User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 112

  1. #61
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Church and state should be made separate... Foolishness. Impossible. If anyone holds a religious belief honestly it should be apart of their lives. Beliefs are not something to compartmentalize. Our nation was founded on values, on beliefs. Our revolution was not the one that cried out to end beliefs. Instead, religious beliefs were encouraged. It was the French revolution that decided that religion should be no more, choosing instead to worship reason.
    According to how the political system was first set up only the Federal Government was prohibited from establishing a religion. The states were allowed to be free and flexible. They could be what their people wanted to be. In America no one could escape the federal government because it was everywhere, but if they didn't like a state's rules they could move or change them. Religion for about 150 years was supported in many ways by the government. Even by our founding fathers. Are you saying that just because the supreme court decided to make a decision that was supported by slim evidence that that's how it was intended? If so, how can you explain the actions of the government both when our founding fathers were alive and after their passing for that 150 years? It's foolish to think that you can compartmentalize your life. Things blend together subconsciously and consciously. 200 years ago life without religion was almost considered unthinkable. It's only in our present day corrupt misplaced and forgotten image of the past that we see things differently.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    We don't have a complete separation of religion and state in the U.S. You've read the U.S. Constitution. You know this.
    I stated that it should be, not that it is.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    I stated that it should be, not that it is.
    And I am blatantly disagreeing.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  4. #64
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    I stated that it should be, not that it is.

    I think the system we have is actually quite brilliant, and it's the best way to do things in a republic.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #65
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
    Church and state should be made separate... Foolishness. Impossible. If anyone holds a religious belief honestly it should be apart of their lives. Beliefs are not something to compartmentalize. Our nation was founded on values, on beliefs. Our revolution was not the one that cried out to end beliefs. Instead, religious beliefs were encouraged. It was the French revolution that decided that religion should be no more, choosing instead to worship reason.
    I don't think this is what sensible people propose.

    The problem is that different people believe different things, yet some groups of people think it's perfectly valid to legislate their personal moral beliefs in ways that conflict on other people.

    Specifically in regards to gay marriage, technically if someone is creating a stable family unit and raising children who are contributing to the culture and being upstanding citizens, the fact of whether they are gay or straight should not matter.

    There is no evidence that children raised by gay parents produces a worse result than children raised by het parents. I'm even betting you're going to find worse (percentage-wise) of kids raised by het parents, because there are lots of crappy het parents who had kids just because they had sex, while gay parents had to actually plan to have kids if they came out gay earlier in life. So they wanted them and took the job seriously.

    Yet one side is wanting to restrict the family unit to their definition of marriage based on their religious beliefs -- saying in effect that their beliefs are better or should be honored above the religious beliefs of other members in society.

    This, to me, is the problem and is highly offensive, regardless of what my personal beliefs about homosexuality are: There's no practical evidence showing that gay marriage is going to destroy the country, it's just that some people personally find it offensive... and yet they consider themselves more important than other people who are equal citizens in this country. And then they try to tie it back to some historical precedent or find ways to juryrig the laws to get what they want, even if Joe's gay marriage has no direct relevance to the solidity of their own marriage and their dedication to it.

    Personally, I don't really care if someone is gay or straight. It's none of my business what they do in their homes. How do I even know someone is having sex, unless I'm spying on them or projecting? It's irrelevant to one's contributions to society. Yet these "defenders of marriage" are not defending "marriage," they're actually promoting and forcing their religious beliefs under the guise of "defending marriage."

    If Muslims were in charge and doing that sort of thing, I'd be offended. If gays were in charge and trying to ban het marriage, I'd be offended. Everyone should worry about their own lives and leave other people alone, in a country that says all religions must be treated equally and people treated with respect, based on the moral caliber of their actions towards others and their commitment to their country and not on something like sexual preference. We're still fighting a mentality from fifty years ago that labeled such people as "reprobates" ... a religious judgment, not a rational one.

    Unless there is a "rational" reason to deny gay people marriage, this fighting over who owns "marriage" seems to be driven by religious prejudice.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #66
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    See, it's not that they are gay or not. I might disagree with their actions, but I can't hate them. I won't spite them because of it. My beliefs are my beliefs. They overflow into many different facts of life. It's just in many ways how things should be. If you believe something can you really turn it off?
    Homosexuals are people. They deserve to be treated as such. Even if you don't agree with them can you honestly say that you are better than them if you treat them wrongly? It's like disagreeing with someone from a different belief or religion. You can't hate them. You can only disagree and try to show where you think they are wrong in a caring way. Think of how you might like to be treated. Take a higher path.


    As far as gay marriage goes there are many reasons to like or dislike it. Any that I provide from a religious stand point or even seemingly religious stand point is usually disregarded.

    Another argument then. Not based off of my faith. Human kind is one way. By which I mean that's what we reproduce to be. It only works one way with the animal kingdom should it work differently with us just because we have a higher way of thinking? The ideology isn't as important in this case as the science. If everyone went into a gay marriage and committed to it humanity would cease to exist. So, since we have this ideal of marriage between two people, two mates, two whatever. Can we continue thinking that we can be different because we think differently? If the ideology doesn't allow the species to survive in anyway what use is it from this stand point?

    Now, I'm not sure how organized this is from all of your perspectives, it's only something I've just thought of and I don't intend to debate it because it's not really my philosophy.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  7. #67
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    This is not really an issue of the separation of church and state, though. It's an issue of whether or not the government should decide what a "marriage" is. I think that it should not. Catholics should not be forced to recognize a gay marriage, since that would be a contradiction in terms in their religious heritage. "Civil marriage" should really just be a civil union contract entered into by two adults. It is a secular institution. A marriage should defined by the religious or social tradition of those who want one. If you want to be married, find a priest, rabbi, minister, shaman, or whatever who will perform a marriage ceremony for you.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #68
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Yay.

    Anyways, this goes further than just gay marriage. It takes other recent constitutional events into account. Hate Crimes Act, Laws regarding whether or not people can choose to marry other individuals of different ideologies, etc.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  9. #69
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Okay, so Christians that are against homosexuality (because it is a "grave sin") have a problem with this whole Obama Easter Egg Roll thing because it's a symbol. It's a public sign that says, "look, there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or their lifestyle, not even within the Christian religious realm." This is the same reason that those who endorse gay lifestyles are pleased with Obama's decision.

    The great thing about such a move is that it weakens the overall religious position. The fundamentalists who would be offended by it are not on grounds to attack it via a religion v.s. non-religion argument. Instead, they are forced to fragment from other denominations, making their position weaker because it makes the underdetermination of the "truth" of any religious beliefs evident to the public.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #70
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Debates like these are why I follow absurdism.

    Faith is the method in which we believe that we can derive truth. To act on faith is absurd, but virtually all people act on faith. Whether it is faith in a Holy Scripture or faith in empirically derived evidence or faith in reason through deduction; it is still a faith that at one point in time a person reflected upon and chose to act on before all the others.

    It is laughable that any human being believes they know the Truth in a world of so many truths. People usually create meaning in their own lives, whether it is religion, spirituality, politics, science, whatever.

    As far as the whole "bigot" war in which my name seemed to come up, I have to admit I'm curious. I can't imagine Peguy as a bigot, but I do have to wonder why he is so content with imagining gays as estranged from his God. It almost seems like he takes great joy in the thought or that he imagines that he is somehow better than others for the particular faith he has chosen. I also can't imagine Binary as a bigot, but I have to wonder why she is so discontent with the way Christians choose to live their lives when she wants Christians to let her live her life the way she chooses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. What Hogwarts House do you belong to?
    By Eugene Watson VIII in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 03-15-2017, 01:16 PM
  2. gay mosque to open in paris
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 10:10 PM
  3. 92-year-old shoots neighbor's house after he refuses to kiss her
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 05:28 PM
  4. Obama Passover Seder: First Ever Held At White House
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 07:06 PM
  5. Limit families to two children?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 11:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO