ArchivedLindabee2s discussion with me on religious topics.This is where your thinking is in error. The law has no BUSINESS setting a religious belief as a basis for morality. Indeed, the separation between religion and state was designed PRECISELY with that exemption in mind. Morality is a personal thing, and what is moral to you, is not necessarily to another. When homosexuals are fighting for the right to no discrimination in the workforce, the right to adopt, the right to pensions from their partner and countless other issues, they are fighting the EXACT same battle as blacks did. Those are civil rights. And again you cannot even state a reason against equal rights without using your Bible beliefs as the only argument. This is why your opinions on the matter should be invalid when involving law. Marriage was NOT "created by God". It was created by man. It's involved in every type of culture across the planet, and it's NOT specific to Christianity. Besides the point is the fact that we have CIVIL marriage, and RELIGIOUS marriage. The first is a secular law pertaining to assets and rights given married couples such as hospital visitation, pension, and numerous other issues. The second is a formal ceremony performing a certain RITUAL that consequently also is allowed to be deemed as another way of performing civil marriage. Very very few gay activists would insist on forcing religious churches to perform thier "ceremony" on same sex couples. And the great majority including myself, would be up in ARMS if the government ever forced that. That would DEFINITELY be an attack on religion and I would completely disagree with it. That's not what people are asking for. They are asking for the right to enter into CIVIL marriage. Since religion has no business in the secular law making process, they should NOT be sticking their nose in the matter. And for the record, if you insist that marriage is specifically "for the creation of children who will hopefully be raised to love and follow God", then you would have to be JUST as adamant that it is wrong for: A) Couples to get married that can no longer reproduce, have vasectomies, hysterectomies, or use birth control. B) Couples that enter into marriage with no intention to raise children even through adoption. If you dare to argue against these two examples as STILL being fine because they are of the opposite sex, than you are contradicting yourself and declaring that the children issue is NOT the real reason. It would be bigotry against two people of the same sex using a term you consider "sacred" as a description of their union. ONLY to a Christian. Do you think when a Hindu gets married they are thinking of Christ? Oh I admit quite freely that I DO think I have the right to have a say on the definition of the word. There is NOTHING proving that it is "obviously meant to be holy and sacred". It may be to YOU, but not to everyone. You are referring only to your specific religious belief on marriage and it's applicable only to people wishing to be married by your faith. Outside of that realm, it is none of your affair. What do you mean "tendencies"? Mostly heterosexual people may have "tendencies" towards homosexuality, as do some self professed bisexuals, but most homosexuals identify as ONLY having true attraction to same sex. So there are no tendencies in their case, their is only one recognizable desire. In any event, you are using a double negative here...If I 'm reading you correctly, you just backed up my argument exactly. Somehow I doubt that's what you meant to do. Of course not. Because you are attracted to men. You didn't need to have sex to know that. Neither did I. So far all you have done here is agree with exactly what I said?? I thought you were arguing the opposite? False analogy. You don't JUST disagree with same-sex relationships, you disagree with homosexuality being a morally neutral thing. Because of this, only ONE of your arguments is going to extend to the relationships aspect. You are still in essence hating the person because they ARE homosexual. YOU may think you can separate it as a willful sin, but the vast majority of medical and social evidence says otherwise. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have so many suicides resulting from people who couldn't bear some society's hatred and condemnation towards a major part of who they were as a person. Well not me personally, I've never been involved in the protests, but in SPIRIT yes. Of course people are trying to force society to accept it. There isn't any GOOD reason to deny same-sex CIVIL marriage. The only reason people want to go down the road of using a new term like "civil union" is only a form of appeasement for the bigots who jealously guard the term "marriage" as one of two things: a religious relic like the holy grail, or an appeal to tradition and the dislike of the expansion of the term outside the familiar. All this fuss over words. Its so silly. In truth, religious people do not WANT same sex relationships to be recognized as equal to theirs. It's a deliberate prejudice and a form of segregation designed to highlight that "THOSE relationships are not REAL marriage". While they have a right to feel that way about their own ceremonial marriage performed in church with all the trimmings, they have NO right to extend their beliefs on to decision making policy respecting the civil rights issue surrounding CIVIL marriage. Notice how many times I'm bolding "civil" so you can truly get the point that this is quite clearly a CIVIL rights issue? Religion is not supposed to interfere in secular matters. That's the way it is, and the ONLY sensible course for countries and governments to take. All you need do is see a country like Afghanistan, and the government they just escaped from the tyranny of, to see the danger of theocracies. *sigh*. All the "evidence" around us is proof of the reality of nature that we can observe and measure. As to anything BEHIND it as a hive mind theory guiding it's intelligence, no. There is no evidence of this that is convincing. Sorry. I hope there is too, but so far, it is not forthcoming from objective evidence. This is pure semantics. If you identify Christianity as your creed, then you believe in religion. Obviously you don't read other posts. I'll reproduce my words here which are just as valid a rebuttal to you as it was to the other person: And the ten commandments are NOT the foundation of the States legal system. While the Ten Commandments might have been important in the development of American culture and society, they played a minimal role at best in the legal and philosophical foundation of that country. Even the Christian framers did not believe religion had a place in the function of the state, past guiding the men who would run it. This shouldn't be surprising, considering the religious violence of the Thirty Years' War and the Purian excesses of the English Civil War and Cromwell's republic were as fresh in their minds as the American Civil War is to ours (probably more so, since the Framers had a much better idea of the importance of history than we typically do today). America's law is Anglo-Saxon common law grafted on top of Roman legal philosophy, and their government is the product of the Enlightenment, with some practical ideas borrowed from the Iroquois. The Ten Commandments--the Bible itself--sat on the sidelines while the Framers tried to craft a nation that wouldn't repeat Europe's mistakes. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame