Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 22>
Poll Question: What is your opinion on this?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
55 [73.33%]
1 [1.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [10.67%]
9 [12.00%]
2 [2.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 03:12
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:


There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between. 

I'm digressing here, but it's always amusing that in the US you call 'liberals' the center-left (democrats) and 'conservatives' the center-right (republicans) while in Europe we use the term 'liberals' for the center-right (conservatives, pro-capitalist system, christian-democrats). (and the term 'socialists' for the center-left, which nowadays are not much different from liberals but just with a bit more social-oriented agenda).
These terminologies (even the simple 'right' and 'left' words) were based on social environments which are no longer valid and I think that by now in the 21st century it's time that society should make a profound reflection and revision, because many not-so-well-educated people still forge their ideologies based on such cliches and terminologies without understanding what they are actually supporting, and heavily distorting the current political landscapes.
Many well-educated people also do. Sometimes because they know it's convenient for them. And most are called "politicians". Specially here in the US, painting every political debate as a two-road-only alternative it's quite good for both parties.
Indeed, what the hell should being a Christian bigot or not have to do with one's political opinions regarding how the economy of a society should be best managed? (for example). Rushfan4's statement equating one's opinions regarding homosexual marriage with being 'liberal' or 'conservative' is proof enough of how misguided people are by these sort of terminologies (and I'm not blaming him, the problem is that indeed many people see it that way, starting by the politicians themselves).
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 03:17
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


Indeed, what the hell should being a Christian bigot or not have to do with one's political opinions regarding how the economy of a society should be best managed? (for example). Rushfan4's statement equating one's opinions regarding homosexual marriage with being 'liberal' or 'conservative' is proof enough of how misguided people are by these sort of terminologies (and I'm not blaming him, the problem is that indeed many people see it that way, starting by the politicians themselves).


I couldn't agree more.  I see this nearly every day in general/political discussions (which is one of the reasons I rarely participate in them, whether on PA or elsewhere on the net).  People are far too quick to slot one another into ideological pigeonholes based only on their stance on some issues.   That should not be necessary and it is not important at all.  It is far more important to examine the merit, the logic of their argument and just because they share the same ideological position as you would not automatically validate their logic either.   I am not conservative/socialist/anarachist whatever, I am what I am and my views are based on my understanding of the principles of justice, not on whether it fits into any ideological position that I may favour. 
Back to Top
Ady Cardiac View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2012
Location: Witney , UK
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ady Cardiac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 03:27
wow this threads getting heavy.....simply if you dont like gay marriage.....why waste time and energy moaning about it....does it effect you personally?...if no then whats the problem?....and if its because of your religion...sorry but get over it.......i wouldn't change myself for anyone.....especially their beliefs.....one of my best mates is gay and the homophobia he is still subjected to in this day and age is ridiculous.....its like people are scared by gay people......why?.....why do gay people bother other people?........i couldn't care less....sounds like sone poeple on here are like the ones who'll say something like they hate country and western music.......simple.....don't listen to it!
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 04:01
Originally posted by Ady Cardiac Ady Cardiac wrote:

wow this threads getting heavy.....simply if you dont like gay marriage.....why waste time and energy moaning about it....does it effect you personally?...if no then whats the problem?....and if its because of your religion...sorry but get over it.......i wouldn't change myself for anyone.....especially their beliefs.....one of my best mates is gay and the homophobia he is still subjected to in this day and age is ridiculous.....its like people are scared by gay people......why?.....why do gay people bother other people?........i couldn't care less....sounds like sone poeple on here are like the ones who'll say something like they hate country and western music.......simple.....don't listen to it!


I endorse your sentiments wholeheartedly from the idealistic perspective that we have a level and tolerant playing field (all things being equal etc) We do NOT have a level and tolerant playing field i.e. the people who currently decide what is available for you to watch and listen to on mainstream media is driven by those with a minority sexually oriented agenda. (albeit tempered by the demands of advertisers)  I live in Australia and have friends who work in the entertainment industry (as technicians and sound guys for TV and radio - one of whom is gay BTW)
These acquaintances advise me that the programming decisions are in the hands of predominantly gay staff, who determine the shape and scope of mainstream coverage. For the sake of clarity I am NOT a homophobe, but do object to the tail wagging the dog ( I feel exactly the same way about taxpayers license fees being frittered away on minority interest Gaelic broadcasting in the land of my birth, Scotland where 1.2% of the population somehow have the leverage to demand their own programmes)


Edited by ExittheLemming - April 06 2013 at 04:44
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 04:37
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Given the context of Colin's other statements, I think that his comment was obviously ridicule and condescending.  I don't know what else you would call it.

Now you're making an unfair distinction between "religious" and "secular" without explaining why.  I'm not saying that things can't  be "religious" or "secular"; I'm saying that there's no difference in how they can be used in a debate.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a truth claim, just as much as is any truth claim about homosexuality or politics or science.  You can't neatly divide truth claims into "religious" and "secular" and say that one has no place in the other.  They are both claims to truth.  Objective truth.  They affect each other.  Christians do not merely claim that Jesus is alive in their heads, or that He means something to them; they claim that he objectively, truly, came down from heaven into this earth and died on the cross and rose from the dead.  You can choose to believe that or not.  You can argue for it or against it; and scholars have been arguing about it for years.  It can be the subject of debate because it is an objective truth claim.  It either happened in history or it didn't.  Whether it did or did not has a profound effect on everything else.  You don't have to believe it, but you can't dismiss it as mere fancy that has no bearing on a "secular" debate.  It has as much place on others' arguments based on science or politics or ethics or what have you.

Your argument is an example of an error called the fact/value split; an error that places empirical data in the realm of "fact" or "objective truth" - in other words things that can be objectively true or false.  Then it places things like religion in the realm of "values" or "the subjective"; things that are relative to each individual.  This is false.  Religions make objective truth claims.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."  None of these are subjective or relative.  They are either objectively true or not.
Take it to the atheist or christian thread Jacob, in the former I'll happily debate with you until the cows come home, in the latter I'll politely and respectfully leave you in peace with your god.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 05:23
A statement does not take on an objective or factual nature merely on account of being passed of as such.  It is, when it is backed by evidence and is verifiable.  Believers make no attempt to demonstrate the truth in their beliefs and that "God said so" is not demonstration or verification.   If there is such a 'verifiable' God, can I please have a look at his passport?  Sorry to state it so bluntly (and I am not an atheist) but this is how a statement of belief is separated from fact.   A claim to truth that cannot be proved at all is simply a falsehood.  Does not stop anybody from believing it but it's not a claim of truth merely because somebody chooses to believe in it.   If somebody believes homosexuality and polygamy are equal sins because his religious scripture says so, he is basing it on his belief system derived from religion.  It does not follow that homosexual unions should be seen as as much of a crime as polygamy by people at large because not everybody has the same belief system or even a belief system in the first place.   

Edited by rogerthat - April 06 2013 at 05:23
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 05:24
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Nope. Sin is purely a religious offence, it has no non-religious meaning or definition. Some sins are secular crimes, (such as murder and theft), but they would be still crimes if religions had never been invented, not all sins are secular crimes just as not all secular crimes are sins. Gluttony is a sin not a crime, using religious swear-words is a sin not a crime, eating blood is a sin not a crime, moaning and grumbling is a sin not a crime (1Cor 10:10), anger is a sin not a crime, tattoos are a sin not a crime, arguing is a sin not a crime (Tim 2:23), astrology is a sin not a crime, cursing the rich is a sin not a crime, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is a sin not a crime, working on a Sunday is a sin not a crime, divorce is a sin not a crime... the list goes on and so could I, religious people sin all the time, we don't throw them in gaol for it.
 
Making homosexuality not a crime did not impose on hetrosexuals, removing the prohibition on gay marriage would not impose on hetrosexual marriage.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 05:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Given the context of Colin's other statements, I think that his comment was obviously ridicule and condescending.  I don't know what else you would call it.

Now you're making an unfair distinction between "religious" and "secular" without explaining why.  I'm not saying that things can't  be "religious" or "secular"; I'm saying that there's no difference in how they can be used in a debate.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a truth claim, just as much as is any truth claim about homosexuality or politics or science.  You can't neatly divide truth claims into "religious" and "secular" and say that one has no place in the other.  They are both claims to truth.  Objective truth.  They affect each other.  Christians do not merely claim that Jesus is alive in their heads, or that He means something to them; they claim that he objectively, truly, came down from heaven into this earth and died on the cross and rose from the dead.  You can choose to believe that or not.  You can argue for it or against it; and scholars have been arguing about it for years.  It can be the subject of debate because it is an objective truth claim.  It either happened in history or it didn't.  Whether it did or did not has a profound effect on everything else.  You don't have to believe it, but you can't dismiss it as mere fancy that has no bearing on a "secular" debate.  It has as much place on others' arguments based on science or politics or ethics or what have you.

Your argument is an example of an error called the fact/value split; an error that places empirical data in the realm of "fact" or "objective truth" - in other words things that can be objectively true or false.  Then it places things like religion in the realm of "values" or "the subjective"; things that are relative to each individual.  This is false.  Religions make objective truth claims.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."  None of these are subjective or relative.  They are either objectively true or not.
Take it to the atheist or christian thread Jacob, in the former I'll happily debate with you until the cows come home, in the latter I'll politely and respectfully leave you in peace with your god.


Now I admit that I don't understand Dean's distinction between belief and opinion (as both terms denote for me a subjective perspective without recourse to supporting evidence) but are you really saying that 'Jesus Christ is the Son of God' is demonstrably and objectively a fact? It should be self evident that, notwithstanding your sincerity or conviction, the latter is at best speculative fantasy?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 06:54
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Can you please for a minute try to really imagine a world where all laws would be shaped according to what the Bible says (I even allow you to neglect the impossibility of that scenario, given that not even among Christians you could have agreement on what those laws should be), where any practices not conforming to those laws would be punished as being illegal crimes, and tell me seriously if you would really like to live in that world?

And I mean, really.  Back to the Inquisition times perhaps?

As Dean said, even Christians 'sin' all the time so we would need quite a budget for trials and prisons (oh wait, perhaps we could just stone the sinners to death in the middle of the street).
Back to Top
Terra Australis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 03 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 603
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Terra Australis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 07:12
I chose the first option because it is right to allow people to commit to the person of their choice.
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.
http://allomerus.com
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2529
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 08:47
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Can you please for a minute try to really imagine a world where all laws would be shaped according to what the Bible says (I even allow you to neglect the impossibility of that scenario, given that not even among Christians you could have agreement on what those laws should be), where any practices not conforming to those laws would be punished as being illegal crimes, and tell me seriously if you would really like to live in that world?

And I mean, really.  Back to the Inquisition times perhaps?

As Dean said, even Christians 'sin' all the time so we would need quite a budget for trials and prisons (oh wait, perhaps we could just stone the sinners to death in the middle of the street).


Go back and read my posts again.  That's not anywhere close to what I actually said.  And the answer is no, by the way.

I was arguing about Dean's unfair distinction between "belief" and "opinion" and defending Alex from ridicule, not expressing agreement with Alex or stating that policy should be based on Scriptural commands.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 09:08
^^^  So what about the truth claim part, which both I and Exitthelemming asked about?  Do you really believe that a statement like "the world was created in seven days" is a truth claim?  Because it's a pretty outrageous one, if so, as scientific evidence has already disproved it.  Whether or not you completely accept the findings of biology, the world was not created in the manner so described in religious mythology in such a short span of time.  Fossils of dinosaurs and the earliest ones of man date millions of years apart.  What more proof is required to demonstrate that above statement would only be a wholly fallacious truth claim or objective statement if accepted as one? 

That's part A.  Part B is Alex pretty clearly IMPOSED his moral code derived from HIS religious beliefs on the other thread participants.  Here is the relevant quote.  I am not going to bother with the quote parantheses here, so bear with me there:

"No, I think the concern was on sexual immorality period... Whether that be hetero, homo, bestiality, lust in general, porn, etc."

He has pretty clearly equated homosexual orientation with bestiality.  They may both be sins according to the Bible (and as I am not a Christian, I will take his word on that) but as of today, people who are not comfortable with homosexuals consider it more of an awkward or abnormal kind of behaviour than cruelty.   It is no longer a crime to be a homosexuals but it is a crime to violate a woman.   That is the fundamental difference between the idea of wrong or immoral as derived from religion and what is illegal according to law.  

So there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion on such a topic based on one's own moral compass and simply imposing religious beliefs on the rest.  You were careful to state that you would not want your religious beliefs to take the form of law to be imposed on people but he was not.  Far from claiming an objective truth, he is simply imposing prejudices under the guise of religious belief.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6351
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 09:31
If they don't accept gay marriage then Christians should be banned from going to see musicals.  Only fair! Approve
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 9377
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CPicard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 09:59
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

If they don't accept gay marriage then Christians should be banned from going to see musicals.  Only fair! Approve


I don't remember the gay marriage scenes in West Side Story, Grease or My Fair Lady, but it could be just me being fond of stupid jokes.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 10:01
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
Go back and read my posts again.  That's not anywhere close to what I actually said.  And the answer is no, by the way.

I was arguing about Dean's unfair distinction between "belief" and "opinion" and defending Alex from ridicule, not expressing agreement with Alex or stating that policy should be based on Scriptural commands.
I admit that your position was milder, I guess I should have better addressed the post to Alex rather than to you.

However, when I read your arguments about 'objective truths' (even science is extremely wary of that term, which is only openly accepted in mathematics referring to statements supported by mathematical proof, and even that does not make them 'objectively true' but only true within the axiomatic system involved) I'm sorry but I can't come with a better word than 'ridiculous'.

Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 770
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AlexDOM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 10:40
Wow, well I stirred up a dagum hornet's nest...

I honestly expect ridicule so I don't need a defense, but I appreciate them.

Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: Hication
Status: Offline
Points: 3687
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Polymorphia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 10:47
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and ********** his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Nope. Sin is purely a religious offence, it has no non-religious meaning or definition. Some sins are secular crimes, (such as murder and theft), but they would be still crimes if religions had never been invented, not all sins are secular crimes just as not all secular crimes are sins. Gluttony is a sin not a crime, using religious swear-words is a sin not a crime, eating blood is a sin not a crime, moaning and grumbling is a sin not a crime (1Cor 10:10), anger is a sin not a crime, tattoos are a sin not a crime, arguing is a sin not a crime (Tim 2:23), astrology is a sin not a crime, cursing the rich is a sin not a crime, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is a sin not a crime, working on a Sunday is a sin not a crime, divorce is a sin not a crime... the list goes on and so could I, religious people sin all the time, we don't throw them in gaol for it.
 
Making homosexuality not a crime did not impose on hetrosexuals, removing the prohibition on gay marriage would not impose on hetrosexual marriage.
I'm not equating sin with a democratic legal crime. There are plenty of things which could be considered wrong that aren't illegal. I am not arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed. Read my previous post to verify. I am arguing that, even if it is a religious offence, sin refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people. Had religions never been "invented," each society would still have their own conceptions of right and wrong, not-sin and sin. The moral reasoning for each society would differ, but each would have law that would vary with the current moral system. Our society views rape as wrong, but, apparently, the visigoths didn't. The only difference between prohibiting gay marriage citing that it is an offence against God and legalizing it citing that "love is love," is the moral system. By doing the latter, the government would be respecting lack of religion and the moral systems of those who do not believe it is wrong. Simply because the views of those who believe it should be prohibited are associated with a religious institution and that they cite their moral system (like all other people who have an opinion on this issue), does not necessitate falsity. The question is whether or not the government's actions are undue by respecting one moral system over another, not whether or not one moral system applies to all people, because all moral systems do. Sure those things on the list are not secular crimes, but for the reason that they have no direct connection to the law. There are no government records or tax benefits related to food consumption; otherwise, you might have police officers at every restaurant, watching you eat. The government simply has other reasons not to make those sins crimes. Marriage is acknowledged by the law, and by acknowledging both hetero- and homo- sexual marriage, or by acknowledging only one, the government would necessarily be making a moral statement. Removing the prohibition "imposes" on me in the same way that the prohibition "imposes" on you, in that the government is paying respect to one belief system over another. Homosexual marriage would not impose on an individual heterosexual marriage, and if you've read closely, I never said it would. It would, however, impose on the right of those who wish to oppose homosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage were guarded by a civil right, ministers could not refuse to marry two people of the same-sex. By marrying them, a minister who believed homosexuality to be wrong would be violating his own conscience, because the government decided to respect one belief system over another. If the majority (of the people) decided that gay marriage should be allowed, it would be the democratic and constitutional thing to legalize it. I am simply iterating that your argument— that a moral system based on religion and a moral system based on whatever else have different legal standings —is incredibly flawed.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Homosexual marriage would not impose on an individual heterosexual marriage, and if you've read closely, I never said it would. It would, however, impose on the right of those who wish to oppose homosexual marriage.


But why should someone have the right to impose his opposition to what two strangers wish to do with their lives (so long as they are not committing suicide, which I know is outlawed in some nations)?  It is one thing to have a personal dislike of homosexual union but quite another to attempt to stop homosexuals from uniting.  Those who thwart efforts to do so are not imposing; rather, they are allowing citizens to exercise their free will.  If somebody wants to physically prevent me from doing something I can legitimately, stopping that person from doing so is not imposing on him.  It is wrong for him to use coercion in the first place.   

A minister may also feel his conscience does not permit the union of a white with a black but that is not up to him to decide.  If he hates blacks, he may choose not to marry one, doesn't mean everyone in the world should be barred from inter-racial marriages just to please his whims.  Likewise applies to same sex marriages.  




Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 11:15
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

If the majority (of the people) decided that gay marriage should be allowed, it would be the democratic and constitutional thing to legalize it.


One of the primary functions of democracy is to recognize and protect the rights of the minority and not let the majority browbeat and run roughshod over them.   If there is one person in the nation who wishes to commit an act and it cannot be appropriately demonstrated to be a criminal act, he should be allowed to exercise his free will.  If the majority decide what he as an individual can and cannot do, that is no democracy.  Public referendums are good when decisions concerning sovereign interests - like war or devaluation of currency - have to be made, not necessarily for the protection of individual liberties. 


Edited by rogerthat - April 06 2013 at 11:15
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 11:18
despite fear of being accused of being an opinionated egotistic unwashed hippy resembling female genetalia...here I go...
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Now I admit that I don't understand Dean's distinction between belief and opinion (as both terms denote for me a subjective perspective without recourse to supporting evidence) ...
My statement was not without prior qualification, I specifically stated "religious belief" and "secular opinion" and from that point on the qualification was implied and maintained in subsequent posts. Of course my secular belief that the Earth is a sphere of rock orbiting the sun is not an opinion, secular or religious, just as my opinion that the Earth is 4.5billion years old is not so much an opinion but a belief supported by scientific evidence (as opposed to the religious belief that the Earth is 6,500 years old supported by a biblical chronology that most theologians find dubious - I would find it difficult to accept the Young Earth idea as merely an opinion). No, I delineated my point several times by stating categorically I was referring to "religious belief" vs "secular opinion" ... rather than say, "religious belief" vs "secular belief"; "religious opinion" vs "secular opinion" or "religious opinion" vs "secular belief".
 
A "Religious belief" can only be held by religious people, non club members cannot share that belief, however, a religious person can have a secular opinion that non club members can share, for example you and Alex (and I come to that) share the opinion that In Absentia is a 5-star album - while some may elevate everything that SWilson creates to god-like proportions, that is not a religious belief.
 
The statement that homosexuality is a sin is purely a religious belief, it is not an opinion because it is not based upon subjective reasoning, it is written in the Bible (Cor 6:9 etc,etc) and is therefore part of the belief-system. For a religious person to hold an opinion that is counter to that is in itself a sin; the religious person did not arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin by any subjective perspective - they were told and they believed.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.