Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

So from other threads I gather that you don't believe the bible is inerrant. The thing is if you don't believe the bible is authoritative and that the state should be in subjection to God than what is your alternative?

Where does law come from? If it doesn't come from God than it has to come from the state. Then the state becomes a God unto unto itself incapable of doing wrong... if this is the case the Nuremberg trials should have never happened because what the nazis did was legal because there is no higher authority to turn to in order to condemn people who commit genocide that is endorsed by the state.

Eat more Nihilism pie.

Ultimately though non-Christians already hate God, I don't take any of the blame for people who feel pushed away from my religion. Anyway, people aren't saved by politics or apologetics they are saved supernaturally through the the work of the spirit and normally that occurs through relationships irl.

Not all non-Christians hate god. I don't hate it, as I believe it doesn't exist.

Finally. I'm conservative... not progressive. I'm not the one trying to legislate morality. It's the left that's trying to legislate their own brand of morality and redefine the place of government in society. I'm on defense, not offense.

a) By supporting it, you help it get passed, etc.

b) I has pie.

Well that's just it I believe that the federal government should cater to Christianity in a broad sense. That's the way the country started. Separation of Church and state was a federal/state issue. They allowed states to set up there own religions.

No, I don't have a special privilege... its the left that think they have a special privilege. I'm willing to work trough the democratic process and try to convince people. On the other hand the left want to use tyranny. The Left supports judicial activism. If the american people decide that abortion should be legal than by all means go through the democratic process and get legislation or amendments past. But, instead of having the people decide the issue 9 people who were never elected determined the future of millions of unborn children... that is tyranny.

LOL. Let's see what comes next... I KNOW WHAT'S COMING NEXT!

I try to be consistent. I believe in majoritarianism... our political system is based on it. If I felt that my fundamental rights were being violate I would do what Christians for 500 years have been doing... I would revolt or leave.

Yep, Majoritarianism.



Ok, I'm done reading. I have nothing of value to offer.

 

[Beorn]

Yep, Majoritarianism.

well, majoritarianism with the constraints of a constitution, and separation of powers, and a bicameral legislature among other things.

Though often what is done in the name of pluralism is really just the tyranny of the minority.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

well, majoritarianism with the constraints of a constitution, and separation of powers, and a bicameral legislature among other things.

Nice save-ish.

Among other things = The Big J.C.? We can't rule that out either.

Though often what is done in the name of pluralism is really just the tyranny of the minority.

On a side note here... It's so... Meh... When someone edits their posts. Y'know what I mean?

Also, what? I must be missing something because that seemed off-topic.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ooooodddd.

 

[Beorn]

On a side note here... It's so... Meh... When someone edits their posts. Y'know what I mean?

Sorry, it was 4am here. I forget there is a world audience and other insomniacs out there... I had thought nobody would notice.

Also, what? I must be missing something because that seemed off-topic.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ooooodddd.

I was being preemptive. When folks argue against majoritarian rule they typically appeal to pluralism as a justification for allowing the minority's preference to prevail.

 

[01011010]

^ Would this satisfy christian homosexual couples I wonder?

There are churches that accept and have no issues with gay people. They would even officiate the wedding. I'd hope that a gay religious couple would seek a place like this if they want a religious ceremony, instead of asking a conservative church that isn't accepting to do so instead.

I think a majority conservative church has the right to not want or have gay people in their congregation, but those views shouldn't determine law.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Being a homosexual is hard. I don't mind being a homosexual, but I do mind what the people around me treat me because I am one. I don't even know what the hell is going to happen in my life; I'm an only child. It'll be a devastation to my parents when I tell them. It'll be one for myself as well. I don't even know if I can handle complicated business like this.

Dude,
Some times parents take it surprisingly well. I made light of a difficult situation, I know it can be agonising. I'm just not all that sure why. It's not like you changed personalities or some thing. Maybe I'm just incrediably accepting?
Here's a tip though, no-one knows what's gonna happen in life, chook, but you can't live a lie either to keep every one happy.
It will be hard, but if you can wait until you have independence from your parents, it tends to go smoother. I had several friends come out to thier parents with varying results, so prepare for the worst and hope for the best. If you guys are close, it won't be a surprise though.

 

[Beorn]

I think a majority conservative church has the right to not want or have gay people in their congregation, but those views shouldn't determine law.

Geez... conservative churches should want to have LGBT folks attending their services. Interactions at picket lines are less likely to lead to conversion.

 

[01011010]

Geez... conservative churches should want to have LGBT folks attending their services. Interactions at picket lines are less likely to lead to conversion.

That would be nice, but it's idealistic. Conservatives have the right to believe as they do. Freedom of religion. They should be allowed to have churches where they feel comfortable. I don't see what the problem with that is.

My only issue with it as a gay woman, is that when it comes to changing the law to fit their beliefs it crosses the line.

 

[Beorn]

My only issue with it as a gay woman, is that when it comes to changing the law to fit their beliefs it crosses the line.

changing what law?

 

[01011010]

changing what law?

Gay marriage in California.

 

[Beorn]

Gay marriage in California.

My main point is that I don't like it when folks supporting LGBT rights frame the debate the way you did. Christians are not trying change the law. Rather the LGBT community is trying to have new laws passed and new rights recognized by the courts.


In CA they didn't change the law. They undid a tyrannical act by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. They undid a law that was made up out of thin air.

My own view of rights aside the view of the US Supreme Court is that fundamental rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no way that gay marriage can possibly fall within this definition.

If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.

 

[01011010]

My main point is that I don't like it when folks supporting LGBT rights frame the debate the way you did. Christians are not trying change the law. Rather the LGBT community is trying to have new laws passed and new rights recognized by the courts.

In CA they didn't change the law. They undid a tyrannical act by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. They undid a law that was made up out of thin air.

My own view of rights aside the view of the US Supreme Court is that fundamental rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no way that gay marriage can possibly fall within this definition.

If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.

It's unconstitutional to deny two adults, the ability to get married like everyone else. That was the basis for the law. It didn't happen out of thin air.

 

[Beorn]

It's unconstitutional to deny two adults, the ability to get married like everyone else. That was the basis for the law. It didn't happen out of thin air.

Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.

The only other ruling on this matter in CA was in 2004 where the court determined that the mayor of san francisco had no right to marry gay couples.

 

[01011010]

Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.

That doesn't mean we can't change laws for what seems unjust. If we hadn't changed any laws regarding people with less power, America would be a very different place right now.

Allowing gay people to marry goes under minority protection. Allowing people freedom of religion. Making gender and racial discrimination illegal.

 

[soccerjunkie1996]

Right, it is generally unconstitutional to forbid two adults from getting married. But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

And LGBTQ supporters like myself don't see what the justification is for that presupposition, other than 'it's been done that way for a long time, so it shouldn't be changed.' The simple fact of the matter is that no one I've talked to who is against the idea of gay marriage has provided any justification for why gay marriage is bad, outside of religious reasons. Even those arguing from a religious standpoint have no answer to the fact that two homosexuals getting married hurts no one.

The idea that the constitution protects same-sex marriage is out of thin air... unless you can point to specific precedent.

It's called the equal protection clause, 14th amendment.

 

[Katsuni]

But, our laws have presupposed for over 200 years that marriage is between one woman and one man.

Sorry, but this's the weakest argument in existence EVER.

Tradition is not a valid excuse for mediocrity. Just because yeu did something stupid for 100+ years doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue doing something stupid for 100+ more years.

Let's say every morning yeu wake up and fall out of bed and hit yeur head on the table. Well yeu've done it this way every day for a decade straight! To do anything different would be silly right? Or... yeu know... we could move the table... or just be more careful waking up...

It's retarded at best to keep doing the same dumb thing over and over repeatedly, without learning from the mistake. For over 200 years blacks weren't allowed to vote either. Neither were women. They said the same thing about those back then because they were "less than human" or "it wasn't god's plan".

Seriously, common sense please.



Also...



14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





This pretty much covers it as a prescient. I mean it's in yeur constitution, the whole thing the entire country was founded upon. The only reason women and blacks were excluded previously, was that they weren't considered "persons". Gays have never been considered "less than human", so this should've applied to them all along.






That being said; marriage is broken into two sections currently, but both are called marriage which's the problem... one is religious and one is by the state. A captain on a boat is allowed to perform marriages. A government official is allowed to perform marriages. Many other cases are allowed to perform marriages... they don't have to even be religious believers themselves. These marriages are not considered to be religious at all but are merely done as a state approved union.

The religious form of marriage is separate, but people don't seem to think of it that way.

Gays generally don't want to be married in a religious manner; even those who are religious generally agree that, yeah, their religion doesn't condone it and they are alright with that usually.

They are, however, interested in getting the LEGAL benefits of a union, such as reduced taxes and such... this has nothing to do with religion or the religious form of marriage.

As these marriages can be performed outside of a church and have no relevance to religion whotsoever, there is no reason not to provide such.

People just have a habit of "assuming" they mean religious marriage is all.

And assume just makes an ass out of u and me, but mostly u in this case.

 

[Beorn]

14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.





This pretty much covers it as a prescient. I mean it's in yeur constitution, the whole thing the entire country was founded upon. The only reason women and blacks were excluded previously, was that they weren't considered "persons". Gays have never been considered "less than human", so this should've applied to them all along.

So the right for gays to marry can exist before the right is recognized by US law?

 

[Ming]

If LGBT folks want same-sex marriage legalized they need to do it with the consent of the people.

Oh I see. Well, I don't consent you to marry with the other sex. What you going to do about it?

 

[Ming]

So the right for gays to marry can exist before the right is recognized by US law?

That's why LGBT + supporters are STILL TRYING to get it recognized.

 

[Ming]

Since opposition of gay marriage comes from religious belief, why is it not allowed in every state anyways? Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

If so, how is banning gay marriage constitutional?

I really don't think if people will ever notice this...