Homosexual marriage

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Anyway, I'm not worried about gay marriage failing in the United States. All it takes is one state to make it legal and it's legal everywhere. True, you have to get married in only one state, but it's better than nothing.

It's been legal in Massachusetts for a while, and we haven't been rent with fire and brimstone... yet.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Out of curiosity, Katt, how would you define a 'true Christian'?

Eh... erm... *mumble mumble*... I really don't know. I'm actually just running my mouth off without knowing anything about the subject at hand.


WOOOOOO Massachusetts!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's been legal in Massachusetts for a while, and we haven't been rent with fire and brimstone... yet.

Why do you think it's still warm in December this year?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I can certainly sympathise; I'm prone to do that at times, meself.

[GreyMouser]

In the Good News Department

Final seal of approval for South Africa gay marriage bill

South Africa has become the first country on the continent to authorise marriage for gay and lesbian couples when the controversial civil union bill received the final seal of approval.

The legislation, which was overwhelmingly approved by parliament, was signed onto the statute book Thursday by Vice President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka in her capacity as acting head of state while Thabo Mbeki attends a conference in Nigeria.

The law, which allows for civil unions to be solemnised by way of either a marriage or a civil partnership, had been widely opposed by religious groups, conservatives and traditionalists.

But news that the bill had finally become law was greeted enthusiastically by the gay and lesbian pressure group.

"The use of the word 'marriage' in the act is very important for us," said Fikile Vilakazi spokeswoman for the Joint Working Group, a network of 17 lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender organisations.

"We are very happy. We welcome the political commitment shown by the country's leaders.

"It is an historic decision in terms of the African continent."

The government has defended the new legislation for representing a wider commitment to battle discrimination.

"In breaking with our past ... we need to fight and resist all forms of discrimination and prejudice, including homophobia," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told MPs earlier this month, when the bill was passed by the National Assembly.

The government was forced to legislate on same sex marriage after the country's highest court ruled in December that existing laws denied gays and lesbians the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples.

After the end of the apartheid era in 1994, during which black South Africans were denied the vote, a new constitution was drawn up specifically banning discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and sexual orientation.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=153545
l
Because of their tragic history of apartheid, there is a strong opposition to all forms of discrimination. Well done!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Most religions are authoritarian by their very nature, with "god" being the authority. An authority that can't be seen, heard or questioned.

Government must be free and secular.

That's not really responding to what I was saying, just to let you know.

I guess I'll respond to it, anyway, sentence by sentence.

1) Agreed that religions can be authoritarian, but it doesn't follow that the people have to be. People obey God as king, and so the religion is authoritarian. However, the religious people can still have democratic principles with regard to Earthly government.

2) God can be seen, heard and questioned. Not everyone gets a chance to see God before dying, but there are some who do. And I've questioned him and gotten answers back many times, so I know that that's possible.

3) Government must be free, I agree. I don't fully agree about it having to be secular. If it were to be fully secular, no religious person would be allowed to vote, for they vote based on what they think is right, and often what they think is right stems from the principles they have because of their religion or lack of religion. So I think that there has to be a balance. I think that right now there is a balance between church and state in the government, because sometimes religious people purposely elect other religious people like them, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure what I think of the way the balance overall is currently constructed, as I don't really know enough about it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1) Agreed that religions can be authoritarian, but it doesn't follow that the people have to be. People obey God as king, and so the religion is authoritarian. However, the religious people can still have democratic principles with regard to Earthly government.

But that's the point, isn't it? Certain choices are basically "off the table". That is why democracy clashes with religion. The only moral choices you are allowed to decide are the ones not addressed in scripture. For everything else, you are either obeying or disobeying.

You can see this even more clearly in the Islamic countries. They are a perfect example of what happens when belief systems trump democracy.

If, hypothetically, every christian on the planet thought gay marriage was okay, it would still be wrong.

Government must be free, I agree. I don't fully agree about it having to be secular.

Only secular to the point that a law must have reasoning behind it that is secular. That's why we have courts in addition to a legislature in our country. The legislature passes laws, and the courts decide if those laws are consistant within our general framework (i.e. the constitution).

We don't argue the laws that are in scripture and make real world sense (i.e. murder). We do argue the ones that seem to only have a scriptual basis.

The idea that scripture says men shall not marry men, or women women, is not enough. In fact, it shouldn't even enter into the equation. In our government we require earthly reasons for such a prohabition.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But that's the point, isn't it? Certain choices are basically "off the table". That is why democracy clashes with religion. The only moral choices you are allowed to decide are the ones not addressed in scripture. For everything else, you are either obeying or disobeying.

You can see this even more clearly in the Islamic countries. They are a perfect example of what happens when belief systems trump democracy.

If, hypothetically, every christian on the planet thought gay marriage was okay, it would still be wrong.

I think that virtually everyone, religious or not religious, takes certain choices off the table as options. As people learn more, they form beliefs. As time passes, those beliefs become entrenched. I've met a whole lot of people, both on Entmoot and in person, who are not religious and yet throw certain options off the table without ever thinking about them for a moment. You might say accurately, then, that, "education conflicts with democracy." For education creates views, and views create bias, and bias throws options away, and creates everyone their own unique little internal authoritarian complex.

On one very low level, religion is one more element of education. It involves gaining additional knowledge, and using that knowledge to make choices.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Only secular to the point that a law must have reasoning behind it that is secular.

This is a tough one. You see, from a strictly secular and non-religious viewpoint, I could say that humans have no value. People are essentially worthless, meaningless, and pointless. Based on that premise, we could come up with some pretty nasty laws.

So there has to be a strong element of morality involved in law. Where, then, is that morality that forms the premise of law going to come from? I think it'll come from people's views about morality, whatever they may be, and that will certainly involve a religious influence. And so it should.


A sidenote:

Remember that according to our Declaration of Independence, we were "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," and that among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They try to put a secular reasoning behind the founding values of this country, and they admitted that rights came from a Creator. Rights are what the law provides and protects. Thus morality is enshrined in the very core documents that found this country.

[klatukatt]

Oh this country was totally founded on religion. Most of the pilgrims left Europe to avoid religious persecution.
And then killed all the Native Americans.

Isn't it interesting that the longest living empires were monarchies, usally with strong ties to religion?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Oh this country was totally founded on religion. Most of the pilgrims left Europe to avoid religious persecution.

Yes, I wholly agree.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

And then killed all the Native Americans.

Well, that happened to a certain extent. There also was deportation, (not that I say huzzah for that) and assimilation was pretty broadly engaged in.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Isn't it interesting that the longest living empires were monarchies, usally with strong ties to religion?

Really? Where did you hear that? Not that I'm doubting you at all- in fact, it makes a great deal of sense to me. I'd just like to know what your source is .

[klatukatt]

Well, just look at all the ancient societies.
(all rough figures)
Roman Empire - 750 BC to 340 AD (1090 years)
Egyptian Empire - 2950 BC to 700 BC (2250 years)
Brittish Empire - 900 AD to 1900 AD (1000 years)

And America?
1776-2006 (230 years so far)

And still gaining power! Wooo!!! *sarcasm*

[Count Comfect]

Just to clarify some dates:

Roman Republic: 750 BC to 40 BC (710 years)
Roman Empire: 40 BC to 370 AD (410 years)
Egyptian Old Kingdom: 2750 BC to 2200 BC (550 years)
Egyptian Middle Kingdom: 2000 to 1700 BC (300 years)
Egyptian New Kingdom: 1600 to 1100 BC (500 years)
Anglo-Saxon Britain: 890 AD to 1066 AD (176 years)
Norman Britain: 1066 to 1485 AD (319 years)
Tudor Britain: 1485 AD to 1603 AD (118 years)
Stuart Britain: 1603 AD to 1714 AD (111 years, with a 10-year interregnum and 2 revolutions)
Hanoverian Britain (generously) 1714 AD to present (292 years and counting)

And those are just major breakdowns, with much more significant breaks than anything the US has had. Lengths of ancient empires tend to be exaggerated, because we ignore major upheavals because they aren't common knowledge.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that virtually everyone, religious or not religious, takes certain choices off the table as options. As people learn more, they form beliefs. As time passes, those beliefs become entrenched. I've met a whole lot of people, both on Entmoot and in person, who are not religious and yet throw certain options off the table without ever thinking about them for a moment. You might say accurately, then, that, "education conflicts with democracy." For education creates views, and views create bias, and bias throws options away, and creates everyone their own unique little internal authoritarian complex.

I'll agree with that assessment. I just think that it is a bias that people in a democracy must continually fight against. If you look at our country's history it is full of breaking down entrenced beliefs for the good of society.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is a tough one. You see, from a strictly secular and non-religious viewpoint, I could say that humans have no value. People are essentially worthless, meaningless, and pointless. Based on that premise, we could come up with some pretty nasty laws.

I've stated it a few times already and I'll say it again. Humans are social animals. We need society to survive. "Nasty laws" would eventually destroy those who made them in time, as they have throughout history. Our fellow humans have value because we must choose to value them for our own sake. It is all interconnected.

Saying that humans have no value without a creator is like me saying that my children have no value without me. Their value comes from inside themselves.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Remember that according to our Declaration of Independence, we were "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," and that among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They try to put a secular reasoning behind the founding values of this country, and they admitted that rights came from a Creator. Rights are what the law provides and protects. Thus morality is enshrined in the very core documents that found this country.

Read up on your founding fathers. There is a big difference between "our Creator" and "the christian god". They believed in a greater being, but they did not believe all that strongly in the scriptures history has attributed to that being.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You see, from a strictly secular and non-religious viewpoint, I could say that humans have no value. People are essentially worthless, meaningless, and pointless. Based on that premise, we could come up with some pretty nasty laws.

Just to chime in with bj here, as I think this is an important misconception which I have seen repeated numerous times in discussions with American religious people (not so much from the UK).

It seems as if you are saying that "God give us value/morals/etc. If there is no God, then there are no values/morals/etc."

I hope you can see how that in no way accords with a secular viewpoint!

[Rían]

But you're missing the point, Gaffer - we're showing the difference between what is OBSERVABLE in the world today, and what is logically SHOULD be observable if there is/are no god/gods. IOW, what SHOULD be the case if there is no god, and what is actually OBSERVABLE, do not mesh; therefore, that bit of rather large evidence goes against there being no god/gods.

I think there are lots of highly moral non-religious folk; many that I'd trust with my kids more than with some religious folk I know. But that doesn't speak against the existence of a god; in fact, it rather supports it!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Isn't it interesting that the longest living empires were monarchies, usally with strong ties to religion?

Why, yes...yes it is...


However, Katt, I'm not sure how much I like your figures; Rome existed for a long time before it became great, but it was not too long afterwards that it became a monarchy (coincidence?), and I am a bit dubious about calling early Britain an empire. However, the theory is quite sound.

Also, don't forget Byzantium.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Plainly you did not read the post I sent you earlier in this thread, when I stated some of my beliefs on this issue and why I hold them because you and Falagar asked me about it in the Elton John thread. Either you didn't read my post, or you don't remember any of it.

When I take the time to write something to you, would you please do me the courtesy of reading it, in the future?

Lose the indignation Lief. I responded to that post. I found your reasoning mostly bogus as I recall. You never responded to my response. Check it out for yourself. November 16.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You just disagree with the evidence, and so you disagree with the conclusions. But religion is a perfectly valid reason for voting against homosexual marriage.

So is being a hateful homophobe but neither should be upheld constitutionally in this country. In the end it is unfair, unnecessary and unsupported discrimination. We can use any crack pot theory to base our vote on but if it results in unjustified discrimination it should not be allowed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The sword swings both ways:

"Are you saying all who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds are hateful homophobes??? What a terrible and vicious thing to say! "

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The sword swings both ways:

"Are you saying all who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds are hateful homophobes??? What a terrible and vicious thing to say! "

Very true. Most homophobes I know aren't religious at all. They are pretty much closeted gays.

You know, I kind of feel guilty about being in a heterosexual relationship and not supporting homosexuality, but I'm in love and that's that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you're missing the point, Gaffer - we're showing the difference between what is OBSERVABLE in the world today, and what is logically SHOULD be observable if there is/are no god/gods. IOW, what SHOULD be the case if there is no god, and what is actually OBSERVABLE, do not mesh; therefore, that bit of rather large evidence goes against there being no god/gods.

That's only because you continue to erroneously define what the "logical" result of a world without a god should be like.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think there are lots of highly moral non-religious folk; many that I'd trust with my kids more than with some religious folk I know. But that doesn't speak against the existence of a god; in fact, it rather supports it!

I'd say it supports the idea that morality comes from humans, not from god. At the very least, it shows that morality definitely does not come from belief in god.