U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

The T wrote: Gerinski wrote: 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 These terminologies (even the simple 'right' and 'left' words) were based on social environments which are no longer valid and I think that by now in the 21st century it's time that society should make a profound reflection and revision, because many not-so-well-educated people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.

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!

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.

Polymorphia wrote: 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.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Gerinski wrote: 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.

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

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.

Dean wrote: Polymorphia wrote: 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.

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