Friday, March 6, 2009

Alright. Here it is.

Ok. I'm not trying to show you that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. For the straight up answer to your question: I think that if you just look to our governing documents, homosexual marriages could fit in just fine.

Now with that said, this is my problem: I dont think that because it may fit into the Constitution that we should allow it. Whether we should allow gay marriages in the United States is not the same as whether outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional. There is more to the first question than to the second. So I agree that if you just look only to the Constitution, gay marriage fits. But I want to point the other question to you: Should we, as Christian Americans, allow gay marriage to be legal?


Murf said...

I think there is an excellent argument that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. The original framers had not conception that this would ever be possible. Since it was not part of their original intent to allow homosexual marriage, therefore it is unconstitutional.

I think Aaron's mistake is that he is not giving due consideration to the original intent of the framers of the constitution. He is reading it through 21st century eyes and values.

mike parsons said...

I would just say that even though thats how I understand the framers of the Constitution, I can't inductively say that that is what and why we should believe. Since they did leave it out of the Constitution, I don't think the question is whether or not its unconstitutional. That is why I would argue from the viewpoint of a Christian. And I don't just because not everyone believe the same as us that we should stop, and drop our morals. And consequently, I don't think we should stop voting for our morals or change our "political arenas" to leave out morals.

Murf said...

I would argue that, since it is a matter of law, it MUST be a question of constitutionality (whether or not it is also a question of morality—which it is).

I would also say that one can argue the point from either/both perspectives of law/morality. Also agree that we shouldn't stop voting from a Christian/moral framework, this would be to cede the public square to the unChristian/immoral.

However, to try to argue a point of morality with someone who doesn't hold the same belief is pointless. This is why I think that, in the public square, it is better to frame the argument in terms of law and intent, then in terms of morality or lack thereof.