Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2010 21:08:07 GMT -5
Uh, what? Gay marriage is an IDEA set forth by the fact that many people ARE GAY. This means that the ideas of gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage DO NOT CO-EXIST...
On topic, I believe highly in the separation of church and state. It's the reason that I sit during the pledge of allegiance.
Whether you like it or not, religion is the ONLY reason that things like gay marriage are not allowed. I've never been given a valid argument against gay marriage (things like "Not natural" and "Marriage is for procreation" don't count. They are null in today's society) other than "God deems it an abomination" or "Bible said so"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2010 21:12:38 GMT -5
The only reason we got on the subject of gay marriage is because you brought it up, bro. Chels mentioned it briefly among other examples of religion controlling law, and you emphasized it (with an example that I still don't understand). Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.- From Wikipedia If the government is secular, then the laws should be secular. If a person or family chooses to be religious, that's fine. However, if that religion is imposed on the entire nation, that is not okay. Democracy can co-exist with secularism, and basic human rights come before everything (which is the case with gay marriage). Just because the church has done more good than harm for society (which, b.t.dubs, is an opinion) doesn't mean that it should be allowed to play a role in deciding laws. In a country that goes on and on about freedom, a secular state is the ideal solution. It allows individuals to practice their religion, and those who don't want to practice don't have to. Gays could get married, and if someone doesn't like it, they can humph and groan about it all they want, but it doesn't affect them. In a secular society, beliefs can coexist. In a non-secular society (where democracy > secularism, as you said), the majority opinion wins and everybody else has to deal with it. Uncool, IMO. Who are the ones who elect the government Courtney? The people. If the people are not secular, no matter what the government does - nothing will be secular. Beliefs already co-exist in the US, gay marriage not being legal does not mean beliefs don't co-exist. Just because you believe in something it doesn't mean it should happen. There is a government, it is there to satisfy the people. Thus and only thus, the US is as secular as it can get. TheIslander, LOL. I gave more reasons that just gay marriage. YOU only responded to that one of my reasons. Don't accuse me of only focusing on gay rights when you're the one that started the conversation. So tell me, why does our secular government have "under God," in the pledge? And we don't live in a direct democracy, so the laws don't necessarily represent what the population wants. Our representatives are supposed to be educated, intelligent individuals that can choose what's right for us using their best reasoning. But they don't do that. They make decisions based on their own ridiculous beliefs which have no logical grounding. "And we don't live in a direct democracy, so the laws don't necessarily represent what the population wants." : Eh? Do you even know what a direct democracy is? A direct democracy is un-related to what you are trying to say if I understood right. The point of democracy is to represent the people. Uh, sir, if I may say, she is referring to the fact that our democracy does not represent each individual. The PEOPLE vote on REPRESENTATIVES, and the REPRESENTATIVES vote on the laws (and leaders). So, really, if the people vote on a guy that says he is FOR gay rights, then he votes against gay rights, we can't do anything about it other than vote him out next election. We don't get to vote for laws ourselves, basically. P.S. I got your back, Cortney.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 29, 2010 23:37:05 GMT -5
Ok, the last 7 posts...
/thread
.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 30, 2010 0:15:01 GMT -5
"From our constitution - any law that prohibits gay marriage (If based on the fact that marriage is christian, gay is anti-christian, and thus gay people cannot have marriage) is unconstitutional"
If it was unconstitutional, that would be in a constitution.....
It is simply impossible to complitly eliminate religion from the goverman, people will have their believes, and they will choose a govermant based on that. Our govermant IS secular, you are looking on it the wrong way, our govermant is passing a certain law because it is favorited by the people, not because its in the bible(used for lack of a better example). The motive that the people have for supporting a certain law is irrelevant, it can be a religious motive, it can be anything the choose to spport. You can't just say, "Your voice does not count because it is based on religious views". And saying that religion can't be used as an argument is very closed minded, you have to remember that for those people it IS a logical argument because that's what they believe in. Is it fair? Of course not, but this IS democracy. And someone said that govermant is not representing the will of the people, well, it is, the thing is that people don't see the full picture, at least for the most part. They also change their mind a lot, the two wars that we are in right now are perfect examples, most people supported them before going in.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 30, 2010 0:24:00 GMT -5
hundreds of things have been deemed unconstitutional and are not in the constitution.
any law passed that whose only basis is religious is an unconstitutional law, regardless of whether the majority votes for it or not.
in the 1800's the majority of the US would have voted pro-slavery - but it was deemed unconstitutional (so much so that the constitution was amended, but not all decisions like this are causes to amend the constitution).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 0:38:07 GMT -5
And saying that religion can't be used as an argument is very closed minded, you have to remember that for those people it IS a logical argument because that's what they believe in. Is it fair? Of course not, but this IS democracy. And someone said that govermant is not representing the will of the people, well, it is, the thing is that people don't see the full picture, at least for the most part. Hm, I'd like to see a lot of peoples views if Congress passed a law respecting Buddhist, Muslim, or Confucianism views... Oh yeah, they won't, because they only cater to Christian views.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 30, 2010 1:10:49 GMT -5
It reminds me of a debate I had with a Christian a while ago about the prayer in school issues. She insisted that there should be a right to a school led prayer. I informed her that the same law that prevents a school led Judeo-Christian prayer also prevents school led Satanic ritual and school led Wiccan spell casting, and that if we allowed one, we must allow all by definition. (Of course, even allowing all would discriminate against nontheists.)
@krzych: The point isn't to not let religious people vote, it's that things with a purely religious motivation are unconstitutional and therefore must not be enacted even if they receive popular vote. If there is reason other than religion motivating the decision, and the church is merely supporting it, then it may be a different story. It's not that you can't allow religion to sway your opinion, it's just that no act of government can be religious in nature.
Therefore, if the only reason to prohibit heterosexual sex is the Christian definition of marriage, then there is no reason to prohibit it, because the government cannot consider Christian beliefs in the decision. If some legitimate non-religious non-discriminatory reason could be offered, then the issue could carry weight, and the religious who speak on it would of course be influenced by their religion. But as long as it's a purely religious concept, it is unconstitutional.
@tyme: BTW, the "It's not" in my last post was not directed at you, it was in response (agreement) to Chelsea's statement that the use of "God" in the pledge was not constitutional. I didn't notice the reply you got in ahead of me or I would have edited for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 30, 2010 1:11:22 GMT -5
Robert Shepley, because that's democracy. Majority rules, this is the problem with how people thing today, they want to be the part the the democratic system, but only if they are the majority. Tyme4aNewDay, but those things were actually unconstitutional, they were against constitution in one way or another. What part of the constitution gives people the right to marry? Nakor, again, the motive the people sway one way or another is NOT IMPORTANT, what is important is for the majority to be represented.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 30, 2010 4:06:04 GMT -5
I did not call you homophobic. I said that if the only reason that people were against gay marriage was homophobia, then it's discrimination and ought to be discarded. I never accused you of it. But let's see what else the church did: - Started invasions of other countries; but these weren't barbaric, because it was the church - Quashed any literature that spoke against their beliefs - Owned incredible portions of land and tithed everyone who worked it - Started universities that preached known lies to be true. - Attempted and continues to attempt to hold back science where they disagree with it - Constantly fights against constitutional law keeping them out of government, yet would happily oppose any other religion having those rights - Claims to be responsible for morality despite the fact that morals clearly exist outside Christian nations, and can be demonstrated to be the cause of both biology and society. - Does the above despite constantly violating their own moral code, then covering it up, and continuing to deny it after being caught. Hmm, bad things have happened too. And I would argue this: most good things today that the church is supposedly responsible for -- charity, community... whatever else -- can exist with or without the church. But many of the bad things -- terrorism, obscurantism, fundamentalism -- are basically only possible with religious dogma, or at least with some similar faith-over-reason dogmatic indoctrination. Furthermore, some of the charities of the more distant past aren't necessarily the church's doing -- if one wanted to do good in those times, their inclination was to go to the church to do so by default; they saw no other option. The church was not the cause of the morality, just the only available means, due to their overwhelming economic control of their land. The morality came from the individuals, as it always has. But this isn't even about whether the church is good or bad. It's about whether it's okay for it to be in government. Laws that enforce a religion's views do not belong in government. If a law agrees with a religious view, but also has good non-religious reason for existing -- say the law against murder -- then that's fine. But if the only reason for a law's existence is that one church or another says so, then it doesn't belong in the rule books. Why? Because it infringes on the rights of everyone not of that church. And I don't just mean non-Christians, I mean even Christians who disagree with that interpretation. Allowing the church for no other reason than they say it's a sin to keep homosexual marriage out of the law books punishes Christians in favour of homosexual marriage just as much as everyone else. If the church wants to make decisions like that, let them make it in the church. Unless there is a good non-religious motivation for an act of government, it does not belong there. It is 2010, the militant church which destroys everything which as you say "opposes" it does not exist any more, if you want to argue against the church - I think you should develop points which aren't centuries old. You say that there will do 'good things' both if they are or are not part of the government. You see, that is something which you cannot say. This concept of secularism is still a relatively new concept - much younger than any of the 'do good' institutions that the church founded. As it grows older you will be able to see its long term effects and decide for yourself. A concept is NEVER all-good, you must always see the cons of such beliefs and evaluate them. But in the US you see, secularism is something that is well rooted in the constitution so saying that the US is not secular because it does not allow gay marriage or alcohol purchase on certain days is silly. That is how this discussion took a spin.That is my point with all this. The church doing good things in society does not mean the government shouldn't be secular. Under a secular government, there are still churches. Your argument makes no sense. I never said the government shouldn't be secular, I said it shouldn't be entirely secular. I think Chelsea (and others) are taking the word secular to the extreme - saying the us is not secular because it does not allow gay marriage is nonsense. The US is secular because as you said, beliefs must co-exist. You are treating secularism as a concept which only has two sides to it - The people who want such things as gay marriage legal (and support secularism) vs the Christan fundamentalists. In such a way that on the scale I am a christian fundamentalist because I don't see the benefit of a fully secular society. That is wrong, because I am far from a christian fundamentalist, in favor of gay marriage but still don't think taking seularism to such extremes as removing words is necessary. Also what about the religious part of the homosexual community? Are they invisible? Fighting for minorities can go on forever, because as I mentioned before - if the society is not secular the constitution cannot do miracles. Right now, Gays will want a secular society for them to marry - the day after tomorrow they will realize that even though they can marry they are still not accepted in society because acceptance isn't something which the constitution sets, its something the people set. Same with the alcohol laws and choice of words. I will refrain from answering the other posts because I am tired and some one else has already done it for me.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 30, 2010 11:04:46 GMT -5
So you think that in 2010 that religion isn't doing any of those things? It's not teaching creationism from its museum of creationism and dozens of colleges such as Liberty University? Or resulting in depression in a large number of Catholic school children?
It's not still the cause of many wars such as Israel and Palestine, and nearly all terrorism such as the 9/11 bombing and the killing of abortion doctors?
It's not still trying to hold back stem cell research because it feels that it's heresy?
It's not still trying to prevent the use of contraception in Africa for the same reason, resulting in the rampant spreading of AIDS?
The religious right is not still pushing the US government to enforce policies that only their church believes in?
No, religion still does all these things. Oh sure, it's not as bad now -- but that's because its power has been stripped away, and it's no longer capable of simply dusting those things it doesn't like under the rug. It's no longer capable because it no longer has control of the government. Even in countries like the UK, the church's power is now extremely limited, and mostly is just cash flow now.
Now, I never said that the US was not a secular nation, but it does have a lot of policies that violate the church/state separation, policies that are NOT secular in nature and therefore unconstitutional. Therefore while the US by law is secular, it is still acting in violation of that by enforcing some theistic (specifically Christian) policies.
If you want people to co-exist, then again, there is no cause to ban gay marriage. Some Christians hate it, some Christians want it, and everyone except the religious is in favour of it. Ergo, it's a religious law, ergo it is unconstitutional. We are NOT free to co-exist while that portion of the population is told they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else simply because one religion says so. Gay marriage has to be legal for co-existence to successfully happen, and then those people who don't want to involve themselves with gay marriage can keep it out of their churches individually. Otherwise the version of theistic law that anti-gay Christians want becomes forced, as it is now, on the Christians who are in favour of gay marriage, and becomes one more example of why religious law should not be in the books. Religious law doesn't only violate the rights of nontheists, but also of every theist that doesn't agree with that particular religious policy.
Except when the inalienable rights of a minority are being taken away by that majority, in which case the majority decision is unconstitutional and not enforced. Everyone has the right not to have religion or religious policy enforced on them, and no majority may alter that. If a law or act is purely religious in nature, such as any action against gay marriage appears to be, it is unconstitutional. This isn't about a motive swaying people one way or another, it's about the church saying "gay marriage is evil and therefore must be banned." It's religious law, and does not belong in the books.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 30, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
The argument I've been repeatedly attempting to make is that when religious laws are enforced, everybody has to grin and bear it. When non-religious laws are enforced, the religious part of the population can still follow their own religious guidelines.
"So saying that the US is not secular because it has religious laws is silly!" lolwut? Once again, from wikipedia:
Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
If the government is enforcing laws based on religion, it is not secular. We are not taking secularism to the extreme, we are taking it to the very foundation of its definition.
Also, the term itself has been around since 1851. The concept has been around ever since Galileo and his bunch started thinking, "Hey...the Roman Catholic Church might be wrong..." Considering the fact that civilization has only been here a little over 2000 years, that's a long enough time for me.
What I don't think you're understanding (I may be wrong, but it seems like it) is that a secular society does not mean elimination religion all together - it means religion can't influence the laws. We have a choice between letting everybody do their own thing, or letting everybody have to follow laws based on religion (mostly Christian). Yes, there are only a few laws, but as we've previously mentioned, one of them violates basic human rights. This is not "silly," and I refuse to call myself an extremist for thinking so and for fighting for these human rights to be awarded.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 30, 2010 18:55:10 GMT -5
Nakor, you don't think that there's ONE atheist out there that's opposed to gay marriage. Be careful with blanketing statements like that. I get what you're saying, but your wording shouldn't be so generalized.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 30, 2010 19:22:14 GMT -5
I'm mainly referring to the motivations however. If the only motivations are religious or just homophobic, either of those two are unconstitutional. So the question is, is there a reason to be against gay marriage other than religion or baseless discrimination? If not, then banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by low on May 30, 2010 19:39:52 GMT -5
The argument I've been repeatedly attempting to make is that when religious laws are enforced, everybody has to grin and bear it. When non-religious laws are enforced, the religious part of the population can still follow their own religious guidelines. "So saying that the US is not secular because it has religious laws is silly!" lolwut? Once again, from wikipedia: Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.If the government is enforcing laws based on religion, it is not secular. We are not taking secularism to the extreme, we are taking it to the very foundation of its definition. Also, the term itself has been around since 1851. The concept has been around ever since Galileo and his bunch started thinking, "Hey...the Roman Catholic Church might be wrong..." Considering the fact that civilization has only been here a little over 2000 years, that's a long enough time for me. What I don't think you're understanding (I may be wrong, but it seems like it) is that a secular society does not mean elimination religion all together - it means religion can't influence the laws. We have a choice between letting everybody do their own thing, or letting everybody have to follow laws based on religion (mostly Christian). Yes, there are only a few laws, but as we've previously mentioned, one of them violates basic human rights. This is not "silly," and I refuse to call myself an extremist for thinking so and for fighting for these human rights to be awarded. To add support to government secularism, note that The Soviet Union is an example of non-secular atheism, by which I mean the government instituted a lack of belief in God. This also inhibited freedoms. It's important that the government never have a stance on religion.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 30, 2010 20:29:47 GMT -5
I'm mainly referring to the motivations however. If the only motivations are religious or just homophobic, either of those two are unconstitutional. So the question is, is there a reason to be against gay marriage other than religion or baseless discrimination? If not, then banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. For the record, I agree that gay marriage should be legal haha. Didn't want people to get the wrong idea.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 31, 2010 19:12:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry America, but when you can get a president in that isn't religious, then I'll believe that your state and church are seperated.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on May 31, 2010 19:24:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry America, but when you can get a president in that isn't religious, then I'll believe that your state and church are seperated. So a president has to be atheiest to not keep their religious life away from their job? How about you say getting a president who dosent let their religion get in the way of their job.
|
|
jaw
Moon
Oh yeah!
Posts: 154
|
Post by jaw on May 31, 2010 19:59:56 GMT -5
If our president was Atheist things would go by so smoothly lol. (This is coming from someone who believes in God)
|
|
jaw
Moon
Oh yeah!
Posts: 154
|
Post by jaw on May 31, 2010 20:02:35 GMT -5
So a president has to be atheiest to not keep their religious life away from their job? How about you say getting a president who dosent let their religion get in the way of their job. Yes, pretty much. Because an Atheist president will not give a SHIRT about what the community has to say about his decisions, while a religious president will, because then he will be viewed as a "bad example" to their religion or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 31, 2010 21:12:54 GMT -5
So a president has to be atheiest to not keep their religious life away from their job? How about you say getting a president who dosent let their religion get in the way of their job. Yes, pretty much. Because an Atheist president will not give a SHIRT about what the community has to say about his decisions, while a religious president will, because then he will be viewed as a "bad example" to their religion or whatever. Clerly you don't know anything about politics.
|
|