Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[Laura]

But in virtually all established societies the laws are based on a moral framework which takes its basis from a religious root.

The US government isn't based on any religion, and the Founding Fathers took inspiration from many places, such as ancient Greece. And your country's history is a fine example of theocracy gone bad. That's what the writers of our Consitution wanted to avoid.

 

[salmoneous]

Mark 10 references the Creator's institution of marriage.

In my opionion, Mark 10 gives one picture of marriage. But by no means does it say this is the *only* picture of marriage. I believe God accepts other marriages other than those in Mark 10 - do you? Mark 10 leaves no room for gay marriages, or marriage of orphans or others who cannot leave their mother and father. Do you really think Mark 10 tells us that God's view of marriage excludes orphans?

Can you provide a reference?

David? Abraham?

Thinking solely as an American, I completely understand the equal rights argument. As I said earlier, from a Christian standpoint, I struggle with giving my stamp of approval (in the voting booth) to a lifestyle I believe God disapproves of.

With all due respect, if as a Christian you can accept the government recognizing the marriages of straight sinners, then I don't view your opposition to gay marriage as being based on Christian principles - but simple discrimination.

Having the government provide services to sinners does not mean you are approving of their sin. When the government allows Hindu's to drive on government build highways, it is approving of who they worship? When the government grants a building permit for a Hindu temple, is that giving approval for who they worship? If someone introduced a bill forbidding the government to grant building permits to any non-Christian church or temple, would you struggle with how you would vote?

 

[Fitswimmer]

But in virtually all established societies the laws are based on a moral framework which takes its basis from a religious root.

True, but the framework is common to many faiths, not just one. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a teaching common to all Christian faiths as well as the Jewish faith. There is also an understanding that is shared by those without a religious background that having us all running around killing each other is not the best thing for a stable society.
The problem comes in when believers try to legislate the beliefs of their faith that are NOT part of the common framework. There are faiths that prohibit dancing, card playing, secular music, short skirts on women, meat on Fridays, dairy products mixed with meat products...you get the idea. When people try to legislate those types of practices and force others who aren't of that faith to follow them-then you have problems.

 

[salmoneous]

I understand what many here are saying, but I don't agree. To me it's a morals issue, not a rights issue.

There are two issues here Joe - a moral issue and a rights issue. If you beleive homosexuality to be immoral, I doubt we can ever change your mind.

However, you cannot ignore the rights issue. You allow the governement to provide services to *straight* sinner. Yet you continually argue that the government shouldn't recognzie the marriage of gay sinners. Your view that the governement should discriminate between straight and gay sinners isn't a moral issue, it's a rights issue. You want to see discrimiation - not for moral reasons - but for simple bigotry.

 

[Galactic Emperor]

But in virtually all established societies the laws are based on a moral framework which takes its basis from a religious root.

Most religious rules are simply 'social' rules, meant to facilitate living in a society. The smallest unit of such a society is a family, then come clans, villages, cities, counties, etc. The basic rules in most religions or other ideologies are more or less the same. So saying 'all moral framework is based on religious roots' is true from one point of view, but only half true

 

[cardaway]

I happen to believe that it is possible that some of the writers and those selecting the texts had their own agendas.

How about totally bloody likely.

 

[Andy B]

The US government isn't based on any religion, and the Founding Fathers took inspiration from many places, such as ancient Greece. And your country's history is a fine example of theocracy gone bad. That's what the writers of our Consitution wanted to avoid.

I did not say that government was based on any religion but that societies rules or laws are based on a moral framework which was founded in religion. ie do not steal, do not kill etc. although I will admit that it could be argued that such religious moral rules were put in place as this is the way society worked best. Chicken and egg situation, which came first.

By the way just which part of our long history did you mean as an example of theocracy gone bad?

 

[cardaway]

Which means what, exactly? What would be unnatural? It doesn't say. Christians disagree. As was stated earlier--it's a shaky basis for our laws, even if we didn't have our lovely Constitution stopping Christians from trying to base our laws on the Bible.

The thing is, though, the Bible references are only here to show why some individuals, such as you, would vote no (or have voted no) on gay marriage if on the ballot. The thing is, I don't think this will be resolved by the states' voters. It will be resolved in the same way interracial marriage was resolved: the Supreme Court. And there's simply no way anyone's Bible references, whether for or against gay marriage, are going to hold up before the Justices. It's a matter of inequality in the law--treating one set of citizens differently than another.

If left up to popular vote there would be no such thing as discrimination laws, and that includes discrimination based on the choice of religion. Can people imagine how loud people woudl get if some major coportation decided not not hire any Christians? What if that was legal?

 

[salmoneous]

I keep going back and forth between what I've always believed to be a marriage, based on my upbringing and religious teachings, and the notion of changing that definition to encompass something completely different.

One thing I would suggest you do is try and separate "the notion of marriage" from "the government institution of marriage".

Britney Spears gets drunk in Vegas and gets married as a joke. I am never going to try and convince you to accept her marriage as a real marriage. It will never fall under your picture of marriage, my picture of marriage, God's idea of marriage, etc. And yet the government recognized that marriage and if they wanted, they could have gone on as a married couple - filed joint taxes, had visitation rights in the hospital, etc.

Even if you can never accept gay marriages as "marriage", can you at least accept that they should be allowed under the government institution of marriage and get the same legal rights straight people have?

 

[Andy B]

Most religious rules are simply 'social' rules, meant to facilitate living in a society. The smallest unit of such a society is a family, then come clans, villages, cities, counties, etc. The basic rules in most religions or other ideologies are more or less the same. So saying 'all moral framework is based on religious roots' is true from one point of view, but only half true

See my further post. Isn't this fun!

 

[cardaway]

Most religious rules are simply 'social' rules, meant to facilitate living in a society. The smallest unit of such a society is a family, then come clans, villages, cities, counties, etc. The basic rules in most religions or other ideologies are more or less the same. So saying 'all moral framework is based on religious roots' is true from one point of view, but only half true

Exactly. People tend to ignore how many things each religion has in common, and why.

 

[cardaway]

One think I would suggest you do is try and separate "the notion of marriage" from "the government institution of marriage".

Britney Spears gets drunk in Vegas and gets married as a joke. I am never going to try and convince you to accept her marriage as a real marriage. It will never fall under your picture of marriage, my picture of marriage, God's idea of marriage, etc. And yet the government recognized that marriage and if they wanted, they could have gone on as a married couple - filed joint taxes, had visitation rights in the hospital, etc.

Even if you can never accept gay marriages as "marriage", can you at least accept that they should be allowed under the government institution of marriage and get the same legal rights straight people have?

As long as people like Brenda are cool with them getting civil unions, and that everybody should have to get the same civil unions, I don't think her feelings on this are anything like those that are calling homosexuals immoral and defending their right to treat them differently.

 

[salmoneous]

But in virtually all established societies the laws are based on a moral framework which takes its basis from a religious root.

That's a somewhat circular argument - are moral frameworks taken from a religious root - or are religions taken from a moral root?

Most religions incorporate both a set of moral rules as well as worship of a deity. There is a core set of moral rules (don't steal, kill, etc.) that is common to most religions. It is that core set of values that gets put into our laws. It is less common for the society to require the deity worshiping side of religion.

As those core rules are common to most societies - regardless of which deity they worship and how - can they really be said to come from a religious root? Or are they rules that man has discovered are necessary to make societies work - and have then been incorporated into religion?

 

[smartestnumber5]

I thought this fit strange real life happening fit into this thread nicely:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003558717_nokids06m.html

Initiative ties marriage, procreation

By Lornet Turnbull

Seattle Times staff reporter

A group of gay-marriage supporters could begin collecting signatures today for a November ballot initiative that would limit marriage in Washington to couples willing and able to have children.

The measure would also dissolve the union of those who remain childless three years after marrying.

Are they serious?

Gregory Gadow, of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, said the group hopes to make a point by parodying a state Supreme Court ruling last year that denied gays the right to marry because, among other reasons, such unions don't further the purpose of procreation.

The initiative would give a couple 3 years in which to procreate after which their marriage would be dissolved. Their idea is that if the initiative is passed it will be struck down by the courts, but striking it down would also mean undermining the whole basis of the anti-gay marriage decision in the state.

They also have two other initiatives in the works: one to ban divorce for married couples with children and the other would make having a child together sufficient for being legal married.

I doubt this will ever go anywhere because, as the article suggestions, supporters of gay marriage don't want to take rights away from anyone; and I think it's unlikely that most gay people would be willing to take rights away from others even if it would help them in the end it would help them by setting an important precedent. But still, I have to say it sure would be amusing to see the fall out if this did become something that had a chance of passing or actually did pass. It will be great to see a lot of opponents of gay marriage completely contradict themselves as the vehemently deny that marriage has anything to do with procreation. What will be even scarier is that some of them will probably embrace the initiative

 

[beachblanket]

Are you proud of the right for co-opting the "bundle of sticks" word?? Is that right-wing, conservative lingo?

I didn't say I was "proud" of either. Are you? Or just of the left version?

 

[Fitswimmer]

In my opionion, Mark 10 gives one picture of marriage. But by no means does it say this is the *only* picture of marriage. I believe God accepts other marriages other than those in Mark 10 - do you? Mark 10 leaves no room for gay marriages, or marriage of orphans or others who cannot leave their mother and father. Do you really think Mark 10 tells us that God's view of marriage excludes orphans?

David? Abraham?

With all due respect, if as a Christian you can accept the government recognizing the marriages of straight sinners, then I don't view your opposition to gay marriage as being based on Christian principles - but simple discrimination.

Having the government provide services to sinners does not mean you are approving of their sin. When the government allows Hindu's to drive on government build highways, it is approving of who they worship? When the government grants a building permit for a Hindu temple, is that giving approval for who they worship? If someone introduced a bill forbidding the government to grant building permits to any non-Christian church or temple, would you struggle with how you would vote?

Excellent point! The government supports sinners all the time! Hey, I'm a sinner and I use the highways!

The point that seems to get lost in all these discussions is that in Christianity "ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" In my Bible only ONE was sinless.

 

[Andy B]

That's a somewhat circular argument - are moral frameworks taken from a religious root - or are religions taken from a moral root?

Most religions incorporate both a set of moral rules as well as worship of a deity. There is a core set of moral rules (don't steal, kill, etc.) that is common to most religions. It is that core set of values that gets put into our laws. It is less common for the society to require the deity worshiping side of religion.

As those core rules are common to most societies - regardless of which deity they worship and how - can they really be said to come from a religious root? Or are they rules that man has discovered are necessary to make societies work - and have then been incorporated into religion?

Agreed but I made the point first see Post 349

 

[RickinNYC]

O.K., if a homosexual hijacks a word, it's politicallly incorrect to say they are an insensitive bigot. But if a majority person does the same thing, it's O.K. on the DIS to label them as exactly that. In other words, it's O.K. for the left to change our vocabulary, but not O.K. for the right.

I've seen some pretty incredibly comments on this thread and others like it but ARE YOU SERIOUS? You're getting all high and mighty, if not downright uppity, about the ga... sorry, homosexual population using the word "gay" for reasons other than representative of "carefree, fun, happy" etc... And in the same mindset you can justify the use of the "f" word originally intended for a bundle of sticks, in hateful reference to the ga... sorry, homosexual population?

Absolutely outrageous. Do you even know what that word, when used as a bundle of sticks, is truly in refererence too? Do you have any friggin' IDEA? Bundles of sticks were used to burn particular people at the stake. And that included ga... sorry, HOMOSEXUAL people at one time.

Again, absolutely outra... sorry, DISGUSTING.

Oh, and I'm GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY.

 

[cardaway]

As those core rules are common to most societies - regardless of which deity they worship and how - can they really be said to come from a religious root? Or are they rules that man has discovered are necessary to make societies work - and have then been incorporated into religion?

Even ancient civilizations were portrayed as pretty ugly and uncivilized until they adopted religion. It was religion that allowed the populace to be civilized.

 

[Laura]

I did not say that government was based on any religion but that societies rules or laws are based on a moral framework which was founded in religion. ie do not steal, do not kill etc. although I will admit that it could be argued that such religious moral rules were put in place as this is the way society worked best. Chicken and egg situation, which came first.

Well, waaaay back in history, in the dawn of civilization, religion permeated every aspect of everyone's lives. It wasn't really separate from society, it was the reason for everything, from baking bread to ritual slaughter. But even so, forbidding stealing and killing isn't necessarily a religous-based idea, but more rules that are necessary to have a society that isn't going to be destroyed by chaos. We may not know how or why they extend across so many religions, but they do.

By the way just which part of our long history did you mean as an example of theocracy gone bad?

Several parts, no doubt. The monarch being the head of state and religion was a big thing, the whole Catholic monarch/Protestant monarch issue and its bloody messes, etc. I'm sure you know your country's history better than I, and how religion and government didn't show themselves to mix very well.