerning religious objections to gay marriage is that many churches, including the Catholic church, do not recognize some legal marriages today. It is my understanding that a divorced person cannot remarry in the eyes of the Catholic church. Other, more strict religious institutions do not recognize marriages for members to someone outside of their own faith. Yet no one would suggest that these second marriages are not legitimate in a civil sense because of religious objections.
Also not addressed was the frequent argument that if marriage is redefined from the traditional “one man and one woman”, then what would be next? Animals, more than 2 people, etc. While most people realize that the whole marrying your goat argument is ridiculous, there are people such as the cult members in Texas that engage in polygamy right now. What would changing marriage laws do for stopping polygamy. Or, should polygamy even be stopped?
As I mentioned in the show, historically in almost all cultures and societies, marriage is a ceremonial institution handed down through religion. And you are correct, that each religions has it’s rules pertaining to what’s considered a valid union and if that bond can be broken through a divorce. But today, somehow marriage has gotten caught up between a legal contract and a religious bond. Marriage isn’t just a union/bond anymore, it’s also a legal contract with conditions, privileges and protections. A Simple, yet drastic, solution here would be to invoke the unwritten “separation of church and state” doctrine and stating that marriage belongs to religion and such that the state has no jurisdiction over religious institutions, i.e protected under the first amendment. Problem solved, if the government doesn’t recognize marriage or have legal control over it, as no preferential laws, or protection for married over single, it leaves it to the individual’s religion to sort out the matter.
Now to counter my first point, haha! I know if you leave it simply as I stated above, then every cultist, wack-job will ask for protect of their consideration of marriage under the law. That goes your point of redefining marriage from the traditional man-woman to man-man, man-another-subspecies, and of course polygamy.
Maybe it’s not as simple and so, let’s compromise, a generalization via a constitutional amendment, “Marriage: union of two contenting adults” the rest is left up to the religious beliefs of the individuals. This limits marriage to monogamy, and takes care other wacky definition but has enough freedom to allow for gays to marry.
I only have one question before I start listening and getting all caught up in the hubub. Do you guys want me recapping this show? Because that gets to be your decision now. I recap Truth Seekers and it hasn’t been an issue, so I’m assuming another political show probably won’t be a big deal. But it’s up to you guys. Seems like I all ready do a show you guys do, I just don’t remember which one. (there are so damn many…)
Hey Dubshack,
Yes, you’ve already recapped Astrocast with Lambo and I and I don’t see it being a problem if you also recap this show, I think it will good for publicity, so GO FOR IT!