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.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the common definition of marriage is purely based on religious principles. Marriage has simply been defined for hundreds and hundreds of years as a union between a man and a woman. Obviously social standards have changed and that definition is being challenged. It's silly to conclude that the current common definition of marriage points to a legally enforced religion.
It's not indicative of legally ebforced religion until we get into the sticky business of why it is that gay marriage is not allowed. The reason is that traditionally, marriage has been defined. as strictly male-female, with the number of partners varying throughout history. Then you have gay couples today who want to get married. Why can't they? The law says so. Why don't we change the law, to right the oversight of not including gay rights in the legislation? There is no answer to this question that isn't religious in nature. Or some metaphysical issue dodging by saying that any major changes in legislation need to be voted on, which would be confusing the issue with the methodology of enacting it. So in a way, yes, you're right in saying there isn't a necessarily religious cause behind the flaws in the law now, but religion is throwing up roadblocks to the correcting of those flaws.
There are people who want it to change, it impedes on absolutely no one's rights to enact such a change. Therefore, it is up to the government to see to it that the narrow definition of marriage is expanded to include every citizen under their laws, regardless of the sexes of either consenting party.
We have a legislative branch in this country. You don't like it? Change the law. But to go on an end-around and have a liberal hack court do it isn't cool.
Quote:
The way I see it is this, more people are realizing the true needlessness of religion, and are
starting to form thoughts, opinions, and moral codes independently from what any given scripture says.
You and I can disagree on the usefulness of religion...but I will agree with you that if the person next to me on Sunday morning is only there as something to fill the time, they're accomplishing nothing. I am a Christian because I am called by God to be one.
Quote:
As a consequence, laws that were considered obvious manifestations of a god's will are being questioned as just a legally enforced religion. If the law happens to coincide with the chosen religion of an overwhelming majority of the populace, then there won't be quite the resistance as you would find now, when more people are drawing more reasonable conclusions about the nature, will, or even existence of a god.
Like murder?
In any event, honestly...your characterization of me as being against same-gender "marriage" only because religion says so is wrong. Even if it were, it doesn't make it a bad reason to be against it. As an American I have a right to my view, and I can vote accordingly.
We differ on where marriage came from and how it was invented. I believe it was created by God.
Indeed, we do. I thought it was created by, in my case, the legislature of the state of Florida. Can you document that it was god and not them?
Quote:
Having said that we can probably both agree on the fact that marriage originally came about as a way to endorse the relationship of a man and a woman for procreation.
Actually, we cannot aggree on that. For many decades if not centuries, marriage existed primarily as a means of protecting men. Their property, their progeny, and there wives, who were in practice, if not in fact, considered property in and of themselves.
Quote:
But the bottom line is that marriage IS a man and a woman. Marriage describes the relationship between a man and a woman.
In 44 states, you are correct. 6 define it as the union of two people regardless of gender. If you study the demographics on the issue, you'll realize that all 50 will soon enough.
Quote:
I'm not the one arguing for changing the status quo. It's up to your side to give a valid reason for the change.
When denying rights to people, you must have a reasonable explanation for why it's important. In this case, you do not. Note: 'Because that's how it's always been done' is not good enough, either.
Quote:
I am a Christian because I am called by God to be one.
How does that work, exactly? Did he send you a text message? Knock on your front door? Perhaps he spoke to you from a bush that was on fire?
Quote:
Even if it were, it doesn't make it a bad reason to be against it.
You previously said 'because god said so' was all the reason you needed. Now, if I am understanding you, you're saying a good reason exists besides that. Please explain what that reason is.
Indeed, we do. I thought it was created by, in my case, the legislature of the state of Florida. Can you document that it was god and not them?
The book of Genesis.
Quote:
Actually, we cannot aggree on that. For many decades if not centuries, marriage existed primarily as a means of protecting men. Their property, their progeny, and there wives, who were in practice, if not in fact, considered property in and of themselves.
Why did they have those wives? Sure, there was sex as part of it, but procreation, and to carry on their line was a big part.
Quote:
In 44 states, you are correct. 6 define it as the union of two people regardless of gender. If you study the demographics on the issue, you'll realize that all 50 will soon enough.
The fact that 6 have gone off the deep end and redefined it is irrelevant.
Quote:
When denying rights to people, you must have a reasonable explanation for why it's important. In this case, you do not. Note: 'Because that's how it's always been done' is not good enough, either.
Nobody is denying anyone any "rights". Gay people have exactly the same rights straight people do in regards to marriage.
Quote:
How does that work, exactly? Did he send you a text message? Knock on your front door? Perhaps he spoke to you from a bush that was on fire?
He regenerated me, allowing me to recognize my need for a savior.
Quote:
You previously said 'because god said so' was all the reason you needed. Now, if I am understanding you, you're saying a good reason exists besides that. Please explain what that reason is.
"Because God said so" is enough of a reason to think homosexuality is wrong. Having said that, as an American citizen I have a right to my opinion and my vote. If I decide it's not right to redefine marriage, that's my choice. That's reason enough.
You really ought to try to show some of that tolerance you guys are always claiming to have.
The book that tells us we're all descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago, which we know to a scientific certainty is not true. (Incidentally, where did Lot get a wife from?)
The book that tells of a global flood which we no to a geological certainty did not happen.
The book that tells of every species being carted about on a boat, which we know is logistically and physically impossible.
The book that tells of the earth being created before the sun, which we know to a scientific certainty did not happen.
You mean that book?
Quote:
The fact that 6 have gone off the deep end and redefined it is irrelevant.
You going to call it irrelevant when it's all 50? Cause it's no longer a matter of 'if', merely 'when'.
Quote:
He regenerated me, allowing me to recognize my need for a savior.
How? Smoke signal? Text message? Transcendental meditation? (BTW, if you want to start to understand REAL spirituality, TM is something to give serious consideration to.)
Quote:
"Because God said so" is enough of a reason to think homosexuality is wrong.
Except god never said that. In fact, he created homosexuals.
Quote:
If I decide it's not right to redefine marriage, that's my choice. That's reason enough.
We'll see about that.
Quote:
You really ought to try to show some of that tolerance you guys are always claiming to have.
No. I am proud of the fact that I'm intolerant of intolerance. It's time it was given it's epitath.
We have a legislative branch in this country. You don't like it? Change the law. But to go on an end-around and have a liberal hack court do it isn't cool.
You and I can disagree on the usefulness of religion...but I will agree with you that if the person next to me on Sunday morning is only there as something to fill the time, they're accomplishing nothing. I am a Christian because I am called by God.
Like murder?
In any event, honestly...your characterization of me as being against same-gender "marriage" only because religion says so is wrong. Even if it were, it doesn't make it a bad reason to be against it. As an American I have a right to my view, and I can vote accordingly.
Christians don't have exclusive rights to being against murder. You can't take a concept that the overwhelming majority of people are against, regardless of their faith, and tie it to the fringe, bigoted ideas that are exclusive to the faithful. There are reasons murder is and should be illegal that don't rely on religion, there are no such reasons for gay marriage to remain illegal.
I didn't characterize you as being against gay marriage simply because your religion says so. I said, and stand by saying that you can't defend the position of being against gay marriage without citing a religion. This is only important because if the law is enforcing your religion, then that contradicts the very idea of the US being a secular nation. I don't care what reason you want to give for your moral beliefs, but you'll need something a lot sturdier than "god said so" if you want a law.
Christians don't have exclusive rights to being against murder. You can't take a concept that the overwhelming majority of people are against, regardless of their faith, and tie it to the fringe, bigoted ideas that are exclusive to the faithful. There are reasons murder is and should be illegal that don't rely on religion, there are no such reasons for gay marriage to remain illegal.
Non-Christians can get married too, so it's not just for the faithful. Same sex marriage in my eye seems like the fringe definition that's supplanting the original definition, a union between men and women, which has been in place for hundreds of years.
But that's my opinion and I understand that I'm in the minority here.
Good grief. 43 pages and you guys are still arguing in circles. (That's a circle, not a square.)
Laws are not supposed to be written based on morals, which change. Laws are supposed to be written based on inalienable rights. Saying murder, and theft aren't moral may be true, but the bottom line is that murder takes away individual rights - and as a practice isn't practical. If murder was 'moral' then legal, it would encourage the anarchy of murdering people for food, property, and would put everyone on their own in their own defense - i.e. anarchy. Theft is also illegal because if it were legal, then once again you would have anarchy, "only the strong survive". The purpose of Constitutional law is to permit everyone to grow and prosper (or fail and learn) with their rights to life, liberty, and property intact and protected by government. Everything else is no one's business.
Two consenting adults entering into a contract is no one's business, if that contract is mutually agreeable and infringes on no one else's rights. That goes for business and social aspects. If you don't like the fact that Bosco and I enter into a contract to form a business partnership and start an ice cream store, too bad. If we fail, that's our problem - if we succeed, that's no one else's business.
The corruption of 'moral law' is that whatever the majority 'thinks' ought to be wrong is legislatively decided. If suddenly Omaha bans ice cream stores because Bosco and I are corrupting children and making them fat, is that moral? Of course not. It is about personal responsibility and choice. No one has to enter our store and buy our ice cream; we force no one to do so. If Omaha decides that we are making too much profit and decides to tax our ice cream at 85% of gross, is that moral? Of course not.
My point is that lots of laws are written that are not Constitutional, but merely reflections of one group demanding to force their feelings (i.e., "social justice") on others and using govenment as the big stick to enforce their feelings. Feelings have no place in justice or Constitutional law. As long as Bosco and I run our ice cream parlors without forcing anyone to buy or otherwise participate in our contractural agreement, we have the right to do so. So if Bosco wants to marry a man or I want to marry a woman and enter into contractural agreements, no matter if we succeed or fail, no matter if we profit or lose our hinies, it is no one's business but our own - and there should be no laws restricting such contracts, unless we use those contracts to take away someone else's Constitutional freedoms and rights.
The book that tells us we're all descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago, which we know to a scientific certainty is not true. (Incidentally, where did Lot get a wife from?)
Most scientists believe in an Adam and Eve of sorts....they think it was a population of something like 10k or so. I question where that population came from.
Quote:
The book that tells of a global flood which we no to a geological certainty did not happen.
Except that today we're finding sea shells on mountaintops and we can read of flood legends among many different diverse people groups. There is plenty of evidence if you don't let your presuppositions tell you otherwise.
Quote:
The book that tells of every species being carted about on a boat, which we know is logistically and physically impossible.
Not every species. Every kind. And it was certainly physically possible.
Quote:
The book that tells of the earth being created before the sun, which we know to a scientific certainty did not happen.
You mean that book?
Yah...I mean that book.
Quote:
You going to call it irrelevant when it's all 50? Cause it's no longer a matter of 'if', merely 'when'.
So something is right because it's legal?
Quote:
How? Smoke signal? Text message? Transcendental meditation? (BTW, if you want to start to understand REAL spirituality, TM is something to give serious consideration to.)
He removed blinders from my eyes and allowing me to see his gift of salvation. I'm sorry if you haven't had that experience.
Quote:
Except god never said that. In fact, he created homosexuals.
He created human beings, and those human beings do immoral things like lying, stealing, blaspheming, fornicating, etc. Sex outside of marriage (which is what homosexuality is) is included in that.
Quote:
We'll see about that.
No. I am proud of the fact that I'm intolerant of intolerance. It's time it was given it's epitath.
Ironically, you ought to be hating on yourself big time about now.
Christians don't have exclusive rights to being against murder.
You can't take a concept that the overwhelming majority of people are against, regardless of their faith, and tie it to the fringe, bigoted ideas that are exclusive to the faithful. There are reasons murder is and should be illegal that don't rely on religion, there are no such reasons for gay marriage to remain illegal.
What happens when your society tells you it's ok? When that happens we get stuff like the holocaust. Or cannibalistic tribes in remote areas. Only difference is the scale on which it happened. But their society told them it was ok, so it happened.
Quote:
I didn't characterize you as being against gay marriage simply because your religion says so. I said, and stand by saying that you can't defend the position of being against gay marriage without citing a religion. This is only important because if the law is enforcing your religion, then that contradicts the very idea of the US being a secular nation. I don't care what reason you want to give for your moral beliefs, but you'll need something a lot sturdier than "god said so" if you want a law.
The US isn't a secular nation. It was never founded to be a secular nation. While it's not a religious nation, our founders certainly expected that we'd have a right to have religion present, and have it as a part of us.
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.
