Political Crossfire Forums

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

I had to write a research paper on something I felt passionate about in my accelerated English II class. This is my paper. I dare you to read it in its entirty.

--
Banning of Same-Sex Marriage is Unconstitutional

Author Ernest Gaines once said, “Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?” These words define the United States of America’s conservative culture correctly. Same-sex marriages have been a major emphasis in politics for over a decade. Same-sex marriage is defined as a matrimonial union between two members of the same gender. The union is allowed in several countries throughout the world, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows for legal, same-sex marriages (“Same Sex” 1). Although opponents of same-sex marriage find the union morally and religiously wrong, their reasons for opposing same-sex matrimonial ties are unconstitutional and baseless.

First and foremost, prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Separation of Church and State is widely known for the role it plays in keeping prayer out of schools. This political doctrine can also be used to defend same-sex marriages (“Separation of Church and State” 1). The concept of this dogma is that the government of the United States cannot, under any circumstance, allow religion to take part in regulations and laws. By the United States using the idea of marriage being a religious ceremony, it is interfering with the Separation of Church and State. Also, in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, the Congress of the United States defines marriage as the “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony” (Congress 2). This attempt by Congress displays the strong disregard for the Separation of Church and State doctrine. In the United States Constitution, we are promised three things. We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By being promised the pursuit of happiness, one is allowed to choose who he or she wants to love, live, and spend his or her life with. This promise set forth by our founding fathers is being threatened by a disrespectful government tearing at the corners of this political doctrine.

Second, the opponents of same-sex marriage hold on to the religious controversy of homosexuality to deem the union wrong. However, the Bible says nothing specifically about homosexuality (Field 1). The challengers of same-sex marriage rely on a Bible verse about two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God in Old Testament times. Same-sex marriage foes claim that the cities were destroyed by God because of the town practicing homosexuality. Biblical scholar D. H. Field believes that this is incorrect and that the cities were destroyed due to homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners (1). Also, the opponents of same-sex marriage believe that marriage is a religious ceremony. When groom and a bride go to the courthouse to exchange vows in front of a Justice of the Peace, the ceremony is not religious at all, but a state mandated procedure. So if the marriage is religious, atheists, Satanists, and agnostics should not be allowed to marry either.

Several reasons for not supporting gay marriage are given by opponents. The most often heard argument says that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is truly the weakest argument. This is like asking a banker who is going to own the money in the bank’s vaults. If the heterosexual community cannot find a justified reason to deny the right to marry to non-heterosexual couples then they should not be taking part in the argument (Bidstrup 25). Another argument is that marriage was created for procreation. The people who use this argument do not want to explain why people who are infertile are allowed to marry if they cannot bear children. If this is the case, then older, married couples should get divorced once they reach their prime (25). Opponents always say that gay couples are not capable of raising children, yet we allow child molesters, murderers, drug abusers, drug dealers, and other convicted felons be parents and become married. Some say that gay marriage is immoral. The freedom of religion always implies that one is free from religion if he or she chooses (26). Other reasons supplied by the opponents of same-sex marriages are marriages are for ensuring the survival of the species, they threaten the institution of marriage, and that homosexuality is an untried social experiment. None of these reasons stand up to logic or concrete proof. The abstract is the only thing that can defend these stances. One final reason given by the opponents is that marriage is a traditionally heterosexual institution. Slavery was a traditional institution then we found as a nation the evils of it and began to abolish it. The reasons given by the opponents of gay marriage are baseless (27).

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of what the opposition says. Married couples are allowed benefits by law that can only be taken advantage of if a couple is legally married. Some of these advantages include burial rights, child custody, inheritance, status as next-of-kin, immigration benefits, child support, inheritance of property, plus many more. Homosexual couples are terrorized frequently by hate organizations designed to break the spirit of the couple. Gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples (28).

The Bible makes many references to where homosexuality could have taken place in ancient times. The Old Testament is famous for its strict laws governing the Jewish people. In the Old Testament, women were not permitted to wear gold, or pearls, or even fancy clothing. Women were not allowed to wear pants. No one was allowed to do anything on Sunday, and pork and shellfish were not allowed to be eaten. Women were to be submissive to men and could not have any type of power over a man. Men were not allowed to trim their beards or cut the hair on the sides of their heads. The opponents of same-sex marriage pull their religious reasons against homosexuality from this part of the Bible. Yet how many of these people actually follow the laws mentioned above?

All in all, the reasons, ideas, and theories given by the opponents of homosexual marriages are baseless. I find that the hypocrisy our nation displays is at its height. I believe if we continue to have double standards when it comes to the law, our nation will soon fall and crumble. The world over is accepting this lifestyle, yet the world’s only superpower refuses to acknowledge it. The government is not the one who should be deciding what love is and who is allowed to love whom. Our hearts should be deciding this. In a time where we should be more worried about men with guns, we are concerned with two men loving one another.

Works Cited
American Civil Liberties Union. “Prohibitions Against Same-Sex Marriage Are Unconstitutional.” Gay Marriage. Pub. David Bender and Eds. Bruno Leone, et. al. At Issue. Greenhaven: San Diego. 1998.
Bidstrup, Scott. “Arguments Against Gay Marriage Are Baseless.” Gay Marriage. Pub. David Bender and Eds. Bruno Leone, et. al. At Issue. Greenhaven: San Diego. 1998.
Congress of the United States. “Defense of Marriage Act.” Lectric Law Library. 7 May 1996. Mar. 2006 <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.html>.
Field, D. H. “Homosexuality.” The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Ed. Derek Wood. Inter-Varsity: Liecester, England. 1980.
"Same-sex marriage." Wikipedia. 1 Apr 2005. 5 Apr 2006,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&oldid=47144213>.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Good job. :tu:

I hope you get A+. :)

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6974 Location: Herefordshire

You dared me to read all of it!

Politically_Correct wrote: Author Ernest Gaines once said, “Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?”

:roll: How quaint

Politically_Correct wrote: First and foremost, prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Separation of Church and State is widely known for the role it plays in keeping prayer out of schools. This political doctrine can also be used to defend same-sex marriages (“Separation of Church and State” 1). The concept of this dogma is that the government of the United States cannot, under any circumstance, allow religion to take part in regulations and laws.

Utterly bizarre reading of the 1st Amendment...?

Politically_Correct wrote: Also, in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, the Congress of the United States defines marriage as the “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony” (Congress 2). This attempt by Congress displays the strong disregard for the Separation of Church and State doctrine.

Its hardly a violation of the constitution to state the bloody obvious - marriage is a religious union. The state recognises it because the state realises marriages are good things. If you were consistent in your thesis you would ban any government involvement in marriage - heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise.

Politically_Correct wrote: In the United States Constitution, we are promised three things. We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By being promised the pursuit of happiness, one is allowed to choose who he or she wants to love, live, and spend his or her life with. This promise set forth by our founding fathers is being threatened by a disrespectful government tearing at the corners of this political doctrine.

Oh come on! Is that the same right to "life" the Left violates by allowing abortion? Most scholars see the founders meant the pursuit of education, development of talents into careers, and development of virtue - to be what the founders meant by "pursing happiness". Please don't use a founding document to support the redefining of a 5000 year old institution which the founders would most likely have been sickened by

Politically_Correct wrote: Second, the opponents of same-sex marriage hold on to the religious controversy of homosexuality to deem the union wrong. However, the Bible says nothing specifically about homosexuality (Field 1).

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin" - Leviticas 18:22

Politically_Correct wrote: The challengers of same-sex marriage rely on a Bible verse about two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God in Old Testament times. Same-sex marriage foes claim that the cities were destroyed by God because of the town practicing homosexuality. Biblical scholar D. H. Field believes that this is incorrect and that the cities were destroyed due to homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners (1).

So irrelevant its unbelievable :rotf:

Politically_Correct wrote: Also, the opponents of same-sex marriage believe that marriage is a religious ceremony. When groom and a bride go to the courthouse to exchange vows in front of a Justice of the Peace, the ceremony is not religious at all, but a state mandated procedure. So if the marriage is religious, atheists, Satanists, and agnostics should not be allowed to marry either.

They probably won't want to get married. However marriages in civil ceremonies and not in church display my previous point about the state viewing marriage as important to society.

Politically_Correct wrote: Several reasons for not supporting gay marriage are given by opponents. The most often heard argument says that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is truly the weakest argument.

Its not an "argument". Its a statement of belief. Sheeesh :lol:

Politically_Correct wrote: This is like asking a banker who is going to own the money in the bank’s vaults.

WTF?

Politically_Correct wrote: Another argument is that marriage was created for procreation. The people who use this argument do not want to explain why people who are infertile are allowed to marry if they cannot bear children. If this is the case, then older, married couples should get divorced once they reach their prime (25). Opponents always say that gay couples are not capable of raising children, yet we allow child molesters, murderers, drug abusers, drug dealers, and other convicted felons be parents and become married.

This is an argument, yes. But the mistake you make is thinking a general trend is true in all cases. Marriage should be about procreation somewhere, but there will be exceptions. Another example of this "generality" view is voting ages - people can only vote at 18 because of the general view that persons under that age are not mature enough to understand what is involved. Yet there are plenty of 16 year olds who could make an informed decision, and likewise, plenty of 33 year olds who couldn't.

Your argument in this example would be: "people say 18 years old is the right age to allow people to vote, yet how do they explain my 8 year old brother with a PhD in political science?"

Politically_Correct wrote: Some say that gay marriage is immoral. The freedom of religion always implies that one is free from religion if he or she chooses (26).

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Politically_Correct wrote: One final reason given by the opponents is that marriage is a traditionally heterosexual institution. Slavery was a traditional institution then we found as a nation the evils of it and began to abolish it.

Tradition alone cannot win an argument, But disregarding tradition totally is not just stupid but dangerous. Slavery is irrelevant here and based on a view that black people had less worth than white people. There is no corresponding view applicable to the same sex marriage debate.

Politically_Correct wrote:
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of what the opposition says.

So its true just because you say it is?!?!!?? It isn't a civil rights issue.

Politically_Correct wrote: Homosexual couples are terrorized frequently by hate organizations designed to break the spirit of the couple. Gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples

No one supports hateful behaviour. But its existance is hardly an argument!

Politically_Correct wrote: The Bible makes many references to where homosexuality could have taken place in ancient times. The Old Testament is famous for its strict laws governing the Jewish people. In the Old Testament, women were not permitted to wear gold, or pearls, or even fancy clothing. Women were not allowed to wear pants. No one was allowed to do anything on Sunday, and pork and shellfish were not allowed to be eaten. Women were to be submissive to men and could not have any type of power over a man. Men were not allowed to trim their beards or cut the hair on the sides of their heads. The opponents of same-sex marriage pull their religious reasons against homosexuality from this part of the Bible. Yet how many of these people actually follow the laws mentioned above?

Theres a difference between facial hair and the sanctity of human life, how it is created, how it is raised, how it lives and whether it respects itself. You might have an argument here, but it isn't all that great, since the main argument against same sex marriage is social and not religious. Shame you didn't even remotely touch on that aspect - prefering to dismiss it utterly outright - the jewel in the crown in illustrating your ignorance on this subject.

Politically_Correct wrote: All in all, the reasons, ideas, and theories given by the opponents of homosexual marriages are baseless. I find that the hypocrisy our nation displays is at its height. I believe if we continue to have double standards when it comes to the law, our nation will soon fall and crumble. The world over is accepting this lifestyle, yet the world’s only superpower refuses to acknowledge it. The government is not the one who should be deciding what love is and who is allowed to love whom. Our hearts should be deciding this. In a time where we should be more worried about men with guns, we are concerned with two men loving one another.

Well, charming. America must change its ways because - what is it, 4 or 5 whole other countries have done so? And boy you do not want people deciding this with their hearts, or you'll get more results from proposistions like you did in 2004 - No, No, No and No.

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Theres a difference between facial hair and the sanctity of human life, how it is created, how it is raised, how it lives and whether it respects itself. You might have an argument here, but it isn't all that great, since the main argument against same sex marriage is social and not religious. Shame you didn't even remotely touch on that aspect - prefering to dismiss it utterly outright - the jewel in the crown in illustrating your ignorance on this subject.

There is no difference. According to the Bible, all sin is equal.

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

(d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000

Politically_Correct wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Theres a difference between facial hair and the sanctity of human life, how it is created, how it is raised, how it lives and whether it respects itself. You might have an argument here, but it isn't all that great, since the main argument against same sex marriage is social and not religious. Shame you didn't even remotely touch on that aspect - prefering to dismiss it utterly outright - the jewel in the crown in illustrating your ignorance on this subject.

There is no difference. According to the Bible, all sin is equal.
Not true.

Matthew 12:22-37

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 20672 Location: Minnesota

Instead of saying "This is true regardless of what other people say!" perhaps you should formulate an actual argument and try again.

Quote: In the United States Constitution, we are promised three things. We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is what I pay for with my taxes.

Try again. First, I'd actually read the Constitution before you attempt to say anything about it. Then I'd make an actual paper instead of this 2-page diatribe that says next to nothing on the Constiutionailty of the subject and shows no research whatsoever. Court cases such as Romer and Lawrence come to mind, for obvious reasons, but so do the Constitutions of the Western States such as Utah, for less obvious reasons. If a teacher didn't fail you, then they would be a failure as a teacher. You present no argument for the unconstitutionality of the matter, but rather go on a tangent off of Justice's Black's words in a court opinion that have really, truley, objectivley no bearing on the content of the Constitution. You then decide to talk about the Bible -- something that again is immaterial to your supposed research. Like I said, I'd start by researching the subject instead of just going through this line-of-thought diatribe that you have up here. Did you even research the "opposition"? Do you even know how to write a research paper?

P.S. I would fail a student if they ever brought in a paper that had the word "wikipedia" anywhere in it; it is not a credible source and should never be used for any paper let alone your "advanced" English research paper. While I am not a professor, I do know several that have done so. And I respect them for it.

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

aLienaTeD wrote: Politically_Correct wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Theres a difference between facial hair and the sanctity of human life, how it is created, how it is raised, how it lives and whether it respects itself. You might have an argument here, but it isn't all that great, since the main argument against same sex marriage is social and not religious. Shame you didn't even remotely touch on that aspect - prefering to dismiss it utterly outright - the jewel in the crown in illustrating your ignorance on this subject.

There is no difference. According to the Bible, all sin is equal.
Not true.

Matthew 12:22-37

I knew this, but normally this sin is considered the only Unforgivable Sin (Blasphemy to the Holy Spirit, in essence, simply dening Christ). All forgivable sins, whether Murder or Wearing Pants, is equal and for the wages of sin is Death.

sgtshortness · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 82

I still don't get the bank analogy

floridaguy · Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 37 Location: Florida

Politically_Correct wrote: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:

Dr Laura never had the opinion she has until one day a caller was on her show asking if there was any way to make her straight. Dr Laura suggested exidus (I still don't see how you can change someones sexual attractions and desires), and after this she received some negative comments and letters from gay groups. Then she lost her mind and decided that gays were all bad.

Once before this happened she had a caller ask if it was ok to take a child to a marraige ceremony at a church for a gay couple that was a friend of theirs. She said, just see how they act, some kids wont understand and may laugh, but if your worried about them ending up gay there is no problem, because if they are, they were born that way. So its kind of funny, the lady went nuts over some letters from people who disagree with her, and she is the one telling everyone how to act in a certain situation.

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

The Bank Analogy:

"The most often heard argument says that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is truly the weakest argument. This is like asking a banker who is going to own the money in the bank’s vaults."

Those who are already married deciding who can and cannot get married. Or those who are allowed to marry determining who can and cannot. That's hot it works. It's just like the President of the Bank deciding who Owns the money in the bank's vault. He can't say that Jim Johnson owns all the money, when there is 12,003 customers who use that bank.

This is why the government cannot tell people that love one another they cannot get married.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 4752 Location: Fairfax, VA

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Politically_Correct wrote: Some say that gay marriage is immoral. The freedom of religion always implies that one is free from religion if he or she chooses (26).

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. You can't have one without the other.

Politically_Correct · Joined: 24 Jul 2004 Posts: 282 Location: Mississippi

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Politically_Correct wrote:
The challengers of same-sex marriage rely on a Bible verse about two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God in Old Testament times. Same-sex marriage foes claim that the cities were destroyed by God because of the town practicing homosexuality. Biblical scholar D. H. Field believes that this is incorrect and that the cities were destroyed due to homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners (1).

So irrelevant its unbelievable

Actually it's quite relevant. The majority of those religious whackjobs (I'm a Christian, don't get me wrong) use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to back up their belief that God hates homosexuals.

I just chose a crappy title for the report and my thesis is vague.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Politically_Correct wrote: Some say that gay marriage is immoral. The freedom of religion always implies that one is free from religion if he or she chooses (26).

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. You can't have one without the other.
If you want to get technical about it, freedom of religion would be your right to choose your own religion. Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X. If you have freedom of choice in religion then that means that you must select a religion since there is no religion that is not a religion and if you have to select a religion then you do not have freedom from religion.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6974 Location: Herefordshire

Politically_Correct wrote: The Bank Analogy:

"The most often heard argument says that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is truly the weakest argument. This is like asking a banker who is going to own the money in the bank’s vaults."

Those who are already married deciding who can and cannot get married. Or those who are allowed to marry determining who can and cannot. That's hot it works. It's just like the President of the Bank deciding who Owns the money in the bank's vault. He can't say that Jim Johnson owns all the money, when there is 12,003 customers who use that bank.

This is why the government cannot tell people that love one another they cannot get married.

This doesn't work at all - since the protection of marriage crowd argues that marriage isn't a simple civil rights issue (like the left may argue) nor a mere one-on-one voluntary contract (like libertarians may argue) - rather an institution fundamental to a strong society. The whole point here is that marriage does strongly affect the unmarried, therefore the unmarried have every damn right to a say in this debate.

Even if this weren't so - people are allowed an opinion on whatever they feel like - even if it doesn't affect them at all, even if they don't know a damn thing about it - and this will remain the case so long as freedom of speech reigns

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6974 Location: Herefordshire

aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 4752 Location: Fairfax, VA

aLienaTeD wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Politically_Correct wrote: Some say that gay marriage is immoral. The freedom of religion always implies that one is free from religion if he or she chooses (26).

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. You can't have one without the other.
If you want to get technical about it, freedom of religion would be your right to choose your own religion. Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X. If you have freedom of choice in religion then that means that you must select a religion since there is no religion that is not a religion and if you have to select a religion then you do not have freedom from religion.

Thats not necessarily true. When I say "Freedom from religion" I dont mean freedom from seeing or hearing about someone's religion or anything like that. I simply mean to have freedom of religion, we must be free from any religion imposing their views on the rest of us. Such as in the case of gay marriage. You do not have to choose a religion as you imply. I'm agnostic, i.e. completely lacking religion and I should have every right to be free from other people's religious views being enforced upon me, certainly with regard to government and law.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8567

Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6974 Location: Herefordshire

UrielsFyre wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.

Who is it exactly who is imposing whose religion when the 10 commandments are banned from the public square? Its the difference between a Christian community being allowed to express itself without forcing its views onto others, and an atheist minority forbidding any public space from displaying any theist statement via unelected and undemocratic court decisons. Those that make up a right to "freedom from religion" don't think anyone should be allowed to express a religious belief publically - that is the true agenda and why people who favour freedom of speech and religion are outraged by them

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5000

UrielsFyre wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.
Religion = Belief System. Everyone has beliefs, no matter what it is they believe in or don't believe in. Therefore, you don't have freedom from religion because you don't have freedom from yourself and your beliefs. You don't have the option of having no beliefs about anything and therefore you don't have freedom from religion.