Banning gay marrages should it be allowed

[lukeskywalker1]

Well, thats where certain other arguements come into it. The wording of some of the countries documents put religion into this whole mess. Like I was arguing earlier- The Decleration clearly mentions God, and clearly says "created" and clearly says "Creator."

 

The only argument refuting that, is that TJ wasn't speaking about the Christian God, the Islamic God, or the Jewish God.

[Kain]

And of course the Declaration was written in a time when religion WAS law. It was written when african americans were still SLAVES. It was written when we were scalping Dancing Horse and his lovely daughter for the territories west of Virginia.

 

And now look at how things have changed. We're less about the Bible and more about Equality...more or less.(Lets face it, no matter what there are gonna be zealous idiots)

[ShadowTemplar]

The problem with alot of people is that they don't follow the Bible word for word;

 

Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes

[riceplant]

Well, thats where certain other arguements come into it. The wording of some of the countries documents put religion into this whole mess. Like I was arguing earlier- The Decleration clearly mentions God, and clearly says "created" and clearly says "Creator."

 

The only argument refuting that, is that TJ wasn't speaking about the Christian God, the Islamic God, or the Jewish God.

I put it to you that while it is the business of religions to restrict ceremonies within their own cult (as has been previously agreed upon), and your declaration is clearly relevant in any matter of state, the laws of a country are not, or at least should not be, immutable, and I fail to understand why what the founders of your country believed is important to you today. In fact, I put it to you that you are referencing your declaration in the same way as you reference the bible, despite the fact that, unlike a religion's doctrine, a countries laws should never be treated as being unchangeable. I submit that there is an almost religious reverence held for your founders, which to a citizen of an older country, like me, is completely unfathomable.

[SkinWalker]

Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes

 

 

I think what Kain (welcome back, btw) was implying was that they pick/choose those parts that suit them whilst ignoring those that are inconvenient. Which leaves us with statements like, "god hates homosexuality," but doesn't remind us to stone to death that same person's daughter and new born who were born out of wedlock.

 

This is the type of "worshipper" that demands effigies of the ten-commandments to be present in public architecture but, perhaps, only knows four of them and follows three.

[toms]

I think what Kain was implying was that they pick/choose those parts that suit them whilst ignoring those that are inconvenient. Which leaves us with statements like, "god hates homosexuality," but doesn't remind us to stone to death that same person's daughter and new born who were born out of wedlock.

 

Exactly. Well said Kain.

Its the same with Islam and many other religions. These religious works are so large, complex, ancient in speach, and often confusing that its possible to find parts in there to support or denounce almost anything you want... so people find the bit in there that happens to have some relation to whatever THEY CARE ABOUT and bash on about it, ignoring the inconsistency with other issues that they don't care about.

 

There are large numbers of things banned or frowned upon in the bible that almost all christians now do on a monthly basis without batting an eyelid. There are many other laws that are ignored, or at least not taken as very important. But the homosexual marriage issue seems to be taken as something hugely important that will cause you to burn in hell. If an outsider based his views of christianity on the views of christians he heard inthe US media he'd think jesus went around the whole time warning of the dnagers of homosexual marriages. Wheras as far as i can tell he didn't even think it was an important enough issue to mention once.

 

So does the current outcry against homosexual marriages say more about religion's viewpoint on the issue, or more about the prejudices of the people who believe in the religion?

 

--

 

I think marriages should be a purely civil affair, for the purpose of running the state in an efficient manner, next of kid, tax, etc...

If they are treated in such a way then they should be open to everyone.

 

Individual religions could still hold religious cerimonies to "legitimise" these civil unions in the eyes of their god, and if certain religions wished not to bless certain couples then that would be up to them.

 

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the LEGAL part of the marriage is the civil registration, not the dressing in the church. And muslims, chinese people, buddists, etc.. can all get married in whatever way they see fit... never setting foot in a church if they don't need to... as long as they complete the civil registration part.

is this the same in the US?

 

Given that non-christians can get married, it seems daft to base the selection process on christian values.

Its like not letting people join lucasforums.com because they are too young to join suicidegirls.com... daft.

[ShadowTemplar]

Exactly. Well said Kain.

Its the same with Islam and many other religions. These religious works [and traditions] are so large, complex, ancient in speach, and often confusing [and inconsistent]that its possible to find parts in there to support or denounce almost anything you want... so people find the bit in there that happens to have some relation to whatever THEY CARE ABOUT and bash on about it, ignoring the inconsistency with other issues that they don't care about.

 

My inserts.

 

A lot of people in here seem to focus solely on the documents of the cults we debate as the source of validity of any claim for or against a practice. It is important to remember the role tradition and precedent plays in the formulation of ideals for any group. Scripture plays a relatively minor role in setting different relgions apart, and virtually no role in determining how they interact with society.

[lukeskywalker1]

I put it to you that while it is the business of religions to restrict ceremonies within their own cult (as has been previously agreed upon), and your declaration is clearly relevant in any matter of state, the laws of a country are not, or at least should not be, immutable, and I fail to understand why what the founders of your country believed is important to you today. In fact, I put it to you that you are referencing your declaration in the same way as you reference the bible, despite the fact that, unlike a religion's doctrine, a countries laws should never be treated as being unchangeable. I submit that there is an almost religious reverence held for your founders, which to a citizen of an older country, like me, is completely unfathomable.

 

I didn't start the Decleration thing, the other side did. Revan used it as an arguement for pro homosexuality.

 

You guys fail to understand that the new testament changed things. On the other hand, God's view of homosexuality hasn't. How do I know this? It says so in the New Testament.

 

 

Like they do in Afghanistan? \rolleyes

 

They don't follow the Bible in Afghanistan.

[SkinWalker]

The bible is irrelevant in this discussion. We're talking about legislation not religion. If the religious don't want to marry the same gender then they shouldn't. I don't think we want laws saying we have to stone to death adulterers/adultresses. Nor do we want laws that forbid us from doing work on Saturday. Nor do we want laws saying how we must wear our hair and beards.

 

These are all religious rules.

[Druid Bremen]

The bible is irrelevant in this discussion. We're talking about legislation not religion. If the religious don't want to marry the same gender then they shouldn't. I don't think we want laws saying we have to stone to death adulterers/adultresses. Nor do we want laws that forbid us from doing work on Saturday. Nor do we want laws saying how we must wear our hair and beards.

 

These are all religious rules.

 

 

Aha. I would say that this includes banning gay marriages, no?

[ShadowTemplar]

They don't follow the Bible in Afghanistan.

 

That comment was made in response to a comment about religions and their relationships with their Scriptures... Not Christianity specifically.

 

Christianity is an element in the group Religion, but not the sole element.

[Kain]

I'm not saying that they focus ONLY on the fact that the Bible says 'man shall not lay with another man blah blah blah'. I'm just saying that when someone wants to get something done and someone wants it to remain the same(in this case equal CIVIL rights for homosexuals vs Christian Church), they'll find something in a source(Declaration of Independence[Equallity and such] vs the Bible) that is against what the other side wants(Equal rights vs God's word = law). Usually the bad side(IMO: Church) will forget everything else said source says(love thy neighbor and such) just to kick the otherside in the shin.

 

Speaking of love thy neighbor why aren't the Christians saying 'Don't kill them Iraqi peoples! They mights be wrong but the Bible says killing is teh wrong!'? Because they only focus on certain aspects - and thats wrong.

 

As for the Afghani remark - I'm sure somewhere in the Quran it says that people who don't believe that Muhammad(he was the last prophet right? I'm tired and not thinking straight)should be smiten. If it doesn't say it directly it may imply it, I don't know. The terrorist then use that as a TOOL to say that since America does not follow the Quran's teachings, but is not being smited that they should be the tools of Allah and carry out the 'smiting' in his name. But I deter from the topic - but you see how SOME(SOME SOME SOME - not ALL, understand me) people only focus on a SINGLE SOLITARY thing and act on it fanatically.

[ShadowTemplar]

Touché... Actually the Taliban parallel was out on a limb. In reality religious practices and scripture vary so wildly that anything can be justified or even mandated by the correct references. And you usually don't even need to quote mine (very much). The problem being that in a greater than average amount of cases, religion promotes barbarism.

[toms]

Its weird that the same people who are dead keen on replacing all these religious governments in the middle east with democracies are the same people who are dead keen on basing all their laws on religious reasoning.

 

So suddenly its wrong for the taliban, or the saudis, or the iranians to force women to wear head-gear or to ban homosexuality because their religious books tell them to, but its ok for the US to ban homosexual marriages or gay adoption because THEIR religious books tell them to. Er. Ok.

[Cmdr. Cracken]

Please note: I have not read any of the posts, but this is an issue I feel very strongly about, and would like to voice my opinion.

 

To begin, I'm a Republican, pretty staunch, unless the party does something stupid like get Bush elected again will support the party GOGO REPUBLICAN type. So you would assume, like all good republicans, i would support the party line and say "GAY MARRIAGE=BAD, OH NOES!!!111!exclamationpoint!!!".

 

This is not the case, because of the Constitution forbids banning it.

 

This was probably said before, but the United States Constitution was amended to include the provision, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amd. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

 

It seems to me banning a gay person, whom is a citizen, with the priviledges and immunites grantered thereof, and, has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should, by legal definition, via the 14th amendment, can get marriered, if it is thier personal PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, which there in it is. they want to be happy, marriage makes them happy.

 

More power too them.

 

WHat I find in the current debate is that the polticians who are there to uphold LAW, are bringing into the secular government, religious values. now i have no problem with religion, it teaches basic human values we should all uphold, but to bring them into question with law, clearly written at the federal level, is rediculous. I mean, i have values, which, if i ever get elected, will make me question whether or not to vote for any given legislation, this is natural. but it will not, and should never, get in the way of making choices which would be better for the whole.

 

So yes, let them get married. it doesn't really effect me in anyway, that, and really, one person said it best....... comedian... for got the name....

 

"I think why the politicians and the older folks are disgusted and against gay marriage is because they hate the idea of gay people <explicitive deleted>. if they want to make gay people stop <explicitive deleted>, then they should go the route straight people do when they want to stop <explicitive deleted> and let them get married".

[lukeskywalker1]

 

As for the Afghani remark - I'm sure somewhere in the Quran it says that people who don't believe that Muhammad(he was the last prophet right? I'm tired and not thinking straight)should be smiten. If it doesn't say it directly it may imply it, I don't know. The terrorist then use that as a TOOL to say that since America does not follow the Quran's teachings, but is not being smited that they should be the tools of Allah and carry out the 'smiting' in his name. But I deter from the topic - but you see how SOME(SOME SOME SOME - not ALL, understand me) people only focus on a SINGLE SOLITARY thing and act on it fanatically.

 

Yeah, kill all infedels, pretty much.

[toms]

"I think why the politicians and the older folks are disgusted and against gay marriage is because they hate the idea of gay people <explicitive deleted>. if they want to make gay people stop <explicitive deleted>, then they should go the route straight people do when they want to stop <explicitive deleted> and let them get married".

 

Genius!