NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

They say that abortion and homosexuality are against the morality present in the bible, and therefore it should be outlawed because the Bible says it's bad. Howver, aren't they working to take away free will, and therefore individual responsibility? Whatever happened to forgiveness, acceptance of the people who aren't like us? In Biblical times, they were the lepers, and the whores. Now why not the gay people? Accept them for who they are and allow them to be treated like the rest of us? Why legislate a stigma against homosexuality, which is a rather minor point in the Bible, and not the 10 commandments, the really big moral laws. We should execute those who put their parents in nursing homes for failing to honor thy mother and thy father. I would think that the nursing home bit is something that is far more important to the majority of us, rather than what two consenting adults choose to do in their free time.

They also don't recognize that a secular country, one that doesn't legislate the beliefs of one faith over another is the one that allows the greatest amount of religious freedom, a trait that we're supposed to take pride in. The barrier between government and religion is there for the express reason that religion can take place without the meddling of the government, and that we're all allowed to worship what we wish, provided that it doesn't take away anyone else's rights as stated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They shout against the arab countries that have implemented sharia law, and don't see that what they want to implement is basically the same thing. It starts with one law, then two, then three, then pretty soon, then one denomination has asserted it's beliefs over that of the other.

As for abortion, it is your duty if you're against abortion to not take the easy way out and legislate against it, but rather work to educate people about taking responsibility for their actions, maybe fund a orphanage, and attempt to fix the underlying problems that lead to abortion instead of just getting rid of it outright through a law.

Stem cell research. Unless you believe that we have a moral obligation to make sure that each frozen embryo develops into a human being, then why would you be against it. If they weren't used to benefit the rest of mankind, they'd just be sent down the sink. And if you believe that we have a moral obligation to make each of them a human, then I ask you about the practicality of it.

Homosexuality. We have better things to worry about like Iraq, current American Cash account with the rest of the world, failing schools, lack of affordable healthcare, this shouldn't even be an issue.

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

No. If you look back at the "Garden of Eden" story it was Father Satan who gave man free will and the power to use it.

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

They say that abortion and homosexuality are against the morality present in the bible, and therefore it should be outlawed because the Bible says it's bad. Howver, aren't they working to take away free will, and therefore individual responsibility? Whatever happened to forgiveness, acceptance of the people who aren't like us? In Biblical times, they were the lepers, and the whores. Now why not the gay people? Accept them for who they are and allow them to be treated like the rest of us? Why legislate a stigma against homosexuality, which is a rather minor point in the Bible, and not the 10 commandments, the really big moral laws.
As for abortion, it is your duty if you're against abortion to not take the easy way out and legislate against it, but rather work to educate people about taking responsibility for their actions, maybe fund a orphanage, and attempt to fix the underlying problems that lead to abortion instead of just getting rid of it outright through a law.

Stem cell research. Unless you believe that we have a moral obligation to make sure that each frozen embryo develops into a human being, then why would you be against it. If they weren't used to benefit the rest of mankind, they'd just be sent down the sink. And if you believe that we have a moral obligation to make each of them a human, then I ask you about the practicality of it.

Homosexuality. We have better things to worry about like Iraq, current American Cash account with the rest of the world, failing schools, lack of affordable healthcare, this shouldn't even be an issue.

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
Leviticus 18:22

'Thou shat not commit adultery'

'Thou shalt not kill'


Homosexuality is a behavior. So is serial murder and pedophilia(sp?). I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. (I have several friends who are gay.) God is willing to forgive anyone if they ask for it. He is willing to accept anyone who is willing to accept his free gift of salvation through the
death of his son, Jesus Christ (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp). Because it is a behavior, it doesn't deserve special legal protection/priveleges. Let's say you run a business. You hire a receptionist, but (s)he is surly and doesn't do the work assigned to them. Of course you will soon fire them. Can they then argue, "I was born a rude slacker!"? Will that get them their job back? I don't think so. I'm not talking about discriminating against homosexuals, I'm just against them getting special treatment because they're gay.

I'm not against stem cell research. I'm against a)humans being created so that they can then be harvested and destroyed in the name of "science" and b)federal money, ie, my tax dollars, going to fund this research.

On abortion: I agree that we should educate people in order to reduce the number of abortions. But I also believe that when situations like that do arise, the first choice should be to have the baby and putit up for adoption if the mother is unable to support it. There are people who are on long waiting lists to adopt babies, yet thousands are killed every day. Thousands of human beings. Yes, there are situations, such as a health risk to the mother, that make abortion the only option, but it should never be the first.

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
Leviticus 18:22

'Thou shat not commit adultery'

'Thou shalt not kill'

So... that covers the homosexuality/abortion issue.

Homosexuality is a behavior. So is serial murder and pedophilia(sp?). I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. (I have several friends who are gay.) God is willing to forgive anyone if they ask for it. He is willing to accept anyone who is willing to accept his free gift of salvation through the
death of his son, Jesus Christ (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp). Because it is a behavior, it doesn't deserve special legal protection/priveleges. Let's say you run a business. You hire a receptionist, but (s)he is surly and doesn't do the work assigned to them. Of course you will soon fire them. Can they then argue, "I was born a rude slacker!"? Will that get them their job back? I don't think so. I'm not talking about discriminating against homosexuals, I'm just against them getting special treatment because they're gay.

Only if you're christian. and chose to enforce those particular passages in the book and not some of the others. Nice to be able to pick and choose, huh? :D

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

Actually, the Protestants that came to America were Calvinists. Calvinists believe in predetermination. The simplist explaination for predetermination is that because God knows everything and is all powerful, he knows the future and so there can be no free will.

Leviticus also tells you to call a priest if you have mold in your house and never to wear two different types of fabric at the same time. So if that's your only basis for saying homosexualtiy is wrong, you should follow those other prescriptions too.

WHo the hell is Leviticus? He wasn't one of the 12 disciples.

WHo the hell cares what he says?!?

This topic is a joke. You try to tell me that morality isn't a good thing? If your an atheist then fine, don't follow the will of God. But don't tell me, he didn't say it was a good thing for all Christan men and woman to spread the love and scriptures of God to the masses. So, we arn't trying to limit free will, instead we try to spread it.

No. If you look back at the "Garden of Eden" story it was Father Satan who gave man free will and the power to use it.
Well then, I suppose I should be grateful to the devil. :D

Homosexuality is a behavior. So is serial murder and pedophilia
I stopped reading after this. :)

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

I think you are fundamentally misrepresenting the conservative position on this issue. I shall attempt to clarify.

They say that abortion and homosexuality are against the morality present in the bible, and therefore it should be outlawed because the Bible says it's bad.


Two separate and distinct issues here. First, many people see life as beginning at conception. To those people abortion is murder and should be outlawed like any other kind of murder we as a society all recognize and prohibit. Conservatives generally do not seek to 'ban' homosexuality per se, however, they do seek to prohibit the state from recognizing homosexual marriages. Marriage is a religious institution, a fundamental part thereof being human reproduction. Homosexuals are precluded from reproduction due to the nature of that act. Therefor to try to apply marriage to homosexuality is not only religiously offensive to many people, but it is an inherient perversion of the basic understanding of what marriage is. For the people who do want to ban homosexuality the premise is much the same as the one used to justify the banning of prostitution. Such acts are not recognized as acceptable within society, they are considered harmful to the structure and health of society, and therefor should be prohibited. To take those complex reasoned positions and boil them down to 'the Bible says its bad' is intellectually dishonest and disparages the varied positions taken by people in opposition to these practices.



They also don't recognize that a secular country, one that doesn't legislate the beliefs of one faith over another is the one that allows the greatest amount of religious freedom, a trait that we're supposed to take pride in.


Perhaps you want to brush up on your history. Christian principles have been interwoven into the American political landscape ever since the founding. While the founders were very insightful to make no specific religous dictates in the Constitution, the rhetoric and laws of the time still reflected a deeply Christian heritage. Indeed, that same background still persists today, over two hundred years later.


The barrier between government and religion is there for the express reason that religion can take place without the meddling of the government, and that we're all allowed to worship what we wish, provided that it doesn't take away anyone else's rights as stated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.


Basic misunderstanding of the Constitution. The prohibition of Congress legislating religious matters was not to protect government from religious 'meddling,' but to protect religions from government persecution. Everyone is allowed to worship as you wish, but no religion is tolerated that requires murder (abortion) or social deviancy\disruption (homosexuality).


They shout against the arab countries that have implemented sharia law, and don't see that what they want to implement is basically the same thing. It starts with one law, then two, then three, then pretty soon, then one denomination has asserted it's beliefs over that of the other.


This is so mind blowingly outrageous I can barely believe my eyes as I read it. The arab countries are naked tyrannies, oppressing their people, denying freedom of religion, handing out cruel and unusual punishments, denying basic political rights, etc American desires to prohibit acts which may harm society or kill innocent children. How can you even begin to compare such things in a credible way? Simple answer, you can't. My troll alert is going off.

As for abortion, it is your duty if you're against abortion to not take the easy way out and legislate against it, but rather work to educate people about taking responsibility for their actions, maybe fund a orphanage, and attempt to fix the underlying problems that lead to abortion instead of just getting rid of it outright through a law.


The people who think abortion is murder are not going to be satisfied by such an answer. Do you think we should repeal all laws and simply hope that our powers of persuasion will prevent illicit acts? Naive doesn't begin to describe...

Stem cell research...And if you believe that we have a moral obligation to make each of them a human, then I ask you about the practicality of it.


There is a great deal of practicality to be found in testing on live human subjects. Why don't we, using your logic, start a lottery and select a small number of people to do medical experiments on?

Homosexuality. We have better things to worry about like Iraq, current American Cash account with the rest of the world, failing schools, lack of affordable healthcare, this shouldn't even be an issue.

It shouldn't be, yet the homosexuals are out there demanding that they be allowed to prevert the meaning of an institution which holds profound historical and religious significance to many people.

WHo the hell is Leviticus? He wasn't one of the 12 disciples.

WHo the hell cares what he says?!?

I looked it up. The book of Leviticus gets it's name because it describes the workings of priests. Particularly a type called Levites.

I also found this site:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09206a.htm

here's the text:

Levites
(From Levi, name of the ancestral patriarch, generally interpreted "joined" or "attached to"--see Gen., xxix, 34, also Num., xviii, 2, 4, Hebrew text).

The subordinate ministers appointed in the Mosaic Law for the service of the Tabernacle and of the Temple.

Levi was the third son borne to Jacob by Lia, and full brother of Ruben, Simeon, and Juda. Together with Simeon he avenged the humiliation of their sister Dina by the slaughter of Sichem and his people (Gen., xxxiv), for which deed of violence the two brothers were reproved both in Gen., xxxiv, 30, and in the prophecy attributed to the patriarch in Gen., xlix, 5-7.

Waiving all critical discussion connected with this incident as also with the other events connected with the history of the tribe, the next point to be noticed is the connexion of Levi with the priesthood. According to the received Biblical account, all the male descendants of the patriarch were set apart by Moses, acting under Divine command, for the service of the sanctuary, a distinction which may have been due to the religious zeal manifested by the tribe on the occasion of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf (Ex., xxxii, 25-29). As it was also the tribe to which Moses himself belonged, it could probably be relied upon more than the others to sustain the legislator in the establishment and promotion of his religious institutions among the people. The sacred calling of the Levites is mentioned in various passages of the Pentateuch. For instance, the author of the first chapters of Numbers (P), after recalling (iii; cf. Ex., xxviii, xxix; Lev., viii, ix) the names and sacred functions of the sons of Aaron, adds the designation of the entire tribe of Levi who were to "stand in the sight of Aaron the priest to minister to him. And let them watch, and observe whatsoever appertaineth to the service of the multitude before the tabernacle of the testimony, and let them keep the vessels of the tabernacle, serving in the ministry thereof." Though in Num., xviii, 23, the special mission of the tribe is described broadly as a mediation between the Lord and his people, and though the Levite mentioned in the interesting and very ancient passage of Judges (xvii, xviii) is represented as exercising without qualification the functions of the priesthood, it is held by many commentators that at an early date a distinction was made between the priests of the family of Aaron and the simple Levites--a distinction which became very pronounced in the later religious history of the Chosen People. The ceremonies with which the simple Levites were consecrated to the service of the Lord are described in Num., viii, 5-22. Besides their general function of assisting the priests, the Levites were assigned to carry the Tabernacle and its utensils, to keep watch about the sanctuary, etc. As most of their duties required a man's full strength, the Levites did not enter upon their functions before the age of thirty.

In the distribution of the Land of Chanaan after the conquest, Josue, acting according to instructions received from Moses, excluded the tribe of Levi from sharing like the others in the territory. "But to the tribe of Levi he gave no possession: because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession" (Jos., xiii, 33.) It way be noted that a very different reason for this exception is mentioned in Gen., xlix, 5-7. In lieu of a specified territory, the members of the tribe of Levi received permission to dwell scattered among the other tribes, special provision being made for their maintenance. Besides the tithes of the produce of land and cattle, and other sacerdotal dues already granted by Moses, the Levites now received from each of the other tribes four cities with suburban pasture lands, or forty-eight in all (Jos., xxi). Among these were included the six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jordan, which were set aside to check the barbarous custom of blood revenge, still existing among the Arab tribes, and in virtue of which the kinsmen of a man put to death consider it a duty to avenge him by the killing of his intentional or even unintentional slayer. It is probable, however, that these administrative dispositions concerning the Levites were not fully carried out until some time after the conquest, for, during the long period of transition between the wandering life of the desert and the fully organized civilization of later times, the priests and Levites seem to have had a rather precarious mode of existence. Taking the story of Michas (Judges, xvii) as illustrative of the condition of the Levitical order during that early period, it would appear that the priestly functionaries were inadequately provided for and had to wander about to secure a livelihood.

The elaborate and highly differentiated organization of the priestly or Levitical system, described with such abundance of detail in the priestly writings of the Old Testament, was doubtless the result of a long process of religious and ritualistic development which attained its fullness in the post-Exilic period. As elsewhere in the history of ancient religions, there appears in the beginnings of Hebrew history a period when no priestly class existed. The functions of the priesthood were performed generally by the head of the family or clan without need of a special sanctuary, and there is abundant evidence to show that for a long time after the death of Moses the priestly office was exercised, not only occasionally, but even permanently, by men of non-Levitical descent. The Deuteronomic legislation insists on the unity of sanctuary, and recognizes the descendents of Levi as the sole legitimate members of the priesthood, but it ignores the sharply defined distinction between priests and simple Levites which appears in the later writings and legislation, for the whole class is constantly referred to as the "levite priests". This category excludes the purely lay priest who is no longer tolerated, but if any Levite be willing to leave his residence in any part of the land and come to Jerusalem, "He shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, that shall stand at that time before the Lord. He shall receive the same portion of food that the rest do; besides that which is due him in his own city, by succession from his fathers" (Deut., xviii, 6-8). In the post-Exilic writings the detailed organization and workings of the levitical system then in its full vigour are adequately described, and a certain number of the regulations pertaining thereto are ascribed to King David. Thus, it is to the period of his reign that I Par. refers the introduction of the system of courses whereby the whole sacerdotal body was divided into classes, named after their respective chiefs and presided over by them. They carried out their various functions week by week, their particular duties being determined by lot (cf. Luke, i, 5-9). We read also that during the reign of David the rest of the Levites, to the number of thirty-eight thousand, ranging from the age of thirty years and upwards receive a special organization (I Par., xxiii-xxvi). Levites are mentioned only three times in the New Testament (Luke, x, 32; John, i, 19; Acts, iv, 36), and these references throw no light on their status in the time of Christ.


From what I read here, I think the book of Leviticus is a bunch three thousand year old political crap.

Whoa, whoa, whoa vox. That's a lot of assumptions.

Firstly, marriage is NOT a purely religious concept. It existed before large-scale religion, and was a SOCIAL institution (my reference is the text for a university history course).

Also, no one wants religion to REQUIRE abortion or homosexuality. Just allow it.

Tell me, what is corrupting about homosexuality?

Ok, I cant remember what else you said...

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
Leviticus 18:22


If you're going to live your life by Leviticus, why not go all the way?
www.godhatesshrimp.com

Vox:

You cannot lump all the Arab countries together in one. It's true, certain regimes like the Talliban have done awful things and resticted human right terribly. Others are very open minded, allowing freedom of religion and enjoying some degree of sexual and racial equality (certainly not much less than the US can boast, with women making up less than a quarter of elected official I believe...I'll have to look that one up). To say that ALL arab countries are opressive is, quite simply, wrong.

Um actually...if anyone actually READS Catholic catechism, we ARE supposed to accept homosexuals for who they are...homosexuality is a challenge and those who are are called to chastity.

I would like to know what the problem is with letting your morals guide you in political decisions. It gives you a foundation for your stand on issues. The world needs more leaders with morals.

Perhaps you want to brush up on your history. Christian principles have been interwoven into the American political landscape ever since the founding. While the founders were very insightful to make no specific religous dictates in the Constitution, the rhetoric and laws of the time still reflected a deeply Christian heritage. Indeed, that same background still persists today, over two hundred years later.
FIRST. FUCKING. AMENDMENT.

Basic misunderstanding of the Constitution. The prohibition of Congress legislating religious matters was not to protect government from religious 'meddling,' but to protect religions from government persecution. Everyone is allowed to worship as you wish, but no religion is tolerated that requires murder (abortion) or social deviancy\disruption (homosexuality).
SEVERE misunderstanding of the first amendment. You go into how it's to prevent the government from meddling in religion, and finish by stating no religion should be tolerated that allows homosexuality. I guess we must ban Buddhism then. You also say no religion should be tolerated that allows abortion. Then we must also ban Islam.

This is so mind blowingly outrageous I can barely believe my eyes as I read it. The arab countries are naked tyrannies, oppressing their people, denying freedom of religion, handing out cruel and unusual punishments, denying basic political rights, etc American desires to prohibit acts which may harm society or kill innocent children. How can you even begin to compare such things in a credible way? Simple answer, you can't. My troll alert is going off.
I'm sure the moral majority in Iran thinks they are doing the right thing. Such is the case here to a lesser, but still unforgivable, extent.

The people who think abortion is murder are not going to be satisfied by such an answer. Do you think we should repeal all laws and simply hope that our powers of persuasion will prevent illicit acts? Naive doesn't begin to describe...
Condoms would be a great start to decreasing the number of abortions. :)

There is a great deal of practicality to be found in testing on live human subjects. Why don't we, using your logic, start a lottery and select a small number of people to do medical experiments on?
Embryos aren't people. Next?

It shouldn't be, yet the homosexuals are out there demanding that they be allowed to prevert the meaning of an institution which holds profound historical and religious significance to many people.
I eat meat on Friday during Lent. The Catholics can't stop me. Think about it.

No. If you look back at the "Garden of Eden" story it was Father Satan who gave man free will and the power to use it.

I don't know if anyone answers this later on (too lazy) but Satan didn't 'give' us free will. He merely pointed out to us that we had all along in a way that pissed God off royal.

We were created by God, warts and all, not Satan. All of our trait were given to us by God, we just didn't exercise everything that he gave to us until Satan showed up. Maybe it was God's plan all along to boot us out when we stopped being children and showed independence, just like all children today when they become adults and leave home. Once we grow up we leave the protection and care of our parents and leave into that big uncertain world. Essentially being cast out of Eden.

My 2 cents about that.

Whoa, whoa, whoa vox. That's a lot of assumptions.

Firstly, marriage is NOT a purely religious concept. It existed before large-scale religion, and was a SOCIAL institution (my reference is the text for a university history course).

If you had read closely what I said you would realize that I specifically referred to both religious and historical meanings of marriage. Both of those are premised around the concept of human reproduction. Homosexuality does not permit reproduction, thus it is not marriage as it has been traditionally defined within the concept of reproduction.

Also, no one wants religion to REQUIRE abortion or homosexuality. Just allow it.

What distinction are you trying to make here? Most religions, especially Christianity, expressly prohibit homosexuality. Society has a long tradition of marriage defined within the concept of human reproduction. Why should homosexuals, who can seek civil unions to gain the benefits that society legally confers on married people, now be permitted to pervert the language in such a fashion? It seems to me that what homosexuals are after is some kind of moral sanction by society for their actions beyond a legal sanction which most people already willingly confer.


Tell me, what is corrupting about homosexuality?


There is no definitive list, however, our legal tradition is based in part on the expectations of society. Society is not prepared to revoke the traditional meaning of marriage and allow something which is generally viewed with distaste to enter mainstream culture. Others have religious objections, some of which have already been put forth.


Ok, I cant remember what else you said...

Slacker troll?

Um actually...if anyone actually READS Catholic catechism, we ARE supposed to accept homosexuals for who they are...homosexuality is a challenge and those who are are called to chastity.

I would like to know what the problem is with letting your morals guide you in political decisions. It gives you a foundation for your stand on issues. The world needs more leaders with morals.

I don't think the problem is with using morals. It is with using beliefs that are religion-specific. Morality, although it CAN be linked with religion, can also exist without religion. Secular morality involves much more specific rules, such as the Golden Rules, protection of rights and freedoms and helping people out whenever possible and not using them for your own ends. I definietly agree that leaders should have morality in this way. However, when specific rules that are part of individual religions are used by leaders, this can be problematic, as many people may disagree with these rules, as they are not a part of that religion.

Marriage is a religious institution, a fundamental part thereof being human reproduction. Homosexuals are precluded from reproduction due to the nature of that act. Therefor to try to apply marriage to homosexuality is not only religiously offensive to many people, but it is an inherient perversion of the basic understanding of what marriage is.

A few issues here. First, the problem is marriage has become both a religious AND secular/govermental institution. And those trying to bad gay marriage are doing so for religious reasons. This would be no different then, say, the Christan Coalition getting together and tryign to pass an ammendment to haev the state no longer recognise marriages between jews, or muslims, or hindi, or any other non-christan group. Such a proposal would be shot down immediately, with cries of "seperating church and state" and "not legislating faith", and in such a case, the outcry would be valid.

The other issue you brought up, the idea that 'marriage is for the production of children, thus homosexuals should not be allowed to marry'. By that same argument, shouldn't any marriae where the woman goes through menopause be considered void? Shouldn't those over a certain age be no longer allowed to marry? What about the infirtile, their marriages should be badded since birth. You cannot discredit gay marriage on the basis of childbirth without also discrediting every marriage in which the woman is over the age of 50.

Marriage is a religious institution, a fundamental part thereof being human reproduction.

Marriage is not a religious institution, marriage is a way of making sure the man stays with the woman to help raise the child, as opposed to running of to another woman instead.

Marriage was later used by religions to take freedoms away from people and force them to 'save themselves for marriage'.

Furthermore, Gayrights activists arent seeking to be wed in churches, they want the same benifits a woman/man couple gets from the government. This includes such things as visitation rights in hospitals, right to inherit etc. These things have nothing to do with either children or marriage as viewed by religious people. These things have to do with loving someone.


What i think is funniest though: Religious (in most western countries: christian) people feel they have a right to press their religious laws on all the people in their country, but when someone tries to push his/hers non-religious (or other religion) laws on them, they get extremely defensive.

Indeed, LOTS of religions OTHER than Christianity recognize marriage. I'm not clear on what all the other world religions that ever existed definitions on marriage are, but to base the entire definition on the Bible just seems a bit, well, wrong. I don't see what the problem is, it isn't HARMING you in any way is it? Why can't you just let people live their own lives without imposing your views on them? (you being a general term applying to the people who believe that)

Personaly I think the biggest problem with this marriage issue is that there are realy two kinds in this nation; Civil and Religous( yah I no it spelt wrong I blame it on a brain fart) Both these kinds grant upon the praticipates around 1500 diferent state and federal rights and privaleges. Homosexuals now want the same rights that hetero married couples recieve. Some argue against this by saying that they have the same rights since they are perfectly free to marry a women if they want to. But this fails to recognize the role the human emotion of love plays in this. How would you feel if the state were to forbid you from marrying the one you loved? Remember the Golden Rule.

As I see it the best possible solution to this would by seperating the two forms of marriage completly. Allow the religous forms of marriage to retain the name of marriage, but none of the legal privlages and rename Civil mariages as Civil Unions and allow them to keep the legal privlages. This might not please some of those who even now apose civil unions, but it takes a way the argument that it devalues the tradition of marriage by creating an entirly new tradition that also nicly upholds the seperation of church and state.
Of course I might just be naive for thinking that such a simple agreement could work.

As for the abortion issue I'll stay out of that because the only thing I can think of that would settel that debat would be a break threw medical technique that allows embryo's to be safely removed and then grown to complete gestation in an artifical womb and even that would probably be to "artifical" for some conservatives.

FIRST. FUCKING. AMENDMENT.


The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Banning homosexuality doesn't violate the First Amendment, nor does banning abortion.

SEVERE misunderstanding of the first amendment. You go into how it's to prevent the government from meddling in religion, and finish by stating no religion should be tolerated that allows homosexuality. I guess we must ban Buddhism then. You also say no religion should be tolerated that allows abortion. Then we must also ban Islam.

We don't tolorate religions that require human sacrifices or public nudity either. It is you who apparently has no understanding of the intent of the First Amendment.


I'm sure the moral majority in Iran thinks they are doing the right thing. Such is the case here to a lesser, but still unforgivable, extent.

The Iranians are repressing basic human rights. Aborting your baby and sleeping with another person of the same sex are not basic human rights.


Condoms would be a great start to decreasing the number of abortions. :)

No one is stopping you from buying and using them.


Embryos aren't people. Next?

Subjective statement; many people feel that they are and that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.


I eat meat on Friday during Lent. The Catholics can't stop me. Think about it.

If this is the general quality of your arguements please don't bother coming back and wasting more of our time. Thanks.

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
Leviticus 18:22

You do realize that can be interpreted in more than one way, don't you? Sure, it says don't lie with a man as you would with a woman... but think about it and surely you will see it is impossible to tell what exactly the hell Leviticus means.

If homosexuality was really such a major issue, then don't you think Jesus would have spoken about it while he was here?

He never made one mention of it...

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Banning homosexuality doesn't violate the First Amendment, nor does banning abortion.
When you ban homosexuality on religious grounds, you're gonna have a problem.

We don't tolorate religions that require human sacrifices or public nudity either. It is you who apparently has no understanding of the intent of the First Amendment.
So you're still all for banning Buddhism and Islam?

The Iranians are repressing basic human rights. Aborting your baby and sleeping with another person of the same sex are not basic human rights.
To you they aren't.

No one is stopping you from buying and using them.
You must not be aware of this president's policies. Condoms are being taken out of public schools in favor of abstinence-only education, which only increases the rate of unprotected sex, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. The Religious Right is doing all in their power to try to stop us from buying and using them.

Subjective statement; many people feel that they are and that they are entitled to equal protection under the law.
Your entire premise that homosexuality is wrong and that gays don't deserve equal treatment under the law is a subjective statement.

If this is the general quality of your arguements please don't bother coming back and wasting more of our time. Thanks.
:)

Hey Vox,

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


THis states that Congress will not make laws pertaining to religious establisments or to the people's choice of worship. Banning homosexuality for religious causes WOULD be a law regarding an establishment of religion.


However, there is also:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Banning homosexuality without cause of any kind would violate the Fifth Amnedment right to liberty until deprived by due process of law.

Actually, the Protestants that came to America were Calvinists. Calvinists believe in predetermination. The simplist explaination for predetermination is that because God knows everything and is all powerful, he knows the future and so there can be no free will.

Unless you believe that the only certainty is chaos.

There are a few parts in the Bible where God seems shocked and surprised like when Adam and Eve disobeyed him (should have he known they would eventually?) or after Noah's Flood when he says that he wouldn't do something that horrendous again (should he have known he wouldn't like it?).

A few issues here. First, the problem is marriage has become both a religious AND secular/govermental institution.

Then I would suggest the state stop issuing marriages at all. Instead everyone, homosexual or not, should be issued the so called 'civil unions' which confer legal benefits. That was marriage would remain unperverted.

The other issue you brought up, the idea that 'marriage is for the production of children, thus homosexuals should not be allowed to marry'. By that same argument, shouldn't any marriae where the woman goes through menopause be considered void? Shouldn't those over a certain age be no longer allowed to marry? What about the infirtile, their marriages should be badded since birth. You cannot discredit gay marriage on the basis of childbirth without also discrediting every marriage in which the woman is over the age of 50.

This is an excellent question and I'm glad you brought it up. You see, infertile couples, elderly couples, etc are not inherently prohibited from reproduction, they are only incidently prohibited due to extenuating
circumstances surrounding their condition. Homosexuals on the other hand are precluded from reproduction due to the fundamental nature of their act, two males or two femals cannot reproduce in any circumstances, regardless.


As an aside, people are posting here more rapidly than I will ever be able to keep up. Fortunately many of the arguements I see are replications of previous arguements I've already dealt with. I will attempt to respond to new arguements though.

Bloody fucking hell.

The US has NO christian morals ingrained into it. That's right, NONE.

Wanna prove me wrong? Then start listing christian-and ONLY christian-morals that are in the country.

Good luck with that one. Though I already know I'm just going to be ignored.

However, there is also:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Banning homosexuality without cause of any kind would violate the Fifth Amnedment right to liberty until deprived by due process of law.
I like that, that's creative.

But how does it not work for allowing drug use, pedophillia, bestiality and all that?

I like that, that's creative.

But how does it not work for allowing drug use, pedophillia, bestiality and all that?

Because each of these others potentially deprives the liberty of someone else. Except bestiality. I guess that's constitutional! :eek:

Then I would suggest the state stop issuing marriages at all. Instead everyone, homosexual or not, should be issued the so called 'civil unions' which confer legal benefits. That was marriage would remain unperverted.



This is an excellent question and I'm glad you brought it up. You see, infertile couples, elderly couples, etc are not inherently prohibited from reproduction, they are only incidently prohibited due to extenuating
circumstances surrounding their condition. Homosexuals on the other hand are precluded from reproduction due to the fundamental nature of their act, two males or two femals cannot reproduce in any circumstances, regardless.


As an aside, people are posting here more rapidly than I will ever be able to keep up. Fortunately many of the arguements I see are replications of previous arguements I've already dealt with. I will attempt to respond to new arguements though.How about people who were born sterile though? In what respect would that differ from homosexuality?

Because each of these others potentially deprives the liberty of someone else. Except bestiality. I guess that's constitutional! :eek:
Drug use?

This is an excellent question and I'm glad you brought it up. You see, infertile couples, elderly couples, etc are not inherently prohibited from reproduction, they are only incidently prohibited due to extenuating
circumstances surrounding their condition. Homosexuals on the other hand are precluded from reproduction due to the fundamental nature of their act, two males or two femals cannot reproduce in any circumstances, regardless..
You're wrong.

Many gay people have children through in vitro, surrogate moms, etc, just as many infertile straight couples do.

And there is always adoption, just as straight couples do.

And, last but not least, scientists have succeeded in extracting both sperm and eggs from individual stem cells. Give or take 30 years, and gay people will be having completely biological children with genes from both parents.

Drug use?

I'm a little hazy on drug use. Not due to drug use. ;) Just on the subject of it. See, I believe that making certain drugs illegal and not others is nothing more than good corporate lobbying. However, if one stretched the definition of 'deprivation of liberty' to the edge of breaking, I suppose it could be argued that drug ABUSE leads to the deprivation of life, liberty or property. Just ask the families of people who die in train crashes because the driver was drunk and on crack.

Let's call that one controversial, okay? :)

I'm a little hazy on drug use. Not due to drug use. ;) Just on the subject of it. See, I believe that making certain drugs illegal and not others is nothing more than good corporate lobbying. However, if one stretched the definition of 'deprivation of liberty' to the edge of breaking, I suppose it could be argued that drug ABUSE leads to the deprivation of life, liberty or property. Just ask the families of people who die in train crashes because the driver was drunk and on crack.

Let's call that one controversial, okay? :)
I personally believe there is nothing constitutional, useful, or logical in keeping most drugs banned. But that's another thread...

Then I would suggest the state stop issuing marriages at all. Instead everyone, homosexual or not, should be issued the so called 'civil unions' which confer legal benefits. That was marriage would remain unperverted.



This is an excellent question and I'm glad you brought it up. You see, infertile couples, elderly couples, etc are not inherently prohibited from reproduction, they are only incidently prohibited due to extenuating
circumstances surrounding their condition. Homosexuals on the other hand are precluded from reproduction due to the fundamental nature of their act, two males or two femals cannot reproduce in any circumstances, regardless.


As an aside, people are posting here more rapidly than I will ever be able to keep up. Fortunately many of the arguements I see are replications of previous arguements I've already dealt with. I will attempt to respond to new arguements though.

Personally I agree, govermental marriage should go, and civil unions take their place. On this issue, I guess we agree.

On the second though, you still didn't explain why an elderly couple SHOUDL be allowed to marry, while a gay couple cannot. whether the reasons are inherant or extenuating (I would consider menopause to be something VERY inherant to elderly women, something they cannot stop or control), why that should make any difference. If civil marriage is to support the conception and birthing of children, then post-menopausal women are just as ineligible as gays,

When you ban homosexuality on religious grounds, you're gonna have a problem.

Just like prostitution and public nudity, homosexuality bans are being promoted on the grounds of societial expectations, which may coincide with religion, but do not flow from a purely religious motive.


So you're still all for banning Buddhism and Islam?


No, I'm not, however, those religions don't require acts which are against society's expectations.


To you they aren't.


To many people they are not. In the end we still have to abide by majority rule. If the majority of people approve of public nudity then I'll accept that as readily as I accept public approval of legal sanctions being conferred on homosexuals. You seem to be missing this point; homosexuality is not being banned, the misappropriation of the word marriage is the centerpiece of the conflict. I merely vocalized the homosexual ban supporter's position since it was being misrepresented.

You must not be aware of this president's policies. Condoms are being taken out of public schools in favor of abstinence-only education, which only increases the rate of unprotected sex, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. The Religious Right is doing all in their power to try to stop us from buying and using them.

Schools are not the place to push condom use against the parent's wishes. If parents wish for their children to use condoms then they are perfectly free to instruct their children in the use of them and to then further facilitate such use in any way they see fit. You seem to believe we should adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach to this issue. Such a policy would be highly offensive to parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to condoms in public schools.


Your entire premise that homosexuality is wrong and that gays don't deserve equal treatment under the law is a subjective statement.

I never said that homosexuals don't deserve equal protection under the law. I have repeatedly said that society is fully willing to confer legal status equilivant to marriage on homosexuals. Are you deliberately misrepresentating my position or are you just unwilling to read?

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'
Leviticus 18:22

Yes, this one is so important it's right up there with don't eat Lobster or Shrimp..lol

Just like prostitution and public nudity, homosexuality bans are being promoted on the grounds of societial expectations, which may coincide with religion, but do not flow from a purely religious motive.
There's no reason for prostitution to be banned, and even them homosexuality is far different from both of those.



No, I'm not, however, those religions don't require acts which are against society's expectations.
Society's expectations don't mean shit


To many people they are not. In the end we still have to abide by majority rule. If the majority of people approve of public nudity then I'll accept that as readily as I accept public approval of legal sanctions being conferred on homosexuals. You seem to be missing this point; homosexuality is not being banned, the misappropriation of the word marriage is the centerpiece of the conflict. I merely vocalized the homosexual ban supporter's position since it was being misrepresented.
There IS no rule of the majority, because it would become the tyranny of the majority. Welcome to life in a place that, despite what you may have heard, isn't a democracy.



Schools are not the place to push condom use against the parent's wishes. If parents wish for their children to use condoms then they are perfectly free to instruct their children in the use of them and to then further facilitate such use in any way they see fit. You seem to believe we should adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach to this issue. Such a policy would be highly offensive to parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to condoms in public schools.
It's called sexual education. I don't believe parants should be allowed to stop their children from being educated. Besides which, teaching only abstinance does NOTHING productive




I never said that homosexuals don't deserve equal protection under the law. I have repeatedly said that society is fully willing to confer legal status equilivant to marriage on homosexuals. Are you deliberately misrepresentating my position or are you just unwilling to read?
You have yet to provide a reason why they can't marry. Unless there's a good, legal reason for it, then that is bigotry.

Schools are not the place to push condom use against the parent's wishes. If parents wish for their children to use condoms then they are perfectly free to instruct their children in the use of them and to then further facilitate such use in any way they see fit. You seem to believe we should adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach to this issue. Such a policy would be highly offensive to parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to condoms in public schools.*puts on straight face*

I can unequivocally assure you that I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all solution in the case of condoms.

I never said that homosexuals don't deserve equal protection under the law. I have repeatedly said that society is fully willing to confer legal status equilivant to marriage on homosexuals. Are you deliberately misrepresentating my position or are you just unwilling to read?Do you really think that "separate but equal" is fair? Doesn't it leave the whole thing open to all kinds of abuse, insurance companies calculating different premiums for married people than to civilly unified ones?

Schools are not the place to push condom use against the parent's wishes. If parents wish for their children to use condoms then they are perfectly free to instruct their children in the use of them and to then further facilitate such use in any way they see fit. You seem to believe we should adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach to this issue. Such a policy would be highly offensive to parents who do not wish their children to be exposed to condoms in public schools.
Seriously though, would you hold the same position if a parent wanted their child to be taught a different form of history or geography? If a parent wanted their child to believe that H2SO4 was a benificial skin product as opposed to a corrosive acid, would you allow them to be taught that? And if not, how is that different from discussing sexual issues?

On the second though, you still didn't explain why an elderly couple SHOUDL be allowed to marry, while a gay couple cannot. whether the reasons are inherant or extenuating (I would consider menopause to be something VERY inherant to elderly women, something they cannot stop or control), why that should make any difference. If civil marriage is to support the conception and birthing of children, then post-menopausal women are just as ineligible as gays,

It makes a difference because words mean things. Marriage is a principle based on human reproduction. When a couple is infertile or aged they are still within the principled defination of marriage as an institution as has been the longstanding tradition of human civilization. When you try to apply homosexuality to marriage you are distorting the fundamental principle at play. In essense you start down a road where words and principles are open to the arbitrary whim of the moment. If you find a rock inside the gullet of a chicken the rock is not part of the defination of the chicken. The rock doesn't change what the chicken is, in principle. Likewise homosexuality is not part of the defination of marriage and marriage should thus not be applied to homosexual unions. This says nothing about their legal status within society.

It makes a difference because words mean things. Marriage is a principle based on human reproduction. When a couple is infertile or aged they are still within the principled defination of marriage as an institution as has been the longstanding tradition of human civilization. When you try to apply homosexuality to marriage you are distorting the fundamental principle at play. In essense you start down a road where words and principles are open to the arbitrary whim of the moment. If you find a rock inside the gullet of a chicken the rock is not part of the defination of the chicken. The rock doesn't change what the chicken is, in principle. Likewise homosexuality is not part of the defination of marriage and marriage should thus not be applied to homosexual unions. This says nothing about their legal status within society.
Well, I think that the original definition of marriage has been corrupted long ago. I think that originally, it was about property, virginity and sexual and domestic slavery, plus a certain kind of permanance that is rather lacking in 33%-50% of marriages these days. If you want to see real change in the definition of marriage, look back to Henry VIII

Seriously though, would you hold the same position if a parent wanted their child to be taught a different form of history or geography? If a parent wanted their child to believe that H2SO4 was a benificial skin product as opposed to a corrosive acid, would you allow them to be taught that? And if not, how is that different from discussing sexual issues?

There is no right or wrong way to discuss sexual issues. A mountain is a mountain, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, an acid is an acid, those are all objective facts. What a child should know about sex, and when, is not objective. It is not the role of the government to take these sorts of decisions out of the hands of the parents.

The government is not taking it out of the hand of the parents, the problem is alot of these parents dont have any control to begin with.

There is no right or wrong way to discuss sexual issues. A mountain is a mountain, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, an acid is an acid, those are all objective facts. What a child should know about sex, and when, is not objective. It is not the role of the government to take these sorts of decisions out of the hands of the parents.
Ah, but there you're wrong. Knowing how to put on a condom would be considered a skill, like woodwork. Knowing that they work 97% of the time would be an exercise in mathematics. Knowing that unprotected sex can lead to babies and disease is biology. I don't think that the schools should be saying what you should do with this information (though to me at least it seems obvious), but I think they should teach it. The advocation of a particular course of action is no different from saying, after knowing the effects of sulpheric acid, that you shouldn't pour it over your hands.

I have a sneaking suspicion that even without the Bible, the people who advocate that the government butt its nose into certain personal behavior would still be advocating the same. Because, well, it's hard to live knowing your neighbor might be engaging in gay sex or smoking a joint. God forbid.

The government is not taking it out of the hand of the parents, the problem is alot of these parents dont have any control to begin with.

That isn't for you or I to decide. Parents have legal custody of their children and are presumptively in control of them on that basis. Making abstract conjugations about the validity or extent of that control for the purposes of making public policy is illegitimate.

so is it ok for a generation to grow up that doesnt know right or wrong? has no moral values of what is good and bad?

Ah, but there you're wrong. Knowing how to put on a condom would be considered a skill, like woodwork. Knowing that they work 97% of the time would be an exercise in mathematics. Knowing that unprotected sex can lead to babies and disease is biology. I don't think that the schools should be saying what you should do with this information (though to me at least it seems obvious), but I think they should teach it. The advocation of a particular course of action is no different from saying, after knowing the effects of sulpheric acid, that you shouldn't pour it over your hands.

I will repeat, the how and when that such information is imparted on children is not something which can be considered an objective standard. You, in your subjective opinion, believe that information regarding condoms and the use thereof should be taught to children in school. Many parents no doubt consider that to be something that they want to teach their children in their own way. It is not the place of the government to interfere with the way parents wish to teach their children about sex. If you want sex education in school it should come in the form of a voluntary class so that parents can choose if they want their children to attend or not.

I will repeat, the how and when that such information is imparted on children is not something which can be considered an objective standard. You, in your subjective opinion, believe that information regarding condoms and the use thereof should be taught to children in school. Many parents no doubt consider that to be something that they want to teach their children in their own way. It is not the place of the government to interfere with the way parents wish to teach their children about sex. If you want sex education in school it should come in the form of a voluntary class so that parents can choose if they want their children to attend or not.
I don't understand why it is that you feel you can logically object to the "how and when" of sex ed, but not of chemistry. I don't get how you can say that sex ed has to be voluntary, but that history should be mandated. What is the difference?

If you had read closely what I said you would realize that I specifically referred to both religious and historical meanings of marriage. Both of those are premised around the concept of human reproduction. Homosexuality does not permit reproduction, thus it is not marriage as it has been traditionally defined within the concept of reproduction.
Traditionally defined by whom. You see the poster who tried to point out to you that marraige is not a religious institution is still correct and you are still wrong. Homosexual unions are indeed amongst the varied forms of traditionally recognised marraiges amongst humans. In fact there are some cultural homosexual unions that are specifically premised on reproduction. If you dont know that homosexual marriages have been traditionally practised then you dont know what you are talking about, just as if you suggested that marraige was traditionally between two people. Marraige has come in many shapes and forms, no one religion owns it, no one religion invented, there is no one traditional form. I find it rather scary that those who want to re-define marraige have no idea about the institution outside of their own narrow encultured notions, and seem to actually not even understand that what they are suggesting (marraige as being only a union between one man and one woman) is a redefinition.

I don't understand why it is that you feel you can logically object to the "how and when" of sex ed, but not of chemistry. I don't get how you can say that sex ed has to be voluntary, but that history should be mandated. What is the difference?


Sex is an intimate human act which is often closely regulated by religious practices or even traditional values rooted in the history of the family or ethnic group. Chemisty is the same for everyone. History, when well taught with strict adherence to proven, varifiable historical facts, is also the same for everyone (as a recounting of events, not as an interpertation of those events). Sex on the other hand is not the same for everyone. I should think this would be readily apparent, but if you need examples think about how Catholics and Amish approach sex as opposed to people who have no religion. Many parents would be highly offended if you taught their children about sexual practices they consider to be immoral.

What I'd like to know is why you feel it is appropriate to force a one-size-fits-all approach to sex education on a society with diverse sexual practices and opinions.

Traditionally defined by whom. You see the poster who tried to point out to you that marraige is not a religious institution is still correct and you are still wrong.

It is both a religious and a legalistic defination. It has been defined by the western society in which we live and upon which we derive our laws from. I suppose I should have noted that I am strictly speaking of America in specific and western civilization in general. What the far east does in regards to these issues does not affect the evolution of our cultural and legal traditions.


Homosexual unions are indeed amongst the varied forms of traditionally recognised marraiges amongst humans.

I'm not aware of any, but nevertheless, I am speaking of traditional western culture and religion.

In fact there are some cultural homosexual unions that are specifically premised on reproduction.

Illogical, homosexual couples cannot reproduce, only opposite sexes may do that, which is why marriage, which is predicated on human reproduction, belongs solely in the relm of opposite sex unions.

If you dont know that homosexual marriages have been traditionally practised then you dont know what you are talking about, just as if you suggested that marraige was traditionally between two people.

You keep saying this, but you never bother to cite examples. Keep in mind, we're talking about western civilization here, specifically America.

Marraige has come in many shapes and forms, no one religion owns it, no one religion invented, there is no one traditional form.

No one suggested that anyone owns marriage. What is being suggested is that within the culture of western civilization, specifically the traditional culture of the United States, there is no recognition of marriage as anything except an institution regarding human reproduction. Furthermore, making logical progression from the principle of marriage we can see that the very defination of marriage would not allow the inclusion of a homosexual union within its defination.

Just curious, why is reproduction so important?

I find it odd that conservative chrisitians attempt to legislate morality. Isn't God's greatest gift to humans free will, and the ability to take responsibility for our actions.

Well, first of all, I'm a conservative chirstian, but I believe in as much of a separation of church and state as possible. Someone said (I completely forget where or who), if you have humanist reasons to back up your religion based reasons, why can't you just use the humanist ones and forget the religion based rules ... but they said it better.

As a christian, I find one of the most disturbing trends, the trend that you just pointed out ... christians trying to enforce christian morals in politics. Great, let's creat a theocracy! Maybe we could make christianity a mandatory religion!

Everyone has the right to have a different religion here, right? So get off the soap box when it comes to morals in political issues. That means that christians, the large majority, do /not/ have the right to enforce our beliefs on everyone else. God's going to make the judgements on homosexuality and abortion, and we won't get a say in that. I'm pretty sure He can bring people to the faith without us legislating against homosexual marriage as well. Can you imagine God saying, "Well, I was really having a hard time there, but once you made gay marriage illegal in all 50 states, /then/ I could make a difference in people's lives!" Riiiight.

How would we feel if it was an islamic majority and a ruling was created saying women had to cover their heads? Or let's get real fundamentalist. Let's make masturbation illegal! It's spoken against in both the Torah and the Koran! </sarcasm>

Take the beam out of your own eye before you ... bah, you all know it by now.

I like what the original poster had to say. I'm a conservative christian and I approve this message.

It is both a religious and a legalistic defination. It has been defined by the western society in which we live and upon which we derive our laws from. I suppose I should have noted that I am strictly speaking of America in specific and western civilization in general. What the far east does in regards to these issues does not affect the evolution of our cultural and legal traditions.
If you are not talking about marraige, but rather are talking specifically about how the institution has evolved in one particular society, then that is indeed a very different thing. The first argument is actually much firmer (if wrongly premised) the second argument (American marraige has always been X) is fallacious. Basically it's a tradition is not a good reason for injustice, inequality and intentional rejection of social progress. Now while it hasnt been proved yet whether or not disallowing homosexual marraiges is a cause of injustice, inequality and an intentional rejection of social progress has not been proven, but if it were, the argument that a harmful tradition is justified by virtue of being a tradition is nonesence.

I'm not aware of any, but nevertheless, I am speaking of traditional western culture and religion.
Firstly that really isnt what you said, and you surely agree that saying 'marraige has always been X and A, B, C, are the fundamental cornerstones of marraige and always have been' is somewhat different in implication to 'since America was colonised by white people marraige has been along the lines of X, Y, Z or L, M, N, but it's never included (i). You should keep in mind that most people will not agree that just because Westernised marraige, supported by religious belief has traditionally being defined as giving ownership of the wife to the husband, it should still do so today. Your argument if it is 'in America we have traditionally seen marraige like this' is logically the same as the argument 'in America traditionally the wife is the property of the husband so if he rips her clothes off and brutally forces her to endure his sexual advances, it's not rape because it's his right and he owns her according to traditional definitions of marraige', or 'we should bring back slavery, it's traditional'. Basically any argument that seeks to justify present behaviour based soley on the notion that the behaviour is traditional is an argument which says 'my ancestors were stupid and so I have the right to be stupid too'...

Illogical, homosexual couples cannot reproduce, only opposite sexes may do that, which is why marriage, which is predicated on human reproduction, belongs solely in the relm of opposite sex unions.
If what you were saying were an accurate picture of reproduction in humans, marraige as it is currently known would not exist, why would it need to. You dont need a promise of commitment from two people to create life, marraige doesnt make conception or birth any easier. So what gives, why the long commitment which seems to so conviniently fit with the exceptionally long 'dependency' of human offspring? If you think about it you might realise the connection between the two and with it the fact that reproductive success in humans requires a great deal more conception and success birth. Marraige is a social institution, you are talking about biology, and the two are interconnected so you cant have one without considering the other. Biologically speaking human off-spring are dependent for a long time, if both parents die then you have a reproductive failure unless there is some contingency. Biology then intersects with sociology to determine reproductive success. If there are social mechanisms to ensure parentless dependents survive, reproductive success will be higher than where there is not. Looking honestly at societies we can also determine that 'wealth' can lead to greater reproductive success. If you have a group where wealthy widows who for one reason or another have no children, their wealth is not being put to any reproductive use unless you have a social mechanism that determines otherwise. In some socieities they do have such a mechanism, a wealthy older woman can take a younger bride. The bride gets pregnant with the assistance of a third party. The off-spring enjoys the benefits of a well fed mother throughout pregnancy, and has the material benefits her wealthy female 'father' can provide. The group as a whole is better off because children and being reproduced into circumstances that increase an individual's opportunities for success (better food, clothing, shelter for instance) in which case they themselves will be a more viable 'reproducer'. The fact is human biology not seperate from our social activities, it is the cause of our social activities, we speak because we are biologically formed in such a way that dont 'not-speak'. We have social groups because we are biologically formed in such as way that we dont 'not have social groups'. When you consider reproduction, if you ignore the social element, then you are ignoring crucial material facts about human biological reproduction.


You keep saying this, but you never bother to cite examples. Keep in mind, we're talking about western civilization here, specifically America.
No, keep in mind that mid way through the discussion you have chosen to re define the discussion about marraige to America since it was colonised by white people.

No one suggested that anyone owns marriage.
"Marraige is a Christian institution" as a reason to not have marraige types that exist outside of that preferred by many (although not all) current Christian groups, certainly implies ownership. In fact what else can it imply, either Christians practise marraige and have no right to butt their noses into how others practise this shared instituion, or they own it and can determine what form it takes, or despite not owning it they feel some other reason why they can dictate how others practise this shared institution...just what is the relevence of Christian beleifs to non-Christians if Christians dont think they own marraige?

What is being suggested is that within the culture of western civilization, specifically the traditional culture of the United States, there is no recognition of marriage as anything except an institution regarding human reproduction.
Firstly that is not what was suggested, perhaps that is what was meant, although I have to say in that case the point is not relevent because it is fallaciously justifying current practise based on nothing more than the fact that it matches the previous practise of a particular group over a particular timespan. There was once no recognition that a woman had any right to refuse sex to her husband, that does not mean that matters should have always stayed that way.

Furthermore, making logical progression from the principle of marriage we can see that the very defination of marriage would not allow the inclusion of a homosexual union within its defination.
No we can only do that if we ignore relevent material facts about humans and their reproduction, facts that stem from our biology.