Homosexuality

[Erik_Twice]

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.

The point is that why are your religious beliefs valid while those of the people whose rights are being denied aren't.

Not that I think it matters. Law should be based on logic and reason. Your religion is no grounds to deny citizens of rights, no more than someone's else religion can deny yours.

[DinnerX]

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".

I fail to see why a belief in particular secular principals is somehow emphatically correct. Laws are still being based on beliefs.

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.

The point is that why are your religious beliefs valid while those of the people whose rights are being denied aren't.

The point is it's impossible to show any belief is valid.

[Erik_Twice]

The point is it's impossible to show any belief is valid.

Yet you want to take away civil rights from human beings based on them? Sorry, but that's just silly.

[brunoafh]

I fail to see why a belief in particular secular principals is somehow emphatically correct. Laws are still being based on beliefs.

Beliefs and values have existed before any established religion. Religions are composed of already existing values. To say that our law system as a whole is based on religion (or yours specifically) is ridiculous. Perhaps I missed your point though.

[DinnerX]

The point is it's impossible to show any belief is valid.

Yet you want to take away civil rights from human beings based on them? Sorry, but that's just silly.

You believe it is a civil right due to various other beliefs you hold that I don't.

To say that our law system as a whole is based on religion (or yours specifically) is ridiculous. Perhaps I missed your point though.

Oh, man. That wasn't my point! The point was rather that laws are based on beliefs of some sort. To dismiss a particular belief as some how inherently invalid or as having no place in law is problematic.

[flex wood]

The point is it's impossible to show any belief is valid.

Yet you want to take away civil rights from human beings based on them? Sorry, but that's just silly.

You believe it is a civil right due to various other beliefs you hold that I don't.

That everyone no matter what their beliefs are should be treated equally? I could have swore that was in the bible somewhere...

[DinnerX]

That everyone no matter what their beliefs are should be treated equally? I could have swore that was in the bible somewhere...

Nope. Love your neighbor as yourself you'll find, but if I love my neighbor why would I want the government to approve of his sin which I believe is going to hurt him eternally?

Again, we're all starting from different sets of beliefs here, which is why we have different ideas about this.

[MrPopo]

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".

I fail to see why a belief in particular secular principals is somehow emphatically correct. Laws are still being based on beliefs.

You can set up a chain of logic that creates a particular secular law. A religious-only law cannot (it relies on a divine postulate to kick things off). Essentially, regardless of what non-scientific and non-factual beliefs that someone has you can construct a system of laws. If you are using religious beliefs to construct laws then your justification becomes "because God said so" and is a huge middle finger to everyone who doesn't believe in your God.

[DinnerX]

You can set up a chain of logic that creates a particular secular law. A religious-only law cannot (it relies on a divine postulate to kick things off). Essentially, regardless of what non-scientific and non-factual beliefs that someone has you can construct a system of laws.

You can set up a chain of logic, but I still can't think of a way it doesn't start off without a belief about freedom, stability, fairness etc. I think this is evident by the large number of secular viewpoints. It certainly can't be said that all nonreligious people agree on how the government should work.

[MrPopo]

You can set up a chain of logic that creates a particular secular law. A religious-only law cannot (it relies on a divine postulate to kick things off). Essentially, regardless of what non-scientific and non-factual beliefs that someone has you can construct a system of laws.

You can set up a chain of logic, but I still can't think of a way it doesn't start off without a belief about freedom, stability, fairness etc. I think this is evident by the large number of secular viewpoints. It certainly can't be said that all nonreligious people agree on how the government should work.

You can arrive at stability by starting with the postulates "I want to live" and "Other people exist". Fairness arises from the fact that other people start from the same place. Freedom automatically goes out the window when you introduce government, by its very nature.

Here's another way of looking at things. It's none of your business what happens to my "immortal soul". Thus, you shouldn't legislate solely based on that.