Principal differences between gay marriages and polygamy?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you don't like abortion, don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If a particular issue doesn't rise to the level of being against our laws (based on prevailing opinion of what's collectively representative of our society's interests), then let it go. Doesn't mean I have to like it, condone it or participate in it, but that's where it should end.

Great post, Jeff.

I had a conversation with a very conservative Christian friend of mine back when Alabama was voting on whether or not to create a lottery. He made the following paraphrased statement, "It is my duty as a Christian to prevent other people from engaging in behavior that I disagree with."

The lottery didn't pass. But the churches can still have bingo...

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

The entire argument that homosexuals make, is that they are born that way and are therefore a protected class.

Um...I think that's a bit wrong there. They either want equal rights for their relationships that heteros have, or they want all of those rights taken away from everyone. I don't hear the average homosexual asking for "protected status" in any way shape or form...in fact, it seems to be the heteros that are against gay marriage that are howling for "protected status"..."protect" our marriage unions, make us "special" people since we're hetero, please hear our plea Mr. Government!!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Heh, I actually deleted it but since someone actually appreciated it, I'll post it back. . .

This thread seems to be going the usual place, polarized along the usual predictable lines. . .

- - - - -
Original post
- - - - -

Why do we feel the need to cling to the notion that religious opinions/dogma should somehow influence government policy? Historically this has done WAY more harm than good and is one of the reasons our FF were so adamant about creating a separation of church and state. Churches work better without the meddling influence of government and government works better when it doesn't have to keep religious leaders happy. It's better that way.

I defy anyone here show me an example of a system in which government and religion have been allowed to mix and influence one another, that hasn't been a complete failure. The formula is inherently unstable, flawed and problematic. The FF realized this and wanted to keep the two around, but separate from one another. It really is better that way.

Seriously guys, here's the reality - we're a SECULAR nation. Not a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a Christian nation or a Buddhist nation. A SECULAR nation. People here are free to believe whatever they like, or nothing at all. Without penalty. This is one of the core tenets of our beliefs and clearly spelled out in the founding documents of our country. If we suddenly pander to one segment of the population by holding up THEIR holy book as the standard for the basis of our laws, how can you not see the slippery slope this puts us on? Where do we stop? Adopt the Laws of Leviticus? Sharia Law? What?

I think you guys are missing the point entirely here. Yes, the Bible may contain the "Ten Commandments" which have some basis in modern-day American secular law. To conclude therefore that the Bible is (or should be) the BASIS of modern-day secular law is ridiculous. We did not start with the Bible/Torah/Koran/Bhagavad Gita/whatever and then "tweak" it. We analyzed our values that we wanted to have as a society and wrote our own set of laws (secular laws) from scratch, which happen to coincidentally have a lot in common with historical codes of laws simply because the underlying logic is similar (i.e. it's detrimental to have societies where people are allowed to kill, rape, steal, assault, etc.)

The point here is that no religion has a monopoly on morality and our laws are simply a reflection of our societal values, not an endorsement of any particular similar belief system. To conclude that our laws are (or should be) backed on the Christian Bible because some of the laws are similar is like taking two students, giving them the same problem and having one of them guess the right answer and the other one calculate it, then "concluding" that the underlying logic is identical. Poppycock.

You guys REALLY want to give government the authority to start dictating morality with the backing of religious teaching as its "legitimizer"? You guys REALLY think that's the right direction for our country to go? C'mon. A little common sense here. This is the same logic as the abortion "issue" - whether or not a bunch of people can/should have the right to impose their will upon everyone else.

On these sorts of "issues" I tend to apply the "MYOB" philosophy (Mind Your Own Business) which essentially says to acknowledge that all we can really control in life is ourselves and our actions/choices. Start there. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If a particular issue doesn't rise to the level of being against our laws (based on prevailing opinion of what's collectively representative of our society's interests), then let it go. Doesn't mean I have to like it, condone it or participate in it, but that's where it should end.

[kang]

Originally Posted by IROC

Yeah, I was arrested the other day for forgetting to keep the sabbath holy.

Glad you didn't get arrested for not honoring your Mother and Father!

[NICKG]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Why do we feel the need to cling to the notion that religious opinions/dogma should somehow influence government policy? Historically this has done WAY more harm than good and is one of the reasons our FF were so adamant about creating a separation of church and state. Churches work better without the meddling influence of government and government works better when it doesn't have to keep religious leaders happy. It's better that way.

I defy anyone here show me an example of a system in which government and religion have been allowed to mix and influence one another, that hasn't been a complete failure. The formula is inherently unstable, flawed and problematic. The FF realized this and wanted to keep the two around, but separate from one another. It really is better that way.

Seriously guys, here's the reality - we're a SECULAR nation. Not a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a Christian nation or a Buddhist nation. A SECULAR nation. People here are free to believe whatever they like, or nothing at all. Without penalty. This is one of the core tenets of our beliefs and clearly spelled out in the founding documents of our country. If we suddenly pander to one segment of the population by holding up THEIR holy book as the standard for the basis of our laws, how can you not see the slippery slope this puts us on? Where do we stop? Adopt the Laws of Leviticus? Sharia Law? What?

I think you guys are missing the point entirely here. Yes, the Bible may contain the "Ten Commandments" which have some basis in modern-day American secular law. To conclude therefore that the Bible is (or should be) the BASIS of modern-day secular law is ridiculous. We did not start with the Bible/Torah/Koran/Bhagavad Gita/whatever and then "tweak" it. We analyzed our values that we wanted to have as a society and wrote our own set of laws (secular laws) from scratch, which happen to coincidentally have a lot in common with historical codes of laws simply because the underlying logic is similar (i.e. it's detrimental to have societies where people are allowed to kill, rape, steal, assault, etc.)

The point here is that no religion has a monopoly on morality and our laws are simply a reflection of our societal values, not an endorsement of any particular similar belief system. To conclude that our laws are (or should be) backed on the Christian Bible because some of the laws are similar is like taking two students, giving them the same problem and having one of them guess the right answer and the other one calculate it, then "concluding" that the underlying logic is identical. Poppycock.

You guys REALLY want to give government the authority to start dictating morality with the backing of religious teaching as its "legitimizer"? You guys REALLY think that's the right direction for our country to go? C'mon. A little common sense here. This is the same logic as the abortion "issue" - whether or not a bunch of people can/should have the right to impose their will upon everyone else.

On these sorts of "issues" I tend to apply the "MYOB" philosophy (Mind Your Own Business) which essentially says to acknowledge that all we can really control in life is ourselves and our actions/choices. Start there. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If a particular issue doesn't rise to the level of being against our laws (based on prevailing opinion of what's collectively representative of our society's interests), then let it go. Doesn't mean I have to like it, condone it or participate in it, but that's where it should end.

To go further, the founding fathers of this nation were not nessacarily religous peiople...Jefferson for example actually edited the bible, then he published his own version called the philosphy of christ . Good reading, some should look into it...

[livi]

[kang]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Heh, I actually deleted it but since someone actually appreciated it, I'll post it back. . .

This thread seems to be going the usual place, polarized along the usual predictable lines. . .

- - - - -
Original post
- - - - -

Why do we feel the need to cling to the notion that religious opinions/dogma should somehow influence government policy? Historically this has done WAY more harm than good and is one of the reasons our FF were so adamant about creating a separation of church and state. Churches work better without the meddling influence of government and government works better when it doesn't have to keep religious leaders happy. It's better that way.

I defy anyone here show me an example of a system in which government and religion have been allowed to mix and influence one another, that hasn't been a complete failure. The formula is inherently unstable, flawed and problematic. The FF realized this and wanted to keep the two around, but separate from one another. It really is better that way.

Seriously guys, here's the reality - we're a SECULAR nation. Not a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a Christian nation or a Buddhist nation. A SECULAR nation. People here are free to believe whatever they like, or nothing at all. Without penalty. This is one of the core tenets of our beliefs and clearly spelled out in the founding documents of our country. If we suddenly pander to one segment of the population by holding up THEIR holy book as the standard for the basis of our laws, how can you not see the slippery slope this puts us on? Where do we stop? Adopt the Laws of Leviticus? Sharia Law? What?

I think you guys are missing the point entirely here. Yes, the Bible may contain the "Ten Commandments" which have some basis in modern-day American secular law. To conclude therefore that the Bible is (or should be) the BASIS of modern-day secular law is ridiculous. We did not start with the Bible/Torah/Koran/Bhagavad Gita/whatever and then "tweak" it. We analyzed our values that we wanted to have as a society and wrote our own set of laws (secular laws) from scratch, which happen to coincidentally have a lot in common with historical codes of laws simply because the underlying logic is similar (i.e. it's detrimental to have societies where people are allowed to kill, rape, steal, assault, etc.)

The point here is that no religion has a monopoly on morality and our laws are simply a reflection of our societal values, not an endorsement of any particular similar belief system. To conclude that our laws are (or should be) backed on the Christian Bible because some of the laws are similar is like taking two students, giving them the same problem and having one of them guess the right answer and the other one calculate it, then "concluding" that the underlying logic is identical. Poppycock.

You guys REALLY want to give government the authority to start dictating morality with the backing of religious teaching as its "legitimizer"? You guys REALLY think that's the right direction for our country to go? C'mon. A little common sense here. This is the same logic as the abortion "issue" - whether or not a bunch of people can/should have the right to impose their will upon everyone else.

On these sorts of "issues" I tend to apply the "MYOB" philosophy (Mind Your Own Business) which essentially says to acknowledge that all we can really control in life is ourselves and our actions/choices. Start there. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If a particular issue doesn't rise to the level of being against our laws (based on prevailing opinion of what's collectively representative of our society's interests), then let it go. Doesn't mean I have to like it, condone it or participate in it, but that's where it should end.

I’d like to add one thing to this. Not only did the founding fathers deliberately create separation of church and state, they also deliberately wrote the constitution in such a way as to protect the minority from the majority. The constitution was written such that a majority cannot take away the rights of a minority. This has been attempted many times in the past, and the courts always overrule it.

This is what happened in the court ruling in California. A (small) majority voted to say “marriage is between a man and a woman” and the court decided this was unconstitutional, as it was taking away the rights of a minority. It was not judicial activism, as many have claimed; it was the courts rightly upholding the constitution.

[NICKG]

true..this country has become more and more a "christian taliban" government here in the USA with the emergance of all the evangelicals telling people how they can and can't live.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by NICKG

To go further, the founding fathers of this nation were not nessacarily religous peiople...Jefferson for example actually edited the bible, then he published his own version called the philosphy of christ . Good reading, some should look into it...

Again, "wow". You certainly are a veritable fountain of missinformation. Jefferson did not "edit the Bible". That was never his intent. He simply extracted what he saw as Jesus's teachings concerning how to live one's life and treat one another. His effort was focused upon the message Jesus had to deliver, and presenting that as stand alone from the mystical mumbo jumbo that so many get caught up in. He especially sought to remove Jesus from the pedestal on which the authors of the four Gospels had placed him. Jefferson thought his message was being lost in arguments over all of that.

Jefferson only addressed the Gospels (which are only a fraction of the New Testament), not "the Bible" which also includes the Old Testament. You display your ignorance of the Bible all too plainly. This is a common mistake among those who think they understand, but refuse to actually study, the real Bible. Or church history, or anything to do with it. You willingly read texts about these topics (produced only by authors saying what you would like to hear), but steadfastly ignore the source material. You seek out texts that reaffirm your point of view, regardless of the fact that those texts have been widely discounted and their authors discredited. You remind me of our beloved Kang over on the "God thread". It's all too easy to cherry pick materials that reinforce your previously held biases. Try exploring some of these topics outside of reading lists approved by and for the gay community. You might be surprised what you can learn when you remove that particular filter.

[911pcars]

"marriage" being a religious institution....."

I haven't seen the term, "divorce" used so far in this thread.

Some people consider marriage in very fundamental, religious tones.

If marriage is a religious institution, then isn't divorce also? What does the Bible say about that?

How do religious leaders explain divorce and/or remarriage and religiousity?

Is life-long commitment in a marriage more holy than separation and divorce?

Sherwood

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You seek out texts that reaffirm your point of view, regardless of the fact that those texts have been widely discounted and their authors discredited.

Sounds just like a bible thumper!

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by NICKG

but that argument is more about gender issues than sexual orientation. physical sexual features do not equate to gender, the sooner people realize that, the better.
Just because a man has a penis does not mean he cannot fulfill the gender role of a woman and vice versa...

We now have front line combat troops that are women...are they gay? or butch? Not the one I know.

There are no frontline female combat troops(except in the sky).

[71T Targa]

Sherwood, If you're really interested in what the Bible says about divorce you could do a quick search of 'what the Bible says about divorce'

Here is an excerpt:
It is distressing that the divorce rate among professing Christians is nearly as high as that of the unbelieving world. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should be the marks of a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorces will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if their divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 19:9. God often uses even the sinful disobedience of Christians to accomplish great good.

[71T Targa]

Double post

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by NICKG

true..this country has become more and more a "christian taliban" government here in the USA with the emergance of all the evangelicals telling people how they can and can't live.

I would say it's become more of a church of liberalism gov't. Where any immoral act goes, as long as it will get you a new voting block.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Sounds just like a bible thumper!

Hardly. The only "Bible thumping" I do these days is thumping of the Bible and its steadfast followers. I have no doubt there is something there; it's just not the be-all, end-all the "true believers" believe. They are as guilty of Nick and Kang of cherry picking supporting texts. It may contain clues to a greater truth, but it is not infallible, nor is everything in it literally true.

[trekkor]

Homosexuality is either right or it's wrong. There is no middle ground here.
There is an answer.

It's listed in the Bible with a list of other things that are considered wrong.

1 Cor 6:9,10-

What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.

Am I hearing that people today think they are capable of deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong in all circumstances?

Where do you think morals came from?
What is the root cause of man's attraction to bad behavior?



KT

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by trekkor

What is the root cause of man's attraction to bad behavior?

We misbehave because chicks really dig bad boys.

[Rodsrsr]

Originally Posted by widebody911

So, you're willing to live by the rules set forth in the Old Testament?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

The old law is antiquated now. The new law is simply Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor. This pretty much sums it all up. This is one of the reasons that Christ came. You probably notice that we no longer sacrifice animals anymore. Christ was a sacrifice once and for all.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

The old law is antiquated now. The new law is simply Love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor. This pretty much sums it all up. This is one of the reasons that Christ came. You probably notice that we no longer sacrifice animals anymore. Christ was a sacrifice once and for all.

Well then, since Jesus (if he ever existed) said nothing against or regarding homosexuality, I will expect you to back equal rights for gays.