Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One very specific example is states passing constitutional amendments (and some people trying to get an amendment to the constitution of the US) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That is a religious based law aimed at discriminating against gay and lesbians. It stinks of the old laws in the 1800s and early 1900s preventing people of different races from marrying.
Another example is the push (successfully, again, in some states) to teach creationism in schools.
What ever happened to "live and let live" or better yet, what all of the bible thumpers like to say "Judge not, lest ye be judged," (while they go around telling the gays that they're going to hell).
It sounds like you are arguing that voters should not let their religious beliefs influence how they vote. Moderator cut: not allowed
Last edited by Beretta; 09-13-2008 at 02:55 PM..
Reason: debate the issues only please
I'm not too sure I agree that defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is a religious based law as slaleman states. A whole bunch of my friends have discussed this. Most of the people in the discussion were religious folks but even those who have no believe in god and/or religion were opposed to same sex marriages because of one factor. That factor is MORALS.
We also came to the conclusion that "morals" drive most laws in this country. The more we relax our country's morals, the less likely we are to have a moral society. At this time there are more people in this country that do not believe homosexuality is a moral activity. OTOH you can say all 12 of us are homophobes, bible thumpers and neocons but knowing this group I can state you would be wrong.
Maybe we get our morals from our religion but maybe we might get our morals from an inner belief too. This inner belief takes the state and religion out of the equation completely. So when someone tells me to "live and let live" I say "we live in a society and societies determine what is acceptable and what isn't. When someone says to me "Judge not, lest ye be judge" then I have pull the reason card out and say "You that do not judge other people's behavior have no heart mind or soul...or you just don't care enough to have an opinion.
I'm not too sure I agree that defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is a religious based law as slaleman states. A whole bunch of my friends have discussed this. Most of the people in the discussion were religious folks but even those who have no believe in god and/or religion were opposed to same sex marriages because of one factor. That factor is MORALS.
We also came to the conclusion that "morals" drive most laws in this country. The more we relax our country's morals, the less likely we are to have a moral society. At this time there are more people in this country that do not believe homosexuality is a moral activity.
Maybe we get our morals from our religion but maybe we might get our morals from an inner belief too. This inner belief takes the state and religion out of the equation completely. So when someone tells me to "live and let live" I say "we live in a society and societies determine what is acceptable and what isn't.
Let's separate out a couple pieces from what you said.
I'm not too sure I agree that defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is a religious based law
Regardless of your group's composition or beliefs, the restrictions on homosexuality in the United States is based on Christian teaching - explicitly on some of what the Bible says. The law is based on that.
even those who have no believe in god and/or religion were opposed to same sex marriages because of one factor. That factor is MORALS.
(and) The more we relax our country's morals, the less likely we are to have a moral society.
(and) we might get our morals from an inner belief too.
Your implication here is clearly that those who disagree with you are not MORAL people. I have to sharply disagree.
I would argue that discrimination against people based on their gender preference is not MORAL, and that my beliefs come from an inner belief as well. Further, I would argue that codifying discrimination in our laws makes us less likely to have or be a moral society.
The difference between your stance and mine is that mine does not force you to marry somebody you don't wish to marry, while yours forces them to not marry somebody they wish to marry.
When the State places a burden, either denying an activity or requiring one, then one must examine the burden to see if it is an equitable burden.
This one is inequitable, as surely as the laws that forbade stores to be open on Sunday were inequitable to Jews, the laws that forbade certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, or the laws that forbade interracial marriage.
There were people who felt that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral. There still are. That they believe that does not make it so - but nobody is forcing them to have interracial marriages. Should their moral stance preclude others who wish to have a marriage to somebody of another race from so doing?
I don't think so. And I do not see the difference between the two situations.
Last edited by jps-teacher; 09-13-2008 at 10:39 AM..
I'm not too sure I agree that defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is a religious based law as slaleman states. A whole bunch of my friends have discussed this. Most of the people in the discussion were religious folks but even those who have no believe in god and/or religion were opposed to same sex marriages because of one factor. That factor is MORALS.
I don't agree with this. Marriage is a legal entity somewhat similar in nature to the legal entity of a corporation. We can agree to what the legal definition of a corporation is without it being a moral discussion.
I don't agree with this. Marriage is a legal entity somewhat similar in nature to the legal entity of a corporation. We can agree to what the legal definition of a corporation is without it being a moral discussion.
Yes, this is an excellent point. If marriage is a "civil ceremony", performed without benefit of religion, than it cannot be defined as a "sacrement". If marriage is a "sacrement", it is defined by the religious entity that authorizes any particular marriage ceremony (for instance, the Unitarian Universalists regularly perform "marrige" ceremonies between same sex couples. . . . ). . . so in the interst of diversity and respecting a variety of traditions, it would make sense to allow civil ceremonies between any two "adults". . . and religious ceremonies according the the beliefs of the particular religion that is involved. I have NO PROBLEM with certain sects denying same sex marriage, due to their own belief system, but I do not believe that the "government" can or should discriminate in this way, and I do not believe that those religious traditions that regard same sex unions as legitimate should be prevented from following their own beliefs!
Women were once considered property. A woman was "owned" and controlled by the male next of kin, her father, brother, uncle, or whatever. Just as long as it was male. The title to this piece of "property" was obtained through a ceremony known as marriage. The man would agree to supply her with her needs in return for a dowry of some sort. Nothing moral about it except a man was supposed to keep his word. She was supposed to give him a male heir. He could have as many wives as he could support.
Morals had little to do with it. Young female babies were married to a suitable man in order to establish control over lands and livestock.
It's difficult to accept that "whom God has joined together" has anything to do with some of our present marriages. He would probably be happier to see many marriages break up.
The separation of Church and State means the separation of Religion and Government....why can't that be accepted by every citizen of the U.S.? Why do some individuals insist that all must believe as they do believe it's necessary to impose their beliefs on others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan
It sounds like you are arguing that voters should not let their religious beliefs influence how they vote. [mod]removed[/mod]
the only "absurdity" is NOT to vote on the issues and only vote on a candidate's personal background!!
Last edited by Beretta; 09-13-2008 at 02:58 PM..
Reason: merged posts and edited quoted post
the only "absurdity" is NOT to vote on the issues and only vote on a candidate's personal background!!
Hi Joan, and welcome!
I understand both what you are saying and why you are saying it, but let's see if I can provide you with a different perspective.
Each of us must find, in ourselves, what matters to us in deciding how to vote. Yes, to me and thee, it seems absurd to vote purely based on personality and/or background, but for others if a candidate does not start from the basis of a solid personality and background, then that candidate is untenable, regardless of policy and position.
For at least some of those voters, in any given election no candidate is deemed worth their votes. For others, they choose the lease inappropriate candidate, based on their values.
In many ways, this is not really different for the so called "single issue voters." They have an issue that is of paramount importance, as others do with abortion, national security, or many other topics that drive a person to or from parties and candidates.
I am not asserting that Niners fan is such a voter, as I don't pretend to know him (or her). But, whether Niners fan is one or not, the stance itself seems to me to be anything but absurd, even if it is not one that makes sense directly to me.
The separation of Church and State means the separation of Religion and Government....why can't that be accepted by every citizen of the U.S.? Why do some individuals insist that all must believe as they do believe it's necessary to impose their beliefs on others?
I agree.
I have no problem with a public servant holding strong religious beliefs, but they shouldn't allow those beliefs to enter into their executive decisions.
Yes, this is an excellent point. If marriage is a "civil ceremony", performed without benefit of religion, than it cannot be defined as a "sacrement". If marriage is a "sacrement", it is defined by the religious entity that authorizes any particular marriage ceremony (for instance, the Unitarian Universalists regularly perform "marrige" ceremonies between same sex couples. . . . ). . . so in the interst of diversity and respecting a variety of traditions, it would make sense to allow civil ceremonies between any two "adults". . . and religious ceremonies according the the beliefs of the particular religion that is involved. I have NO PROBLEM with certain sects denying same sex marriage, due to their own belief system, but I do not believe that the "government" can or should discriminate in this way, and I do not believe that those religious traditions that regard same sex unions as legitimate should be prevented from following their own beliefs!
This would be a good compromise to me. Any two consenting adults could enter into a civil union and by doing so they would be "legally married" in the eyes of the government, and if they so choose to, they can go on and have their union sanctified by the religious leaders of their denomination. If a certain religion do not want to perform marriages for same sex couples, then they wouldn't have to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
