And that was my point. In fact, mandate from God should have nothing to do with whether laws are valid. Some laws look like they legislate morality, because our idea of right vs wrong often intersect with practical vs impractical (and that's no coincidence). But ultimately, we make laws that contribute to a stable, productive society and species preservation, not laws that are "right" or "moral". I'll recycle the example I used in another thread: Suppose god descends from heaven and says, "You know what, I'm perfectly okay with theft and murder and rape." Now, this would be bad news for people who argue that we do lesgislate morality because we have laws against theft, murder and rape, because without the moral mandate, those laws would have no basis. But not for the rest of us, because laws against theft, murder and rape exist to maintain a stable, productive society and promotes species preservation. A civil society makes laws that are detrimental to our coexistence, not laws against sin.
I saw one where you talk about depopulation. Are you saying if we don't let gay people get married, they're gonna get in straight marriages and make babies?
First of all, you made a post earlier about the Bible. You'de be surprised to know that I agree with you on a lot of what you said, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If you're interested in knowing why I agree with and how that affects the way I feel about this issue, PM me and I'll gladly explain. Don't confuse a church with religious ideas. A church is an organization, which should be held seperate from the government, just like other organizations such as the ACLU, United Way, USSF, etc. How is saying we don't want homosexuals toget married the same as us not lvoing them as our neighbor? If we feel homosexuality is a sin, and we love our neighbors, then shouldn't we want to prevent them from doing something we feel is harmful. You obviously don't think it's harmful, you think we are judging them. That is not true. It's the same as a drug addict. Do you know what an enabler is? Not a very loving neighbor. You will say I'm a biggot because I say homosexuality is a sin. And I say it's a sin because God said so. So the debate isn't really about homosexuality, but about God. If God exists and has really made the commandment that homosexuality is a sin, then I'm right and I shouldn't do things to enable others to sin, although I cannot stop them as they have free will. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as sin and I have no basis for what I have said. Since I believe in God and in his commandments I have to be obedient to them. My belief in God is based on personal experiences and trials of faith in which God never let me down. I have tested him and he's always come through. Many other people have had the same thing. I respect that many of you have not had the same experience and therefore can't base your beliefs on it the way I have. But I would ask that you respect my beliefs and my basis for holding them, as well as the laws of the country you live in. As I said, the issue isn't really homosexuality. There are dozens of other similar issues. It's about religion, which our country garauntees the freedom of. If you don't believe or believe something different, that's your right. But you have to respect others right to do so and to exercise that. For instances where beliefs clash, we have democracy. Majority rules. Flowergirl, I used to point out a European's attitude toward what was happening. I figured it would have more meaning if it were coming from a European himself. I am not a racist or biggot, I don't hate anybody except manchester united. Please stop trying to categorize me that way.
I don't know. Depopulation is only one of the problems I think is caused. I'm not as concerned specifically with homosexuality as I am with the idea that building a family is not a primary reason for our existense. I believe it is and I think a society is only as strong as it's families. That idea is "old-fashioned" but I believe it is true. Whether or not it is, only God knows for sure. Your question brings up the question as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. I obviously believe it is, but I don't want to debate that here. The short answer to your original question, what reasons do I have for holding my views, is religious. But I believe God doesn't give commandments as punishments, but as rules to govern the success and happiness of our lives. Therefore I think there are some visible consequences to immoral behavior, although not all consequences can be seen and felt right here right now. Some of the consequences I listed are depopulation, SIV's, broken homes where children grow up without loving parents and become criminals and drug addicts, and then parents themselves. These are all consequences IMO of a growing attitude that the family is not so important and I believe that homosexuality is just one of many things that contributes to that.
lately ive been hearing the argument that we basically need to allow gay marriage because people used to think it was morally correct/biblically supported to have slaves and to separate the races, even though it wasnt.. and this is along the same lines" so im hoping someone is willing to put aside liberal talkiing points and answer this question honestly... if you argue that legalizing gay marriage is similar to the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights movement, you also have to admit that desegregation didnt happen overnight... Before blacks went to white schools, it was ruled that their schools had to be seperate but equal.. doesnt this suggests that before you can have gay marriage accepted by the nation, you must first have civil unions??
And.............you're a douchebag. The only reason desergregation was slower than it should have been is because of institutional racism. You know, Jews were slowly given the right to buy land in most of the world only fairly recently. So lets give the Muslims another couple of hundred years, and then let them purchase property in the US. Quick thinking.
wow, what a surprise, lets make a personal attack because someone has a different view than you.. I would argue that you are the douchebag for believing that while an estimated 70-80 percent of the country is agianst gay marriage they will stand by quietly and accept it even before the civil union of gays is allowed... wait, maybe youre not a douchebag... just a fuc.king idiot...
But don't you see? You're saying that we should enact laws that deny people rights based on the commandments of YOUR RELIGION, which HAPPENS to be in the majority. You said yourself that you have to respect others rights to freedom of religion. And as far as "enabling" sin -- then I imagine you also think we should have laws that ban divorce? And require people to go to church on Sunday? And ban people disrespecting their parents? Throw people in jail for adultery? For being pagan? (you could go down the list of the 10 commandments). In any case, all of these, again, based on YOUR religion - in a country that has religious freedom. It's a catch 22. that's why we have separation of church and state. regardless of whether it's the "majority" religion.
But dont YOU see that we are enacting laws based on the religion that this country was founded on.. It strikes me how quickly people marginalize the immense contribution of the Christian religion to this country..
Again, not getting it. It's not about marginalizing Christianity's contribution to this country, it's about ruling a people based on values that are not their own. It about not taking away a persons freedom to something just because you think it isn't right. I hate to beat this drum again, but the very people who founded this country knew that mixing their religion with the political beast they were creating was not a good idea; why don't you understand this? Those of us who support the idea of gay marriage or civil union don't want you to change your viewpoint that it's wrong, we just don't want you to force that viewpoint on others.
And what exactly is "the christian religion"? because i'm sure not every one of the founding fathers was the same religion. I assume you're speaking of protestant sects of christianity. If "the majority of this country decided to convert to Muslim or Buddhism, does that give us the right to enact laws based on those religions? You (speaking generally about the people posting in this thread) would be fine with that because they would be the "majority" religion? Or would you stand up and say, hey, that's wrong, what about separation of church and state? Because that's what this country was founded on. It wasn't founded on a specific religion. Or maybe i read different history books than you. But i did go to school in the South-christian bible belt. hmmmmmmmmm........
I'd just like to commend sokol on his liberalism. He states his argument against gay marriage starts with the question why do people get married in the first place, saying that from the religious point of view, it is to create a family, and that if a marriage is not based on the desire to raise a family, than what is it for? Why, he says, do 2 people, gay or not, who have no intention of being parents and raising a family, need the same privileges as those who are raising families? The key thing here is his phrase 'gay or not' as logically he would also have to prohibit the marriage of older straight people who are past childbearing age. Seeing as he isn't proposing that, I reckon he's a dammed liberal after all. Evidently can't be a Christian.
That was a very smart way to make sure the conservatives demo's and republicans got out to vote for Bush by putting this on the election voting. Brilliant
They are getting our asses kicked? On Ben Gay laden he believes in marriage with Camels and donkeys not gays. The US almost married a camel good thing Kerry lost.
quite honestly i would stand up and say that it was wrong because our country wasnt founded with muslims and buddhists in mind.. I totally understand that you guys just think i dont "get" it,, Maybe i dont. I only support laws based on Christian religion because the country was founded by Christians and the laws were based on Christian teachings. Thats admittedly not a "fair" thing to say but like ive said before, its not about being fair, its about being right...
Which religion exactly is in the majority? There is not a single religion which holds a majority in this country. Therefore laws against divorce don't exist. My religion doesn't forbid divorce, it does discourage it especially when there are children. Some religions do forbid it. We have religious freedom, and we the right to govern our society based on out conscious. Let's say we, this mysterious religious majority who basically only agree with themselves about one or two issues (and gay marriage just happens to be one of them) and otherwise argue all the time, decided to pass a law that says we would kill all pagans. How is this different from you voting for a law that throws child molestors in jail? There are actually religions in this country where that is part of the beliefs. Aren't you voting against their religious freedom? Would you vote for a law against child molestation? Wouldn't that be hypocritical to vote for that law and then say other people can't vote for laws to kill pagans? It wasn't the republicans who brought this issue up remember. They just responded, obviously with millions of democrats who share the same values, with a resounding "NO." That's how democracy works. If you think of something better, I know a lot of people who would love to hear about it. Just another question. You say you oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. Could you explain to me your reasons?
No, its not because you have a different view than me. Its because you're frightfully ignorant. I don't support gay marriage, so what's your point? You're right, I'm not. No, but you are. The reason Plessy vs. Ferguson was enacted is ONLY because the country was still racist. No one said "lets take this whole desergration thing slowly, folks". There was repeated resistance to it. What some people are saying is that this is similar. Since discrimination against gays is wrong, we shouldn't have to phase it in. Whether that's smart politically is irrelevant. Trumpeting full rights for blacks would have been politically foolish in 1890, too.
The DUH answer comes in. Marriage is religious, and I don't want government monkeying around with that more than they have. Civil unions are civil, and should be available to all. I see no reason why two men who've been in a committed relationship can't share health benefits.
Fair enough. But should we extend health benefits to roommates at college? Or to people who live with a sibling? I don't see why if we should extend benefits people in a civil union, we shouldn't to 2 brothers who share a house. That's a pretty committed relationship isn't it?
I wish I knew some way to have an honest dialogue with people of sincere religious beliefs without the kooks coming around and saying they don't care about the Constitution. Why do you hate America?
Its not about whether you support it or not, its the thinking that it would be accepted before civil unions so are you arguing that the prejudice toward gays is so vastly different to the prejudice towards blacks that the country doesnt need to have civil unions to work towards marriage, like we had equal but separate schools to work toward desegregation??
If there were evidence that it wouldn't cause aderse selection problems, I'd be all for it. The more the merrier when it comes to health insurance. . . . . or what Segroves said.
Kelly, I can't really address your argument until I understand something. Can you please tell me, do you think it was a good thing that we had separate but equal schools?