10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[heretic888]

and that the quoted words were from some original text.

The "original text", in this instance, would be apologist arguments defending what typically passes for "Christianity" that I have personally encountered in my own experiences. A perfect example being Pascal's Wager.

I was not necessarily drawing from the Bible in that context (which itself is open to a myriad of interpretations).

Thank you for clarifying.

No problem.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I must have forgot my [SARCASM] tags. Woopsies.

 

[heretic888]

your tolerance for other's opinions is staggering

Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally intolerant philosophies??

Sorry. Ain't buyin' it. For exactly the same reasons I don't buy into the hypocrisy that is "moral relativism" --- I don't think the philosophies espoused by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan should be invited to the International Tolerance Meeting.

But, hey, that's just me.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

*** Edited ***

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Marijuana users exist in Denmark and the US. Amsterdam has legalized marijuana, should we do the same? Thats a bit more marginal these days, so what if Amsterdam legalizes harder drugs? We have users here and there, thats a human behavior. What I -don't- want is our laws dependant on laws of other countries. Looking at the stats could prove interesting though.


Exactly...looking at the stats CAN be interesting. These countries become test cases for social engineering policies. So far, marijuana hasn't had a deleterious effect on Dutch society. Gay marriage hasn't had a negative effect on Danish society.

Insofar as our laws being "dependent" on laws from other countries...that's been an American tradition for some time. English common law was the structure by which we formed our own judicial system. The whole notion of democracy as conceived by the Founding fathers was largely taken from the ideals of the European Enlightenment.

Cultural cross pollination is standard fare insofar as Europe and the U.S. are concerned. The Victorian age was born in England and much of its impact was transferred to the United States. The tide goes both ways, and our industries and culture have influenced British and continental European culture to no small extent.

I note how in other threads people were quick to give northern European society the credit for the advancement of civilization...and yet some seem to want to back away from the thought of there being any merit to Europe's potential positive influence on American culture. What would that be? Amero-centrism?

Sort of the reverse of French arrogance, but without the really good wine.


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

I can always judge an act or a course of action and decide that it's not for me.

Certainly. But, not for one second can you posture that your personal judgement is "God's Will". This is precisely what many of the religious authorities objecting to same-sex marriage are doing, as if they have a direct pipeline to "God" and know "he" is thinking about the whole situation.

According to my understanding of the OT/NT and Koran, condemning and punishing are jobs given to societies {and guidelines were given in those writings}.

According to my understanding of the Bible:

"The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

Societies still have the task of defining acceptable behavior and the reward/punishment of compliant/deviant behavior.

Sure. But, like individuals, societies can't go ahead and proclaim that their judgements is what "God" wants.

Like Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, etc? No, wait, they were prophets called by God to act.

In all historical likelihood, none of those men ever existed in the first place.

Now that you're grown and can think for yourself you can toss it out.

Actually, I gotta go with the Kalama Sutra on this one:

"Do not believe in anything because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agree with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

[I note how in other threads people were quick to give northern European society the credit for the advancement of civilization...and yet some seem to want to back away from the thought of there being any merit to Europe's potential positive influence on American culture. What would that be? Amero-centrism?

Jingoism.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Certainly. But, not for one second can you posture that your personal judgement is "God's Will".

I could say that I am aligning my personal judgements with "God's Will." I can also say that I have not been given the responsibility of enforcing God's Will upon the general public...in fact I believe: "…that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:39-41)

I still vote as I belive to be right; and my religious beliefs influence what I believe to be right.

Sure. But, like individuals, societies can't go ahead and proclaim that their judgements is what "God" wants.

Right or wrong, Societies have done so and will continue to do so. Ethics is a pretty tough and deep thing with or without a god to fall back on.

In all historical likelihood, none of those men ever existed in the first place.

If the semite people are inter-related (Hebrew and Arab) then they probably had a common ancestor...let's identifiy him as "z" or Abraham. Those of Hebrew descent are probably more closely related to each other and have a later, common anscestor; let's call him "Jacob" for convenience.

Actually, I gotta go with the Kalama Sutra on this one:...

That reminds me of the question "What's the first thing you know?"

 

[heretic888]

I could say that I am aligning my personal judgements with "God's Will."

You could, but then a passive observer could simply note that to be "wishful thinking".

You can align your personal judgement with what you think your religious tradition espouses. But, you have no friggin' clue what is or is not "God's Will".

I still vote as I belive to be right; and my religious beliefs influence what I believe to be right.

Sure, but that's a whole 'nother animal than "I know God's Will --- and he hates fags!"

Right or wrong, Societies have done so and will continue to do so. Ethics is a pretty tough and deep thing with or without a god to fall back on.

Tough or not, ethics is important.

Once you start proclaiming that "God" has personal opinions about life and, furtheremore, only a select group of people knows what they are --- you're just asking for trouble. History is testament to that.

If the semite people are inter-related (Hebrew and Arab) then they probably had a common ancestor...let's identifiy him as "z" or Abraham. Those of Hebrew descent are probably more closely related to each other and have a later, common anscestor; let's call him "Jacob" for convenience.

The historical likelihood of the Semitic peoples, or even the Hebrews alone, descending from a single common ancestor is extremely unlikely. The historical likelihood of this ancestor being a prophet or visionary even less so.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

I've probably gotten us off topic.

But, you have no friggin' clue what is or is not "God's Will".

Only what He's told me.

Once you start proclaiming that "God" has personal opinions about life...

Yikes, that exactly what I believe.

The historical likelihood of the Semitic peoples, or even the Hebrews alone, descending from a single common ancestor is extremely unlikely.

Don't you believe that all humans evolved from a common ancestor. Why not groups of people coming from a common ancestor, sure there may be intermixing along the way, but it's gotta be a tenable concept.

The historical likelihood of this ancestor being a prophet

Because you don't believe in prophets..

or visionary even less so.

Would you call the founding fathers "visionaries" and do they have offspring that look to their common ancestor?

 

[CanuckMA]

In the end, I think that this point is probably the best thing the government can do. Civil unions for people who want to enter into them. Leave marriage to the churches. When the government puts its stamp on a "type" of marriage outlined by a particular religion, that is a tacit support of that religion over others faiths. It is a crossing of the line between church and state and is, ultimately, unconstitutional. If all couples applied to the government for civil union licenses, a powerful message is being sent and it supports everything our country stands for.

But you have it wrong. The State does not regognize ANY religious marriages. The State simply empowers clergy to act as an agent of the State to perform the civil marriage contract. That's why if you go to city hall to get a civil marriage, on the list of people available to perform the ceremony are JPs and clergy.

 

[Makalakumu]

But you have it wrong. The State does not regognize ANY religious marriages. The State simply empowers clergy to act as an agent of the State to perform the civil marriage contract. That's why if you go to city hall to get a civil marriage, on the list of people available to perform the ceremony are JPs and clergy.

Which clergy does the state employ? My church, which is allows the marriage of homosexuals, is not on their list. This is tantamount to the state favoring a certain religion...which is unconstitutional. The point regarding civil unions for all is the most constitutional option.

 

[Cryozombie]

Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally intolerant philosophies??

S'okay. I'm biased for starting this thread. Prolly the same "Anonymous" Rep Dinger.

LOL.

 

[Cryozombie]

Which clergy does the state employ? My church, which is allows the marriage of homosexuals, is not on their list. This is tantamount to the state favoring a certain religion...which is unconstitutional. The point regarding civil unions for all is the most constitutional option.

No no... not employ... he said Empower... and I think what he actually means is "Recognizes and allows"... but that old phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of blah blah"

Cuz in most states you cant just go "Whee I am a priest" and then you can perform marriages... the state has to recognize you as such first. As an ordained minister, I have to know these things. (Thanks Universal Life Church!)

 

[Makalakumu]

No no... not employ... he said Empower... and I think what he actually means is "Recognizes and allows"... but that old phrase "By the power vested in me by the state of blah blah"

Cuz in most states you cant just go "Whee I am a priest" and then you can perform marriages... the state has to recognize you as such first. As an ordained minister, I have to know these things. (Thanks Universal Life Church!)

Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed? Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?

 

[7starmantis]

Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed? Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?

Good question. Would the state disallowing a clergy to do a wedding for a religious person be restrictive of their right to a religious ceremony?

7sm

 

[arnisador]

I'm reminded of the history of trying to restrict the religious use of peyote!

As an aside, I note that partner benefits in industry are becoming more and more common...another sign that this is an idea whose time has come. Often industry must do it to attract the people it needs, but sometimes it's a moral stance a company takes.

 

[7starmantis]

I dont have a major opinion one way or the other on this issue, but it does get to me when people argue against a point they they incorrectly quote. If your desire for your agenda overshadows your truth, the argument becomes trite. All I'm asking is that intellegent debate be grounded on actual truth. If would be so refreshing if someone actually understood the other sides beliefs and could coherently argue them as so. A few examples of my point:

Or, y'know, other "retarded" ideas like worshipping a Tyrant that created a special Burning Pit especially for his children that don't "believe" in him

Nowhere in the bible does it say hell was created for his children or any human for that matter. For someone who grew up with this "garbage" you seem to quote it quite incorrectly.

The Bible used by most "Christians" was originally written in Greek. This includes their rendering of the Hebrew Torah, the Greek work known as the Septugaint. Of course, it could be argued that the most popular form of the Bible in the West, the King James Version, is a uniquely English document that deviates in many ways from its source material.

Actually the Christian bible was written first in Hebrew (old testament) and then in greek (new testament). To say it deviates in many ways from its original material, one must be willing to know and understand the original material.

The religion has a history, tradition, and set of rituals quite independent of any one literary source.

As someone in this thread defined liberals, you can define “Christians”. No two Christians believe the same thing. Christianity isn’t monolithic. The definition for “Christian” in the dictionary is “one who professes belief in Jesus Christ”. That’s pretty broad. What history, traditions, or rituals would Christianity have that are independent of any one literary source?

Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally intolerant philosophies??

Sorry. Ain't buyin' it. For exactly the same reasons I don't buy into the hypocrisy that is "moral relativism" --- I don't think the philosophies espoused by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan should be invited to the International Tolerance Meeting.

If your not are you actually being tolerant? Tolerance is not something that can be chosen by the topic. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Klu Klux Klan have absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Pulling out the wakos on either side doesn’t make ones point more valid.

According to my understanding of the Bible:

"The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

I assume this is a direct quote from somewhere? Whats its relevance and what are you trying to say with it? Oh, and where is it from?

Sure, but that's a whole 'nother animal than "I know God's Will --- and he hates fags!"

I haven't seen that posted yet on this thread. If you can't make your point without putting words in others mouths, its not a strong argument.

7sm

 

[CanuckMA]

Okay, I see the difference, yet the question remains the same...which clergy are empowered to do the deed? Should the state empower ANY clergy to do the deed?

Clergy of religions they regognizes. And I'm not sure what the criteria are. But here goes anyway:

The Civil rights Act of 1964 states "To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held, and within the believer's own scheme of things religious." (USCA Const. Amend 1: Civil Rights Act 1964 701 et seq., 717 as amended 42 USCA 2000-16)

 

[Andrew Green]

Ok, this one's interesting... I'm supposed to be tolerant of fundamentally intolerant philosophies??

Yeah, it's a great way to really annoy them.

Think about it, they are so bent on enforcing there singular point of view, you just look them in the eye and say "Yeah, well, you're free to believe whatever you like, I'm not gonna argue."

And basically your telling them that there beliefs are no better then anyone elses, no matter how silly.

Intolerent people are usually also very intollerant of tollerance