Political Crossfire Forums

P/O'dTeenager · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 28

Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

:!oops:

P/O'dTeenager · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 28

LostSoul3412 wrote: Well, you won't be around long.

Nice knowing you.

:hi:

I pm'ed John Galt, he told me what i needed to change in my original post and if i did fix it, i can repost it. i changed what he told me to change, and reposted. What's the problem?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

My bad, didn't realize that.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1715

P/O'dTeenager wrote: Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

The only disagreement I have is about the reasons for government recognizing marraige. There are a lot of advantages that have nothing to do with taxes that may be more important for some people.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Babylon_Horuv wrote: P/O'dTeenager wrote: Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

The only disagreement I have is about the reasons for government recognizing marraige. There are a lot of advantages that have nothing to do with taxes that may be more important for some people.
In regards to kids you mean? Or something else?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

P/O'dTeenager wrote: Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

As long as religious institutions aren't forced to recognize and perform gay marriages, they have no ground to stand on in the legal sense. In the moral aspect of it, morality isn't a 'set-in-stone' definition. So again, as long as they are allowed to hold onto, and practice, their beliefs, they have no ground to stand on. All they are doing is showing their insecurities about their own beliefs by trying to force them into with legal sanctions. "If my beliefs are made legal, then I will be forced to follow them." Maybe it is religious people being lazy.... who knows.
Perhaps, they should turn their attention to homelessness, or world hunger, or mending the relations between Christians, Jews and Muslims, etc. Instead, they like to take the easy route - sitting back in their high 'Sunday chairs', telling everyone how wrong we are, proclaiming how right they are. It must feel good to do that, while others are out in the field doing actual work for the bettering of human-kind.

For some, knowledge breeds fear. Fear breeds hatred which breeds hostility. The religious people who support a ban on gay marriage only prove this point over and over and over again.

P/O'dTeenager · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 28

LostSoul3412 wrote: My bad, didn't realize that.

O, alright :wink:

P/O'dTeenager · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 28

toddytodd wrote: P/O'dTeenager wrote: Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

As long as religious institutions aren't forced to recognize and perform gay marriages, they have no ground to stand on in the legal sense. In the moral aspect of it, morality isn't a 'set-in-stone' definition. So again, as long as they are allowed to hold onto, and practice, their beliefs, they have no ground to stand on. All they are doing is showing their insecurities about their own beliefs by trying to force them into with legal sanctions. "If my beliefs are made legal, then I will be forced to follow them." Maybe it is religious people being lazy.... who knows.
Perhaps, they should turn their attention to homelessness, or world hunger, or mending the relations between Christians, Jews and Muslims, etc. Instead, they like to take the easy route - sitting back in their high 'Sunday chairs', telling everyone how wrong we are, proclaiming how right they are. It must feel good to do that, while others are out in the field doing actual work for the bettering of human-kind.

For some, knowledge breeds fear. Fear breeds hatred which breeds hostility. The religious people who support a ban on gay marriage only prove this point over and over and over again.

:clap:

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

P/O'dTeenager wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: My bad, didn't realize that.

O, alright :wink:

Sorry, I'm just not used to seeing people actually follow the rules around here. :wink:

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1715

agentkgb wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: P/O'dTeenager wrote: Let's try this agian

There is something I don't get about the anti-gay marriage arguement. People like Bush say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. But since when did the United States government have any say over the sanctity of anything? Sanctity is defined as the quality or state of being holy or sacred. The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
I also fail to see why just because some christian right people don't like it it should be illegal. And isn't marriage pretty much a religious ceremony? And if your religious beliefs say it is okay for two men or two women to marry, why is it illegal? Who does it hurt? Who gets harmed? The only real reason government recognizes marriage anyway is for tax purposes isn't it? So my point, if the only real arguement behind banning gay marriage is a religious arguement, and our government is designed to keep religion out of law, how can you outlaw gay marriage

The only disagreement I have is about the reasons for government recognizing marraige. There are a lot of advantages that have nothing to do with taxes that may be more important for some people.
In regards to kids you mean? Or something else?

kids, and also rights in regard to one another, visitation, funeral arrangements, etc.

Tracker · Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:10 am Post subject:

I've written about this extensively. See the thread, "Gay Bars to be Closed -- internet websites CENSORED."

And/or, read my blog: http://ResusCitateHumanity.BlogSpot.Com -- highest hit-count in the history of blogging. No s**t.

Bobby Chicken · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 79

P/O'dTeenager wrote: The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
You base this separation of church and state on what? What law or part of the Constitution mandates it? A quote please.

F'losrix

Bobby Chicken wrote: P/O'dTeenager wrote: The government has no say in that. Thats why we have seperation of church and state. To keep religios laws like outlawing gay marriage away.
You base this separation of church and state on what? What law or part of the Constitution mandates it? A quote please.
It's all in how one interprets this portion of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

A lot of people misinterpret it, as if it said 'the establishment of a religion', which is much narrower in scope. "The" would indicate a specific, singular instance of establishment. "...of a religion" would mean of one particular religion.

However, "an" indicates more or less any act of establishment; not a singular instance. "...of religion" means of religion in general, broad terms, not of one, specific religion.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

If the government can protect the "sanctity of marriage" can it protect other holy things? Say, baptism? Maybe there should be laws regarding the proper care and feeding of baptism?

Maybe it can ONLY be a person over 18? Maybe they have to have a lie-detector test to make sure they are telling the truth that the believe in Jesus?

If the Religious Right wants the gov't to protect one of their holy rituals, should they expect the gov't to get involved in others?

No woman preists. Unruly children should be stoned to death. Marking your slaves. Etc..

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject:

mODULAR mAN wrote: If the government can protect the "sanctity of marriage" can it protect other holy things? Say, baptism? Maybe there should be laws regarding the proper care and feeding of baptism?

Maybe it can ONLY be a person over 18? Maybe they have to have a lie-detector test to make sure they are telling the truth that the believe in Jesus?

If the Religious Right wants the gov't to protect one of their holy rituals, should they expect the gov't to get involved in others?

No woman preists. Unruly children should be stoned to death. Marking your slaves. Etc..
Or requiring everyone to take communion.

No consumption of pork products or shellfish.

Blended fabircs should be banned.

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject:

Just because there is a broad consensus on something among religions, does not make any such enactment any less an establishment of religion.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: If the government can protect the "sanctity of marriage" can it protect other holy things? Say, baptism? Maybe there should be laws regarding the proper care and feeding of baptism?

Maybe it can ONLY be a person over 18? Maybe they have to have a lie-detector test to make sure they are telling the truth that the believe in Jesus?

If the Religious Right wants the gov't to protect one of their holy rituals, should they expect the gov't to get involved in others?

No woman preists. Unruly children should be stoned to death. Marking your slaves. Etc..
Or requiring everyone to take communion.

No consumption of pork products or shellfish.

Blended fabircs should be banned.

No cutting your hair.
Women must be fully covered.
You must pray towards Mecca 5 times a day.
You must catch/grow, clean and cook your own food.
No meat, or animal byproduct must be eaten or worn.
Virgins must be sacrificed to ensure good crops.

Mare Tranquillity · Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 402 Location: Moon

F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: If the government can protect the "sanctity of marriage" can it protect other holy things? Say, baptism? Maybe there should be laws regarding the proper care and feeding of baptism?

Maybe it can ONLY be a person over 18? Maybe they have to have a lie-detector test to make sure they are telling the truth that the believe in Jesus?

If the Religious Right wants the gov't to protect one of their holy rituals, should they expect the gov't to get involved in others?

No woman preists. Unruly children should be stoned to death. Marking your slaves. Etc..
Or requiring everyone to take communion.

No consumption of pork products or shellfish.

Blended fabircs should be banned.

I especially like this one because it's fun to see Bible-beaters trying to justify their ritual cannibalism.