Homosexuality

[DinnerX]

You think women are voting, Blacks are free, Hispanics are able to own property, Asians are allowed to immigrate, or funds are provided for the poor to go to school because the government did not take a stance?

Those situations almost all involved bitter battles of beliefs. No, I don't think any of those problems could've been readily resolved by the government not taking a stance. This issue could be. Unless I misunderstand you in this quote, I thought you seemed to think the idea was reasonable.

I'd like to pose a question. Why does the government provide benefits to those who get married in the first place?

If you look at what the world was like back in the days when social security benefits were created, you'll get your answer. There were a lot more ways for male Americans to meet their untimely demise back then and it was a way to provide (at least a little) for their widows.

Now it's kind of an anachronism. To be honest, instead of seeing those benefits extended to same sex couples, I kind of expect them to be taken away from everyone. The current social security system is just not sustainable. That's a different thread, though.

If you could just for a split second consider this: There are people in this world who are not you, who do not believe in what you believe, have their own lives to live and still deserve a chance to be happy.

I try my best to accommodate other beliefs without compromising my own.

Again, nobody supports laws they don't believe in. You believe the current law is undue meddling, a violation of rights, and should be changed. Fighting for that is your prerogative.

[Flake]

You did misunderstand that quote. I was referring social security.

As to the fight for the law to change, the difference between you and I is that for me to be happy, everyone needs to be given the same rights. Your satisfaction is predicated on those rights being denied to a specific group.

[DinnerX]

You did misunderstand that quote. I was referring social security.

My bad.

As to the fight for the law to change, the difference between you and I is that for me to be happy, everyone needs to be given the same rights. Your satisfaction is predicated on those rights being denied to a specific group.

Hypothetically, what if the government did not recognize any sort of marriage-like union. What if a person could simply assign certain rights to another person, or persons. A person could split up the rights among several people, assign them all to their best friend, etc. Would that not work out? It's generic enough, it wouldn't be government approval of anything.

[MrPopo]

As to the fight for the law to change, the difference between you and I is that for me to be happy, everyone needs to be given the same rights. Your satisfaction is predicated on those rights being denied to a specific group.

Hypothetically, what if the government did not recognize any sort of marriage-like union. What if a person could simply assign certain rights to another person, or persons. A person could split up the rights among several people, assign them all to their best friend, etc. Would that not work out? It's generic enough, it wouldn't be government approval of anything.

There are certain kinks to be worked out of the government removing itself from the marriage business, but on the whole I don't see an issue with this. However, the government IS involved in the marriage business and those aforementioned kinks probably means it will always be in the marriage business.

Here's an interesting thought. If we assume that at least one person on the planet has figured out the correct religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, atheist), then statistically speaking it is likely that the Christians are wrong. Which is what makes me concerned when they feel like it makes sense to legislate their beliefs.

As for legitimizing - do you recall "Back to the Future", when Biff was a bigshot, owned a casino, everyone was prostituting themselves, drunk, gambling, thieving, etc. That is legitimizing - for those people, those are "acceptable" behaviors.

I know mjmjr has bowed out, but I want to address this point. You're using the example of a broken society as a slippery slope as to allowing for things that are secularly acceptable but theologically unacceptable. Secular government should not be in the business of handling matters of the "soul". Secular laws should be based around creating a functioning society. Law are put into place to ensure that society runs smoothly. There are many laws that are found both in religious sources (murder being the obvious one) that serve a useful societal purpose and therefore show up in both places. But if a behavior is societally acceptable while being spiritually unacceptable then secular government has no reason to disallow it. Secular government's job is to rule over a group of people with different beliefs who all have equal reason to believe that their creed is the "right" one. You can't do that by catering to only one group within that multitude.

[Erik_Twice]

If we prevent homosexuals from marrying because Christianity says they are wrong, why not ban Jews from it too? Or Muslims, or whatever. Or better yet, why don't we ban you from marrying? What makes you better than gay people to have that right?

This is simple to me. Religious beliefs are no grounds for removing rights from a person and will never be. You have absolutedly no right to mistreat gay people as second class citizens, no difference from the black people who were denied rights based on the same grounds.

Voting on this is like asking a pack of wolves to vote what's for dinner, it's silly and doesn't entitle you to trample over someone's rights, no matter how many want to lynch, they will always be wrong.

Also, making laws based on religious beliefs breaks one of the basic tenets of Democracy: Separation of Church and State. The goverment should be above a Witch Hunt.

[flex wood]

Voting on this is like asking a pack of wolves to vote what's for dinner, it's silly and doesn't entitle you to trample over someone's rights, no matter how many want to lynch, they will always be wrong.

This. There is a reason the supreme court is in place. I just don't understand why none of these marriage bans haven't been overturned yet. Clarence must be busy putting his pubes somewhere I would guess.

[elmagicochrisg]

Same-sex marriage. Twilight approved...

[DinnerX]

If we prevent homosexuals from marrying because Christianity says they are wrong, why not ban Jews from it too? Or Muslims, or whatever.

While I disagree with these religions in other areas, as far as marriage goes the ideas are relatively similar. They also believe marriage is defined as between men and women as far as I know. Like I said, I try to accommodate without compromising.

This is simple to me. Religious beliefs are no grounds for removing rights from a person and will never be.

Everything is based on beliefs. Some people claim religious beliefs. Some don't but have other beliefs and principals. If I can't put a belief into law, simply because it is based on a religion, doesn't that curtail my rights? I might add, almost every idea and position imaginable has been held in someone's religion. By saying religious beliefs are no grounds for any law, you essentially have the government picking and choosing which particular views are "religious" and "non-religious."

[MrPopo]

This is simple to me. Religious beliefs are no grounds for removing rights from a person and will never be.

Everything is based on beliefs. Some people claim religious beliefs. Some don't but have other beliefs and principals. If I can't put a belief into law, simply because it is based on a religion, doesn't that curtail my rights? I might add, almost every idea and position imaginable has been held in someone's religion. By saying religious beliefs are no grounds for any law, you essentially have the government picking and choosing which particular views are "religious" and "non-religious."

It's not picking and choosing. There is overlap between secular and religious law, but the difference is secular law has justification beyond "God said so".

[dsheinem]

As for legitimizing - do you recall "Back to the Future", when Biff was a bigshot, owned a casino, everyone was prostituting themselves, drunk, gambling, thieving, etc. That is legitimizing - for those people, those are "acceptable" behaviors.

I know mjmjr has bowed out, but I want to address this point. You're using the example of a broken society as a slippery slope as to allowing for things that are secularly acceptable but theologically unacceptable. Secular government should not be in the business of handling matters of the "soul". Secular laws should be based around creating a functioning society. Law are put into place to ensure that society runs smoothly. There are many laws that are found both in religious sources (murder being the obvious one) that serve a useful societal purpose and therefore show up in both places. But if a behavior is societally acceptable while being spiritually unacceptable then secular government has no reason to disallow it. Secular government's job is to rule over a group of people with different beliefs who all have equal reason to believe that their creed is the "right" one. You can't do that by catering to only one group within that multitude.

It is also worth noting that if we made laws grounded solely on spiritual principles, Back to the Future II would not exist since making a film with cursing, sexual content, etc. would be verboten. That's not a world I want to live in.