#226358 - 13/07/2004 19:56
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
You might be interested to read a bit of legal analysis of the First Amendment, including the three tests used by the courts to determine violations of the Establishment Clause: Quote:
The first two standards were part of the same formulation. 'The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution."
I think a case could be argued that the primary effect of the FMA would be an advancement of religion, especially if the proponents of the FMA clearly state that religion is the basis for the content of the amendment. Now, these tests are applied to legislation, not constitutional amendments, but it would leave us with amendments that would arguably be at odds with each other.
Here's a nice quote from Jefferson, too:
Quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226359 - 13/07/2004 20:33
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Fallacious argument, not relevant; there's a whole host of perfectly good non-religious reasons that people shouldn't kill one another.
That was my argument. I wasn't arguing for murder to be legalised, I was saying that asking believers your question doesn't well distinguish between theocratic and humanistic laws.
Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion, just as it's possible for immorality to exist in its presence.
You and I believe that; it's not clear whether a fundamentalist would, at least insofar as it concerns their particular religion. Certainly no fundamentalist worth the name will be building their personal morality on such considerations.
Perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe that allowing gay marriage will have tangible bad consequences for this mortal life?" If an action has bad consequences only intangibly or in the afterlife, then the place for a prohibition on it is in religious doctrine. For everything else, there's temporal authority.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226360 - 13/07/2004 21:05
Re: gay marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I was saying that asking believers your question doesn't well distinguish between theocratic and humanistic laws.
Agreed. I was trying to ask the question of everyone, not just "believers". I'm honestly trying to find out if there are any arguments for outlawing gay marriage that don't boil down to religion.
Quote:
If an action has bad consequences only intangibly or in the afterlife, then the place for a prohibition on it is in religious doctrine. For everything else, there's temporal authority.
Yup. I'm just trying to see if anyone's got decent arguments for the latter.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226361 - 14/07/2004 00:14
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
See, that's just it. As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."
Tony, I just don't think that's true. Seperation of church and state is precicely WHY this is an issue. I truly feel like a sacred rite of the church is being redifined by the state, which is NOT seperation of church and state. Once again, if this were baptism we were talking about I think you'd understand better why the church is upset over this.
I realize there's disagreement over whether the concept of marriage originated with the church, but while that question is open it can't be as simple as, "the church has no say because the state owns the concept of marriage."
As for discussing marriage without involving religion, I don't truly believe there would be the concept of "marriage" if it weren't for religion. Of course, that's because I believe the concept origionated with religion. And I realize that people are going to immediately point to coupeling in animals as a non-religious example of marriage, but I don't see the government legislating dating relationships.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226362 - 14/07/2004 00:20
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Peter (and others),
I really feel like I keep dancing around the issue of how I came to believe what I do. Frankly I haven't had the time to sit down and do it right, nor do I have time right now, but I'll try in the near future. You and others are asking some great questions and I'd really like to do them justice.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226363 - 14/07/2004 00:52
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Tony,
Peter has well represented my thoughts in his posts, but to take it a little further it seems to me that you think religious beliefs are not valid for the basis of law. If this is the case, what kind of source is valid for determining law?
My point is, you might not think my religious views are valid, but just because they are religious in nature doesn't disqualify them. In the same way, the fact that your views might not be religious in nature doesn't disqualify them either.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226364 - 14/07/2004 01:05
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion.
I'd disagree with this, as would many secular philosophers. Of course many philosophers would agree as well, but I just wanted to point out this is not a Christian only viewpoint.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226365 - 14/07/2004 01:21
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion.
I'd disagree with this, as would many secular philosophers. Of course many philosophers would agree as well, but I just wanted to point out this is not a Christian only viewpoint.
I got home and I see a lot of posts that I would like to respond to, but I feel like this one demands immediate attention.
Dictionary.com, (they could be wrong):
Morality:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
By at least the first definition, I figured I was good to go, morality-wise. But, Jeff, you seem to be suggesting that I am a no-hoper.
I mean, gosh, yes, I did exceed the speed limit last week, and I might have been a jerk to that cashier at the Jiffy Mart, but I am trying my best! Are you saying that all my effort is wasted? That I am fundamentally immoral/amoral?
Sheesh! This is a major bummer!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226366 - 14/07/2004 02:11
Re: gay marriage
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Jim,
Let me clarify a little (since I've been hammered for this before). What I'm not arguing is that only Christians can be moral. And yes, this whole thing depends on how you define morality. However, my basic argument is that unless humans figure out how to live for ever and transend even the life of the universe we're in, or there is some external judge of our actions, ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything. It then follows to me that if there is no meaning to life and our actions have no ultimate consequence, anything percieved as "good" or "bad" is really only a temproary perception, for in the end all there are are actions without real result. And if there is no "good" or "bad" then there is no morality.
It sounds silly to say, but until we achieve eternal life or unless there's some external being to our existense, even murder isn't really wrong. For ultimately all will be dead, violently or not, and the experiences of our lives will be meaningless. Some have said that the purpose of life is to influence positively those who come after us, but that only works out if someday someone achieves a lasting result with their lives: ie- transends a temporary existense. Otherwise it's "turtles all the way down!"
I've said all of this before and it's been recieved quite negatively, which I understand because it really isn't positive stuff, but it should explain my thoughts on why morality is dependant on there being a God or some impending transendence of humans in the future. I believe if there is a God then morality exists for the Athiest and Christian alike (and since I do believe in God, I also believe in morality), but I also believe that if there is no God, morality cannot exist because there is no real "right" or "wrong" when all is said and done.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226367 - 14/07/2004 03:17
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Jeff, first let me say that my hat's off to you for managing and earnest, honest response when you have amoral louts like me taunting you (that was a joke!). Seriously, though, hat's off.
Let me clarify a little (since I've been hammered for this before). What I'm not arguing is that only Christians can be moral.
I was pretty sure the implication was there, but let's move on...
And yes, this whole thing depends on how you define morality. However, my basic argument is that unless humans figure out how to live for ever and transend even the life of the universe we're in, or there is some external judge of our actions, ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything.
It is interesting to hear you say this in all earnestness. I can't nor shouldn't put words in your mouth, but what you say here sounds familiar -- echoes many late-night conversations I've had. Like I've said, I find the persistence of religion in cultures through time puzzling. To the extent that I understand the phenomenon a little bit, though, I defintely see religion as a continued search for meaning.
Your "ultimatly all we do has no meaning since nothing we do permenantly effects anything" is considered, I think, the perennial question of mankind :
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing
As a life-long depressive, this question of meaning is always hovering over my shoulder..."What's the point, Jim?"
Ask the question often enough, though, and you can come to the conclusion that the question is pointless...or at least not helpful.
Does my life have meaning? I am not sure. I may *yet* go work for some NGO and try to keep some poor African kid from dying of cholera. In the meantime, I am going to my favorite niece's wedding this weekend in Worcester and hope to have a good time. I suspect that she and her handsome beau will have litters of children very, very quickly and will do their best to raise them as moral little people, all the while asking "What is the meaning of all this?" on occasion. They have, I think, become somewhat dissilusioned with the pedophile-ridden diocese where they reside, but if they regain some loyalty to all that -- and find some eternal meaning there -- I would not be surprised.
It then follows to me that if there is no meaning to life and our actions have no ultimate consequence, anything percieved as "good" or "bad" is really only a temproary perception, for in the end all there are are actions without real result. And if there is no "good" or "bad" then there is no morality.
Your logic is internally consistent and valid, I think. I don't accept the "there is no meaning to life" part, though, I guess that I prefer to "park" that issue, though, continuing to wonder "Hmmm, what might the meaning be?" whilst trying to observe some semblance of morality that I finde described on dictionary.com.
It sounds silly to say, but until we achieve eternal life or unless there's some external being to our existense, even murder isn't really wrong.
Oh, I don't know. As an empiricist, I can say that if you murdered me, I would be *really* pissed!
For ultimately all will be dead, violently or not, and the experiences of our lives will be meaningless. Some have said that the purpose of life is to influence positively those who come after us, but that only works out if someday someone achieves a lasting result with their lives: ie- transends a temporary existense. Otherwise it's "turtles all the way down!"
I have to figure out that turtles reference!
I've said all of this before and it's been recieved quite negatively, which I understand because it really isn't positive stuff, but it should explain my thoughts on why morality is dependant on there being a God or some impending transendence of humans in the future. I believe if there is a God then morality exists for the Athiest and Christian alike (and since I do believe in God, I also believe in morality), but I also believe that if there is no God, morality cannot exist because there is no real "right" or "wrong" when all is said and done.
Jeff, you may feel free to take this the wrong way -- to interpret this as condescending -- but I don't think that what you have expressed with respect to life and meaning is much different from what many thoughtful people have struggled through over the ages. People just differ in how they sort that out.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226368 - 14/07/2004 05:10
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
As for discussing marriage without involving religion, I don't truly believe there would be the concept of "marriage" if it weren't for religion. Of course, that's because I believe the concept origionated with religion.
That's as may be. But right now I'm talking about the current "state" part of marriage, not the "church" part. It's possible for two people to get married purely through state paperwork at the courthouse, having nothing to with any religion at all. No clergyman, no church, no ceremony. This is to the best of my knowledge. Am I wrong?
Somewhere earlier in the thread there was a statement something like "what if we could have a state marriage that was separate from a religious marriage", and I wasn't sure if that was meant as sarcasm, because that's what we've got right now as far as I know.
So you're continuing to discuss religious reasons and avoiding my original question, which still stands. Does anyone who opposes gay marriage have a good non-religious reason for it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226369 - 14/07/2004 07:19
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Once again, if this were baptism we were talking about I think you'd understand better why the church is upset over this.
And conversely, if baptism conferred special legal and societal rights beyond those entirely internal to the church, then I hope you could understand why we atheists would want that disestablished just as marriage has been...
Quote:
I realize there's disagreement over whether the concept of marriage originated with the church, but while that question is open it can't be as simple as, "the church has no say because the state owns the concept of marriage."
Marriage is documentedly well-established in the Code of Hammurabi, before either Judaism or Christianity originated. I don't see any room for disagreement there except from the "Scripture is correct and therefore any conflicting archaeology is incorrect" crowd.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226370 - 14/07/2004 08:50
Re: gay marriage
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226371 - 14/07/2004 10:17
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
It's possible for two people to get married purely through state paperwork at the courthouse, having nothing to with any religion at all. No clergyman, no church, no ceremony.
This is 90% right. We had a justice of the peace basically "swear us in" and then she *READ FROM THE BIBLE*. I was really pissed off about that. That was her own special religiously heavy-handed touch though. In the case of the church ceremony, the minister is able to serve in the capacity of the justice of the peace, so s/he is granted that ability by the state. However, the ceremony itself is PURELY pomp and circumstance and has no meaning other than to the witnesses. I don't believe the justice of the peace actually had to read anything -- I think she was there as a notary/witness, but I'm not actually positive about that. It may be that she's supposed to just verify that the whole thing isn't a sham.
On a side note, can I point out that people always talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and yet something like 50% of marriages fail? I think half the people should probably pretty much sit down and be quiet about the whole sanctity thing for a little while and think about what they've done.
ms
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226372 - 14/07/2004 11:29
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Somewhere earlier in the thread there was a statement something like "what if we could have a state marriage that was separate from a religious marriage", and I wasn't sure if that was meant as sarcasm, because that's what we've got right now as far as I know.
I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226373 - 14/07/2004 11:43
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
Jeff, Quote:
I truly feel like a sacred rite of the church is being redifined by the state
I find that in many of your posts, you refer to "the church" as if it is a monolithic institution with a single set of values. I know you live in a state where fundamentalist Christian churches dominate the religious landscape, but in other areas, that's not the case. Fundamentalist churches here in Chicago are among the minority, and I think there is an entire spectrum of religious thought, of which your church is a single data point.
Ultimately, this is why I believe the issue should be left to the states to decide. Why should southern churches determine law for more liberal states in the north?
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226374 - 14/07/2004 12:17
Re: gay marriage
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Sorry, I'm not being clear. By "the church" simply referring to religion in general, as opposed to "the state". I fully recognize that other religions (or churches) may allow gay marriage and that it is completly within thier rights to define marriage that way. I just don't think the state should do it. To me THAT'S a violation of church/state separation. Your next thought is going to be- why should the state define marriage as "man and woman", and as I've said before I don't think the state should have ever been involved in the first place. But since the state DID get involved, it seems unfair to change the meaning now.
Let me tack this on as a thought that I haven't really been clear on: I think gay marraige is going to happen. I am a little upset by it because of the whole "redifinition" thing, but ultimately it's not the end of the world. I don't support legislative morality, and this includes homosexuals: if a homosexual person decides not to persue a same-sex relationship, I'd rather this be an honest act of faith rather than bowing to the pressure of society. So none of my beliefs about legal same-sex marriage come from the idea that I want to somehow keep people from sin by forcing them into submission of my worldview; they come from a defensive position of feeling attacked.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226375 - 14/07/2004 13:05
Re: gay marriage
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
This is a political powerplay, a classic example of divisive politics meant to force senators on the record one way or another, which can then be used as a bludgeon at election time.
Dan, while I think the discussion of the underlying issue is worthwhile, I wanted to back up also chime in with "Absolutely agree." and thank you for summarizing this so well.
I can hear the ads now..."Bob Limprist, he voted with *Ted* *Kennedy* to defeat the FMA! Limprist voted against body armor for our troops, and he *even* sponsored a bill to let *terrorists* attend our state colleges -- *tuition-free*!! Bob Limprist! What kind of senator is *that*?"
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226376 - 14/07/2004 14:32
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say.
True, but irrelevant.
I'm still waiting.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226377 - 14/07/2004 15:04
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
And you'll probably keep waiting. Claiming that would be tantamount to proclaiming one is a homophobe. Now that Yz33d is gone, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to do that.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226378 - 14/07/2004 15:34
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
I don't think the marjority of Americans view the two as seperate, whatever the lawbooks say
I wonder if that is really true? Personally I have no problem distinguishing the two and I don't understood the importance of the viewpoint that one camp or the other "stole" the term. Its just another word that means different things in different contexts to different people. Its quite clear to me that any laws that refer to marriage must by definition be using the legal meaning of the word and not the religious one. Of course as Tony mentioned the only viewpoint that can come from that is STFU and keep your religion away from my laws (or vice versa).
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226379 - 14/07/2004 15:52
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Claiming that would be tantamount to proclaiming one is a homophobe.
I'm not trying to bait anyone into getting flamed, I'm genuinely trying to find out if there's a good reason for it that's not religious in nature.
I mean, no one's cited any reasons yet, good or not. Even if it was a supremely stupid and bad reason like "the gender is a field on the marriage license form and it would cost millions to have all the forms redone to be gender neutral", at least that's something tangible that we can sink our teeth into and resolve, one way or the other. I was making that one up as an example, of course, I don't really think it's a possible reason or even worthy of discussion.
I'm just looking for a way to discuss the topic that doesn't keep coming back to "it should be against the law because God said so." That discussion will never resolve.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226380 - 14/07/2004 16:10
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226381 - 14/07/2004 16:14
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I'm just looking for a way to discuss the topic that doesn't keep coming back to "it should be against the law because God said so." That discussion will never resolve.
I think the discussion is more like "it should be against the law because the law shouldn't (re)define something that is within the realm of religion". Not that we'll resolve that discussion either . . .
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226383 - 14/07/2004 19:01
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
By "the church" simply referring to religion in general, as opposed to "the state". I fully recognize that other religions (or churches) may allow gay marriage and that it is completly within thier rights to define marriage that way. I just don't think the state should do it. To me THAT'S a violation of church/state separation.
Oops, I think you just got caught there. So only YOUR religion's version of marriage should be sanctioned by the state then? Only your religion has the right to define the institution, and even other religion's definitions should be banned if they disagree.
Well, where to start? I have stayed out of this conversation this time but I want to weigh in because no-one else is saying what I am going to say.
First of all marriage was not created by religion. Many other animals mate for life, without the benefit of religion, and I think it stands to reason that early pre-homo sapien human species did so long before their brains got thinking about religion and they formalized it in that framework. Of course since I am sure you don't believe in that, or the fact that Judaism is not the first religion in human history and that those early peoples' had marriages just fine without ever hearing of your god, so those arguments will mean little to you.
Second, external morality is an illusion. The only morality is that which is built into us for the benefit of the survival of the species, or more specifically the survival of the family and clan groups which we have surrounded ourselves with until just recently, and even more specifically than that, the survival and reproduction of the genes of that group that our similar to ours. Morality was not put in us by some god; it evolved to make it possible for us to live in a group instead of only concerning ourselves with just ourselves because in a group we have better odds of surviving as a whole. It has been built up by millions of years of evolution through natural selection; those that were 'immoral' got ostracized and died. This has been proven by studies of primates that have discovered they have very similar concepts of right and wrong, though unspoken; most of the things we associate with morality; empathy, self sacrifice, the concepts of fairness and sharing and rules and the consequences of breaking them, all are in them without the concept of morality as we know it or some god. Without these evolved behaviours, their society would not exist, nor would ours. Religion has snaked its way into these concepts and re-enforced them with made-up external threats for the purposes of control, but without any concept of religion a society and the people living in it would still follow these precepts.
Anyway, I doubt that argument will mean much to you either. But I just wanted to state that I have a framework of morality that stands up fine on its own without being propped up by some god, and is much more internally consistent without having some of the logical flaws that an imposed morality does.
Edited to fix some typos
Edited by ninti (14/07/2004 20:37)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226384 - 14/07/2004 19:12
Re: gay marriage
[Re: ninti]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
But I just wanted to state that I have a framework of morality that stands up fine on its own without being propped up by some god, and is much more internally consistant without having some of the logical flaws that an imposed morality does.
All morality is based upon some sort of guide - a rule or a plumb line by which it is measured. I'm assuming that the "common man morality" that you refer to is based on today's society or culture. Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent. The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being. Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226385 - 14/07/2004 19:21
Re: gay marriage
[Re: mschrag]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
I'm assuming you're kidding, but just in case. The first part is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It means that Congress cannot pass laws that are religious in nature -- meaning the otherway around is covered too.
It depends on the intent that the founding fathers had when writing that particular sentence. Unfortunately, we are left with the job of choosing between the two potential meanings...
1. That Congress may not respect or pass laws concerning or favoring a specific religion, or...
2. That Congress may not pass a law instituting a state-sanctioned religion such as there was in England at the time.
I tend to lean towards the latter considering that many of our Forefathers fled the Old World in search of religious freedom. It would also explain the copious amount of religious expression that is dispersed throughout our founding documents and creeds. Either our Founding Fathers were hypocrites in the greatest sense of the word, or we have been mistranslating the phrase to fit our own desires.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226386 - 14/07/2004 19:21
Re: gay marriage
[Re: mschrag]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 31/05/2002
Posts: 352
Loc: santa cruz,ca
|
should the "boy's club" allow girls? not if you asked me.
should the church allow same-sex marriage? if it's their policy not to, well that's up to them.
should the state make it illegal? I, like Tony, would love to hear any good reason why.
I think farretboy has made an outstanding attempt to explain why the church has it's reasons. however I think this issue clearly shows just how un-clear the line is between church and state.
for the church to say "that's not marriage" reminds me of crocodile Dundee saying "that's not a knife".
for anyone to say that "dinosaur bones", or any other physical evidence that discredits the bible must have been planted to test faith, is just wacky. imho.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226387 - 14/07/2004 19:23
Re: gay marriage
[Re: djc]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
I think the majority of population that doesn't subscribe to your particular faith would rather not have it dictate our government policies, thank you very much.
On the flip side, I'd rather not have someone's liberal agenda dictating government policies. Looks like we're in the same boat. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index