California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

I think the notion of "corruption" comes from the tradition of these religions. The Jewish and Christian texts are both known for being anti-gay, and with the Christian text this sentiment is found in Old and New testament. The notion of corruption is odd for a person who claims not to be a Christian but understandable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nope, nothing in the first amendment about this issue. Really though, the issue involved here is not "religion" so much as "morality" and well, there is no way for a government to not impose morality upon others as all laws are impositions of some moral idea(yes, utilitarianism is a moral/ethical idea, so it does not avoid the problem despite what some may think).

you sure? isn't the banning of homosexual marriages simply just an acquiescing to christian conservatives who are the whole impetus behind such a movement against homosexuality? isn't that essentially making law respecting an establishment of religion? how about christian gays who don't believe homosexuality is a sin and they have equal rights to be loved by god as equals? isn't that an infringement against their rights?

the religious nature of the whole homosexual marriage thing is at the very heart of the con side of the issue just like religion is at the very heart of the ID side of the evolution discussion.

Exactly. If people aren't trying to impose their religious beliefs on others, then why has this thread been so dominated by religious expressions? I have yet to see a tenable, logical reason why excluding same-sex couples is acceptable on secular grounds. The other reason why I mentioned the First Amendment is because some people here seem not to understand the concept of free expression.

It is a corruption of the text. There is nothing either in the Jewish or Christian scriptures that allows homosexual marriage. If they want to marry gays, they could do what they want. I and others know it is a corrupt practice, an aberration.





I'm just calling it how it is. There is nothing in any of the Abrahamic traditions that allows marriages between gays. A homosexual who is repentant is taken as a brother, I am sure. But a practicing homosexual who is unashamed cannot, and never one wanting to marry. Just stating how it is.

Prove to me it is better. Don't just say "If heterosexuals are allowed, so should homosexuals." I even made a post several days ago that more rights should be given to gays to accommodate them, but why should I give up on my belief that they shouldn't marry?






I had to laugh at that. You act as the Creator is democratic.

Religious expression?

No, free expression of any kind. Some people here seem to think they have the right to tell others to stop doing something ("PDA", etc.) in public.

Some people think freedom of expression means able to do anything.

Well, it is following their desires perhaps, but it is not establishing religion so much as following it's lead. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that because the reasons for the law are moral beliefs formed by the religion and not directly servitude to the religion itself. Given that you cannot separate a person's morality from their actions for anything(a war could be fomented by religion, a law, a policy, etc), we ultimately have to not look at the reasons for a person to set up a law, but rather how the law interacts with institutions and prior interpretations of our laws. The issue of rights is useless, there is no right to have a state recognized marriage and considering that our laws have originally worked without gay marriage, we must assume that gay marriage is not implied by our laws or outright rejected by them either.

Well, except it isn't. The ID side of the evolution argument is just plain incorrect and only a trojan horse for a religious agenda. A law cannot be correct or incorrect, and laws of all sorts are parts of agendas. The notion that this law is special is because of some fabled neutrality which doesn't exist.


How about this idea: "I don't like gays therefore the government should not create a law for their marriage". Completely secular, it can be used by a person of religion or an atheist, and not only that, but there is nothing in the constitution saying what a voter's reason has to be for enacting a law. Religious arguments have been involved in the American legal system for quite a few years, but a religion argument for a governmental action does not stand against the 1st Amendment and traditionally even issues MORE blatantly religious than this have been passed, so the 1st Amendment argument does not seem to hold based upon a what I consider a literal or a historical view of it. Finally, free expression is sort of an issue, but once again, the original interpretation did not include this type of expression, therefore we cannot assume it.

Now, this is not to say that I am against gay marriage, I just think that it would be better to further develop the arguments in a different direction. This can be arguments from multiple strains of thought, such as the utilitarian ethical argument, and the libertarian ethical argument because these are generally accepted. Also, it would probably be best to press opponents for their reasoning to catch them in contradictions, as I would imagine that most opponents of gay marriage, even though they don't have to violate the 1st amendment, don't recognize that their ideology would demand them to, or does demand them to, or is inconsistent with itself. Finally though, the entire "constitutional argument" really, is just flawed in and of itself anyway, as the constitution is not the summation of all that people may want their political system to do or not do. Even IF the 1st amendment were interpreted the way you people do interpret it, a constitutional amendment, as some people already desire, would get around that 1st amendment by amending it, thus making the argument pointless.

and you act like as if you're right about your god and that every single other deity that people choose to worship is wrong.


that's arrogance. that's hubris. that's a sin.

I do?

Now if I did, I would defend that by saying the other practices are incorrect. They are in the wrong path and are sinners for praying to a false deity.




But I've never once ever said that either on line or off line.

changed to illustrate the point that your argument is built upon logical fallacies of assuming that biases and bigotry from the past is still acceptable today rather than simply just being a hateful institution of the past that only causes more problems than it fixes.

relating to morality, show me in sociological terms how gay marriage has a negative impact. the only con side of the argument i've been able to find has been completely arbitrary morals. laws are serious business and are people's lives. arbitrary rules set up to appease one person's god* are unconstitutional and are a detriment to society and to claiming that we are a free society that recognizes all people as equals. there are specific rights and privileges granted within the legal definition of marriage that a homosexual couple cannot enact without the official legal paperwork and it's absurd to not allow them the same rights simply because of someone's imaginary friend being pissed off.





and not allowing homosexuals to marry is also just plain incorrect and has been another trojan horse for a religious agenda. there's a reason why bush has been using phrases like "the sanctity of marriage" whenever he talks about such garbage: because all it is is a religious agenda to maintain power within the government by exerting it through the people and inciting hate and intolerance against homosexuals. it is the same thing as the ID side of evolution...it's garbage that can't be backed up by fact (that i've been able to find so far...the only side that could potentially be impacted is the economic side but i haven't found solid numbers on that yet).





*or two or three...james madison made sure to specify that when he was explaining the first amendment in the annals of congress.

so this isn't you claiming that your god is the right one by only citing your god and acting like he's the only one and not only that but also acting like every single word written in your personal book of mythology is true?






capitalizing creator already gives away that you're talking about YOUR god. you are implying that any other religion that were to contradict your views as you follow like the blind sheep you are is wrong because celestial rules are only dictated by your god and not others.


sorry but you're not even good at this whole "i'm gonna try to play semantics" thing.

1) What? Citing my Lord? Where? Mythology book? Which one?

The Lord I worship IS the only One. I'm not ashamed of saying or typing that. I cannot and will not deny it.


2) That is a stupid way of putting it. What makes you think He is MINE alone? I have no ownership over Him. I can pray to Him and He doesn't have to find favor in me.

You act as believing in a religion means that you must leave doubt that you are in the wrong. That is a ridiculous argument. Why would I follow a practice that I consider wrong? Why would I claim that another religion is better than mine? If that was the case, I'd convert to the better religion. I am perfectly situated. I need not convert.


Where are you coming up with this argument? It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well, I don't accept that as a counter-argument. Yes, the argument is similar to a lack of acceptance of inter-racial marriage, and that could theoretically be used as an argument against issues of disgust or aberration, but it does not change the legality of the structure.


Well, skafather, moral codes exist and morality is arbitrary and people vote on their morality. Laws are a serious business, and I am not denying that, but you cannot dismiss morality on the basis of morality as you just attempted. The argument is sort of like asserting a morality above morality, which is nonsensical. Not only that, but the argument from constitutionality is bad as I already stated, as a constitutional amendment can address this, and people against gay marriage have already started talk about a constitutional amendment. Frankly, skafather, you have already labeled the religion absurd so following an absurdity is absurd, however, if one rejects the absurdity of the religion then one cannot accept the absurdity in following it.



There is no such thing as "plain incorrect" with value judgments and voting is not an institutional thing, but rather a value judgment made by individuals as the constitution does not tell individuals how to vote, it sets up a framework for how laws can be made and what these laws have to work inside the framework of. The sanctity of marriage thing is stupid, and I will agree with that, however, ID is incorrect because it is not science, but a law against gay marriage has nothing that can really judge it as it is just a law in and of itself. The issue is that facts aren't necessary, judgments are necessary. The people of the US have the right and ability to vote against gay marriage even if gay marriage would usher in an age of new utopia according to all of our research data, and to ignore that is to claim 1 of 2 things, either that the voters of the US have an obligation to vote based upon a preset ethical position, which they do not, or to not recognize that facts must be interpreted to make any judgment upon them and that these interpreting processes can hold different facts up to different weightings and typically do. Now, what you are trying to do is deny your opponents a position, which is, well, incorrect in just about any case outside of a purely analytical field. Most opponents have a position, they may have a position that does not accomplish their aims or anyone else's, but they certainly have a position which they can stick to no matter what others think of it. The issue is figuring out their logic and finding the holes in it.

Here is the issue about gay marriage and judgements, I can say that most conservative positions about banning gay marriage would come from religious grounds, then the issue here, when it comes to the separation of church and sate, countries like Canada, Spain and others when gay-marriage are pefectly legal have come from that secular position, there my view on this is that of the reason of allowing or not, sex-marriage legally, should be solely based on scientific studies rather than religious grounds when it comes to social issues like human rights, equality, discimination, hate laws, etc. and it is reasonable.


Now, this is a question I have made about this, about why people in the US have to vote wether against or in favor of gay marriage? Wouldn't this be considered unfair, and maybe unconstitutional? to depend on people's opinions and their votes for their equal rights, and then denying them because of not being such a popular thing? Were women subjected to votes from all american men, and were they waiting if they could have the same right to vote and have equal rights, and only if men liked the idea? Did black people were sitting there waiting for public opinion deciding wether or not they should be seen as equals? and that is an interesting question actually.