California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

well, I'm for secular principles over religious bigotry.

not saying there are no religious principles.
not saying there are no secular bigotry.

But I know we all here would not perfectly agree on what constitutes bigotry and what constitutes principle, and to say it better, the use and misuse of any of them.

Not really, but I have to follow some logic in this, this is how you feel because secularism does not fit to your view on how the world must be according to your point of view, is there fanatism and extremism from both sides? yes, there is, from any side.

I can't help to think of similar arguments like that coming from other denomination you seem to dislike or at least disagree strongly, the argument of being persecuted because society not conforming according to their beliefs.

Last edited by greenblue on 19 May 2008, 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I always had this discussion with my mind: Considering that the majority in America profess on being of a religion, why not allow laws that are respectable to both religion (all religions) and secularism? After all, we are not a truly secular nation.

you're dodging the question.

i repeat: what rights are you having taken away?

Any of 'em and all. Really though, the Axis of Evil, if you haven't noticed, isn't a group with a lot to trade. NK is just crap, and Iran and Iraq both have oil, which is a pretty generic product anyway, if we don't buy it then somebody else would. Heck, I would say that we would be and the Axis of Evil would both be better if we traded as people don't go around killing their trade partners, as noted by early French economist Frederic Bastiat in the slogan "If goods don't cross borders, armies will"


Who is this we? I don't support most public means of discrimination, and the institutes you speak of are not ones that I put much justice into. Not only that, but how much discrimination do you support? After all, I thought that most people considered discrimination to be a necessary evil, but now you go about talking about broad societal support? I mean, heck, that sounds a bit fascistic to me.


Ok, so why not both?

Ok. And some people have religion.

Protect the family? Doesn't need protection. Legal matters could be dealt with better if we had a more contractarian society.


Private contracts can work. In fact, many companies use private legal systems for handling their own disputes and some legal analysts use private mechanisms as the measure for the efficacy of public law.


ty-rant (tirnt)n. 1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Well, I don't see any necessary restrictions. 2, "was not intended"? well, how do we define "what is intended" or "what is not intended"? Heck, the terminology sounds oddly theological. Now, because cruelty is still going to be subjective, I could call the casual harm to the interests of others to be cruel.

Why? Traditions are not the same as rules and the 2 can be separated. Rules are enforced by society and by mutual self-interest, traditions are just the ideas of certain people or groups of people, and should only be as valid as the association with those people. If your grandma wants you not to get married in a gay marriage and withholds an inheritance, then ok, I am not a part of that so I don't care. But if my government has to enforce a tradition that is not my own, then I am not going to support that, and if you want the government to maintain traditions, then you want a government who will control culture, and if you want a government to control the culture then you want a government that controls that basic part of human interaction, then it seems to me that you *do* want a totalitarian society.

Certainly so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_s ... as_fallacy

Fits in the former too.


Oh, ok. So?

So? What is wrong with a change in the definition of marriage. Either the change in it is wrong in and of itself, or it is not.

The whole "changing marriage" idea is such a red herring. Deciding that people had to be of a certain age before getting married changed marriage. Allowing women to own property changed marriage. Illegalizing marital rape changed marriage. The move towards free-choice marriage was a change. Etc, etc.

If the argument is rested on traditionalism, that doesn't necessarily rule out incest and polygamy, since both have a long history of practice. Some might say that the Bible is even permissive towards polygamy. Marriage between first cousins is legal in many states. Clearly, banning gay marriage clearly has not stopped this from happening. (Just look at Utah, an anti-gay marriage state.)

Personally, I think we need to make arguments for and against these practices which don't rely on the pure "ick" factor. Polygamy can be considered breech of contract, for instance. I believe the most germane argument against incest is that such relationships are nearly always coercive and involve some kind of power differential. "That's gross, it should be illegal" is not an argument.

1) We as in We the People. There will always be discrimination, we just are accepting of the discrimination we have, and unaccepting towards others. I don't really have the same definitions that people have when they use things like discrimination, racism, hatred, etc. Keep that in mind, it's usually semantics.

2) Eh. I won't argue for polygamy because I don't see a point in it aside from certain factors.

3) What do you mean by some people have religion? I'm trying to see this context. Do you mean that they have religion and prefer not to be told what to do because of it? Yes. But there are ways you can make laws with consideration towards the People, the Religion, and the Tradition. I don't pay much mind to the latest waves and s**ts in trend because it can change to anything.

4) A marriage is a contract. I would like people to be more penalized when a marriage is disrespected.

5) I am aware of that definition, but usually the title Tyrant is given as an emotional outburst. Especially when it is against a person who expresses his beliefs.

6) The tradition argument comes in play and you know it does. This is why there are the two major branches in politics labeled Conservative and Liberal. As a conservative I have to take into account the tradition (both local, national, and international), see how it fits with my personal beliefs, and if the conflict between other's interest is worth taking into consideration.

Big Fat Lie.


Nobody is stopping you from reading the bible out loud as long as you aren't disturbing the peace. Are you sure you were just ticking people off because you were reciting it too loudly? Because you religious types seem to think being stopped from annoying people means you are being oppressed.

The 10 Commandments monument violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment because it is a de facto endorsement of an aspect of Judeo-Christian religious tradition. It has nothing to do with "secular bigotry" except in the minds of fundies, who seem to think that they are oppressed as long as Christianity isn't the state religion. The monument WAS causing harm because it sent the message that Christians are more "American" then non-Christians.

1) It is not much a red herring because it does change marriage. Really, the four examples were something that American laws "corrected." I know of cultures that have always been against that.

2) Yes, although they are not something I quite approve of, they are still between a man and a woman.

3) You can argue these issues. I could even defend them but like I posted, there's no need for those kinds of marriages.

Same old lie. As I said, you guys think anything less then Christianity being a state religion is "oppression" by "evil secular bigots."

I did not agree to that, and Lysander Spooner, argued in his paper "No Treason" that there is no "we". I understand that discrimination will always exist, but I don't want to be a party to the discrimination that I don't agree with.


You said "you believe in a State", and I was just mocking that.


Why? They didn't agree to stiffer penalties. I don't see a problem with them seeker stiffer penalties for violation of the marital contract though.


Ok, and I am just am using it.

And I don't believe in either conservatives or liberals.

The founders set up the US as a secular country in order to PROTECT freedom of religion. The mingling of religion and government leads to persecution of minority beliefs. This is why the attack on secularism by the Religious Right is so disturbing, Official secularism is NECESSARY for freedom of religion to exist.

False. The US was founded on Christian principles. We extended toleration to different religions, but even in this we were limited. For a long time there was distrust of Catholics, as it was thought their loyalty to Rome might trump their loyalty to America. Atheists were long prohibited from acting as witnesses and offering testimony because it was believed that, without a God, there was nothing to bind them to an oath. Religious toleration originally was primarily for different sects of Protestantism. I don't really agree with that system, but it's what was historically there. I could point you towards Supreme Court cases affirming the Christian nature of this country (including one that ruled it unlawful to establish a school that didn't include Biblical instruction) if you like.

I don't mind you advocating for greater secularization, but please don't rewrite history in the process.

yeah because the majority of the deists were heavy into christianity.

1) I don't agree with Spooner's assertion. I understand his positions but I'd rather see a bigger government (certainly not fascist/totalitarian however). I tend to follow the Social Contract Theory, though more Hobbesian.

2) This is one of my problems with the government, since it is in charge of acknowledging marriage currently. If they were really honest about it, they'd punish those who broke the legal contract.