Originally posted by: skace
It took 6 pages but you almost got a clue. *claps*
The first step to acceptance is realizing that it does not affect you. The next step would be to stop looking at it as a sin or a wrong choice and more of simply a different choice than you would have picked. If someone always knows that you feel the choices they made in their life are "wrong" then they will never feel comfortable around you.
You are right! That is why I said in my first post that if we were to allow something different than the historical marriage (which has its roots in religion) that we should call it something else... like "legal union" or something. Heck... I'm even for making heterosexual secular unions fall under that name! I'd LOVE to see the two seperated even if homosexual unions weren't allowed.This is a secularized idea of a "covenant", but nowhere near the Christian/Jewish/Muslim ideal.
Dude, if God's Word says something is bad and I simply agree with that, how am I in any way taking the judgement away from God?The core of the religious thought is sin and redemption - unfortunately, some people take that judgement away from God and use it as a lens to point at others.
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
Originally posted by: Netopia
Show me. I find nowhere in the Bible where GOD promotes polygamy.The Bible also promoted polygamy, among other things.
Agreed. So is the fact that some people actually took it as a serious and sarcastic statement.Your point about the Greeks and other cultures dying out is stupid.
So, you are admitting that since you BELIEVE something is wrong then it should be outlawed on the basis of what YOU believe to be moral?On the other hand, animals have been given certain rights to be treated humanely in most situations, and I don't believe bestiality falls into that category.
My question exactly!Why are there "gay pride" organizations if most of them wish they weren't gay? Why are so many of them lobbying for gay rights?
IN YOUR OPINION! But if someone is religious and thinks the opposite, why is it that you think their viewpoint should have no weight and yours should? Are you a theophobe or something?As I've pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES already, religion is NOT any kind of standard to base good behavior on.
Joe
Originally posted by: Netopia
It looks like you wouldn't, and that is your priviledge to feel that way.... even if it goes AGAINST my morals and what I beleive to be right and correct societal behaviour. You have a right to believe it, so preach it and to vote any way you like if the issue comes to a vote. Why is it that the other side (yours) cannot understand that we too have a right to do all of those things as Americans? Joe
Nice idea, never happen. Why?Originally posted by: Netopia
I'd also like to see there be two different vows. One would be like current marriages that someone could get out of with almost no problem. Divorce at will. The other would be like marriage used to be, where it would be almost impossible to get out of. People would be given their choice of which they wanted to enter into. My hope would be, that when one party or the other had reservations about entering a TRUE life-long commitment that they both would back off and think about what they were doing. Maybe... just maybe we could have fewer careless marriages, few divorces and line the pockets of fewer lawyers.
I don't in general. However, I'm a citizen of a country where each citizen participates in Government by having a vote and a say. Being in this situation, I base what I believe to be best on my own beliefs... as does everyone, or else people would be voting for laws that they believed were bad, which just doesn't happen. What I can't understand is why everyone gets all upset when a religious person exercises their right to voice an opinion just like everyone else.What I really want to get to though is your comments about how since you're a christian (supposedly) that it would be perfectly all right in your mind to feel that your sense of morality should be imposed on the rest of the world.
That seperation was to keep the government from meddling in the church and NOT vice-versa!The only logical place to which to turn when lawmaking for a country with a separation between church and state is natural law.
Originally posted by: Tal
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
Go Bush! A little morality wouldn't kill you conjur. Lack of it might. -Tal
How about the fact that religious fundamentalists are responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout history, all in the name of 'God'.Originally posted by: Netopia
I don't in general. However, I'm a citizen of a country where each citizen participates in Government by having a vote and a say. Being in this situation, I base what I believe to be best on my own beliefs... as does everyone, or else people would be voting for laws that they believed were bad, which just doesn't happen. What I can't understand is why everyone gets all upset when a religious person exercises their right to voice an opinion just like everyone else.What I really want to get to though is your comments about how since you're a christian (supposedly) that it would be perfectly all right in your mind to feel that your sense of morality should be imposed on the rest of the world.
Did it ever occur to anyone that your morals might go against what others believe? Does that mean that all of your morals are wrong? I would doubt it... but it does mean that someone might be wrong. Unfortunately we've no magical way to determine who is right and who is wrong... so we go by our own belief structures, mine Biblically based, someone else's based on the Koran and someone else's based on secular humanism. But it's only the one's who base their world view and morality on religion that get told to be quiet. Why? Why is religion any less valid a basis for world view and morality than any other?
Oh...was it? I think I'd prefer to have that both ways, thanks.That seperation was to keep the government from meddling in the church and NOT vice-versa!The only logical place to which to turn when lawmaking for a country with a separation between church and state is natural law.
Joe
You are probably no more or no less sick it than faithful people are of hearing others say that things are "moral" or "right" just because they think it is. I hope you see that none of us have anything more than our own belief structures on which to base anything.I'm sick of hearing religious people or leaders trying to claim that something is "immoral" or "wrong" because "the Bible says so".
And atheism has communism.... but then communism isn't REALLY what atheism is about, is it? In the same way, the things you spoke of were perpetrated not by religion but by power mongers. But if you want to compare the crime against humanity done by those who embraced religion -vs- those who embraced atheism... I think you'll lose pretty significantly.Religion has given us plenty of examples to point at: the Inquisition, the Crusades, priests being convicted of molesting kids, ad nauseaum. Yep, those are such upstanding ideals and they should really be telling us how to live and treat others.
Why not bring that one up again when we're talking about putting someone to death. If you're going to quote the Bible, at LEAST do so within the context of the quote!As the Bible says, "Let he who is without blemish cast the first stone."
WRONG! We are NOT talking about denying things which are currently available to ANYONE! What is being discussed here is something DIFFERENT, that isn't being offered or made available to ANYONE. Any Gay person can get married if they find a suitable mate, just the same as any straight person. If they choose not to engage in that, that is their perogative, just like anyone else.Because 1 choice denies someone the same things available to another non-criminal human.
Because it's a sexual deviancy which for the moment most people don't approve of... but give it time, things are just getting started.Why is homosexuality compareable to beastiality?
NO... they exchange solumn vows and then break them because they are not good to their word. That is why I think that if we had a situation where people were forced to keep that word, they might not jump in quite so quickly.In a country with a 57% divorce rate, people still have big weddings and exchange solom vows because things are supposed to look like they're going to last.
That's the point exactly. If a guy (or girl) wants to have an escapable marriage then they'll have to tell the other person. If that person sees this as a lifelong commitment, then I doubt the marriage goes forward, which is a GOOD thing!Try telling a woman that you want the marriage of convience, that you can slip out of with no problems, and you'll be lucky if all she does is dump your a$$.
Again, you are proving the point. Many people wouldn't go for the no way out clause and others wouldn't get married UNLESS there was a way out. I think we'd have less marriages because both people would have to go into it with like mindedness or they wouldn't enter into it at all.For any female members of the forum paying attention to this thread, how many would be delighted if your man proposed a marriage that ammounted to "I like you now, but I want a quick out in case I find someone hotter"?
But you can to others? Why is it ok for you to jam your viewpoints but others should be restricted? You don't see your own hypocricy do you?Just don't try to shove your viewpoints down my throat.
Let's go with that for a moment. Then the inverse should also be reasonably true... just because you think that homosexuality is ok, does not make it ok. We could go around in these circles all day long. What you need to do is to open your eyes to the secular truth that you opinion is no better or worse than mine. If there is no higher authority (God), then might makes right and whoever can get their ideas to the fore wins. That is an unfortunate truth of the system.Just because you're interpreting the Bible to mean that homosexuality is bad, does not make it bad.
A certain atheist by the name of Stalin was responsible for over 20 million all by himself! Now... take that atheitstic regime's total death count as it expanded and defended its territory, add China's and North Viet Nam's and North Korea's..... I doubt religion holds a candle to the number of people put to death by atheist regimes. HOWEVER, just because those regimes are atheist, that doesn't mean that those actions were true to atheism anymore than people who have done bad things in the name of religion were true to the tenents of the religion they claimed. But again, if you want sheer numbers, atheist regimes have killed way more than religious ones.How about the fact that religious fundamentalists are responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout history, all in the name of 'God'.
Who ever said they were comparisons? Where did you pull that from? They were examples of legislated morality... that is all! For those that say you can and shouldn't legislate morality, all I was trying to do was to point out that MOST legislation is based on morality or some sort!Well, sorry, those are not valid comparisons.
No, I can. But you're talking about public life, not personal.You cannot tell me how I can behave in my personal life and neither can the government.
So you're saying that alcohol should be illegal based on your stated premise. So you're for prohibition or not? And if you aren't, then why are you seperating alcohol from other drugs? Why would you take away a person's right to sit and trip on acid in their own home if they aren't hurting anyone?Well, sorry, but drugs alter the mind and provide a person with the potential for doing great harm to others (while driving, for example).
Because they are always trying to impose them on others.Originally posted by: Netopia
Joe, no offense but practice your morality among your friends and family and do not try and push it on others who dismiss your religion as intrusive Mythology.
Red, where is the line drawn? Is morality only acceptable if it ISN'T based on religion? Or is all morality only an individual choice... in which case society quickly breaks down into anarchy. We have to have laws and typically those laws are based on someone's morals. So why do you single out religous people's morals?
Joe
No. There is a common ground, known as the harm principle (Mill). In a nutshell:Originally posted by: Netopia
You are probably no more or no less sick it than faithful people are of hearing others say that things are "moral" or "right" just because they think it is. I hope you see that none of us have anything more than our own belief structures on which to base anything.
...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Careful here, because of the way you worded this you are lumping together everyone throughout history that believed in a diety, which is a much larger group than those who didn't.And atheism has communism.... but then communism isn't REALLY what atheism is about, is it? In the same way, the things you spoke of were perpetrated not by religion but by power mongers. But if you want to compare the crime against humanity done by those who embraced religion -vs- those who embraced atheism... I think you'll lose pretty significantly.
So basically you think it's a lesser sin for gays to enter into marriages of convenience with members of the opposite sex just to receive the benefits awarded other married couples? These are marriages that are totally kosher in the eye of the law but have no subtext underneath--basically a sham. It happens all the time. This is the preferable alternative to you? I guess as long as everything *seems* normal right?WRONG! We are NOT talking about denying things which are currently available to ANYONE! What is being discussed here is something DIFFERENT, that isn't being offered or made available to ANYONE. Any Gay person can get married if they find a suitable mate, just the same as any straight person. If they choose not to engage in that, that is their perogative, just like anyone else.
Force? LOL!! What kind of dystopia do you see us living in? Do you propose a politzi to go door to door making sure married couples are living together? Video serveillance to make sure wives are doing their wifely duties and husbands vice-versa? Ludicrous! Or do you instead prefer that people aren't monitored but not ever let out of their legal marriage contract? In this scenario you'll see a hell of a lot of adultery, more than ever. Is this a preferable consequence to your plan?NO... they exchange solumn vows and then break them because they are not good to their word. That is why I think that if we had a situation where people were forced to keep that word, they might not jump in quite so quickly.
Less married people, more children born to single mothers. People will still have sex, that is something you will be unable to legislate no matter what you call "marriage" and how you try to enforce it.That's the point exactly. If a guy (or girl) wants to have an escapable marriage then they'll have to tell the other person. If that person sees this as a lifelong commitment, then I doubt the marriage goes forward, which is a GOOD thing!
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: Jzero
An amendment to the constitution blocking gay marriage, wtf?!
No, an amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual union.
Viper GTS
Originally posted by: gordy
Originally posted by: conjur Happy now?
OMG, you still havent got it....
<huff> say it was a freakin vending machine, would you pluu the "Straight Child" lever or the "Gay Child" lever
gawd, i'm tired of it too, let's go grab a beer and call it a day... it's on me
I think you are missing the point... the harm principle is just a philosophic statement from John Stuart Mill. It means nothing. If I'm a true hedonist/satanist and I want to kill you, hey guess what, its morally justified in my own mind. The harm principle doesn't apply to anyone but those who accept it as truth.No. There is a common ground, known as the harm principle (Mill). In a nutshell:
...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Given that all humans beings are created equal in this country, that's the only "moral" ground we can stand on, since peoples' religious beliefs vary so widely.
Politics is politics, no matter how you slice or dice it... terrible, horribly corrupt environment full of the "elite". I'm not talking about politics here... I'm talking about thinking about what the constitution and natural law dictate about what rights humans SHOULD have in this country. Getting them on (or off) the lawbooks is another matter entirely.Originally posted by: amcdonald
you guys are seriously lacking perspective here... Its not just the religious community that voices its opinion unabashedly, its EVERY group that has a political agenda. PETA, environmental groups, every major business that exists, etc... There's a pro- & anti- group for almost every notable issue in politics, and they are all equally striving for the limelight. The only difference I can note is that the religious groups tend to be more effective than PETA because they actually have popular support. If Bush wasn't in the white hosue this wouldn't be an issue.
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.