Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

I'm gonna sacrifice myself so that Nakia can be spared :

And here I thought it was caused by the BG2 Fixpack
.
.
.
Notes:

1. To Tal - My apologies. I know I promised, and I tried to resist, but due to circumstances beyond (or within, depending on one's perspective) my control, I couldn't help myself. I'll take my lumps, but please be gentle.

2. To everyone else: More apologies - the foregoing probably doesn't make much sense unless you follow the BG2 forums.

 

There you go again. I'm a Christian, and one among many other Christians, who despise most of what GWB stands for. You may find this hard to believe, Gnarff, but there are many "liberals" and progressives who are also Christians. I attend chruch with a fairly large number of them and my church has thousands of members. It's not Joel Osteen's, but a similar church here in the H-Town area. I did attend the Osteen Church (Lakewood) when his father was the pastor there. He was a wonderful pastor, btw.

But it was Southern "evangelical" Christians who voted for the Bushmen in very large numbers and probably won the election for him, off-setting a very large young-urban group of college students, which voted mostly for Kerry. Please, Gnarff, stop lumping all Christians as Bush supporters - it's really not very pleasant for some of us who are not evangelicals.

BTW, looking back on your post, I see that you were not directing the "You" subject of your statement at me, like I thought you were (I guess by "you" you meant those generally). I'm not used to seeing 2nd person as meaning "everyone," (3rd person) - not since I read "Bright Lights, Big City" (what a great book that was). My apologies for accusing you of preaching at me.

 

I stand corrected BTA.

I bolded unions.

And I am united on this to parapharase "Are you being Served"

Thank you, Splunge.k for your sacrifice. Your're wrong it was the Oblivion unofficial patch mod that did it. And I ain't going to explain that one here

 

At the beginning of this thread, I didn't have a problem with that, but when they want to defile that sacred concept by extending it to encompass the abominable practice of homosexuality, that really gets under my skin. And if arguing for a stricter line between religious and secular is what has to be done to preserve marriage as sacred, then so be it.

That's a fallacy. There is no such thing as a gay person. That is a division that people who face that temptation have come up with to classify themselves as their own minority.

And I have no trouble calling a heterosexual couple that is not religious married, but because of the criticism I have received, I apparently can't grant that courtesy...

But the difference is that heterosexual aetheists and secularists who take uponthemselves these covenents are fulfilling God's plan, while homosexuals are doing the opposite.

And as long as the state wasn't marrying gay couples, the religious institutions didn't complain when the people extended this courtesy to the state. But now you are seeing 44 of 50 states where the people, through elected officials, have specified that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Would this even be an issue if not for the framework the State has built around the institution of Marriage in the first place?

That is the dangerous proposition that I refer to. By reducing it to a contract in ANY definition, you risk cheapening it.

Legalizing the eating of meat would be akin to decriminalizing homosexuality. It is a stance of non-intervention. That is where the line should be drawn. I would liken endorsing gay marriage to a proclaimation endorsing the eating of meat in your analogy. The stance I want is one where the government won't lock you up for eating a pork chop or having gay sex, but they won't come right out and endorse it. Presenting nutritional information on a variety of meats or scientific information on the effects of gay sex is done from a public health perspective, not a moral view.

A manure pile by any other name still smells like ****...

But if secularists turn to different sources for morality, then how do they reach a consensus? I could support a policy where any given faith does not directly define the law, but I would have to insist that their complaints and contributions be just as valid as those from non religious groups. I just don't see that happening in today's secular society.

It is a hardwired vulnerability towards that temptation. Just as some of us will have a hardwired vulnerability towards other sins. While you may not be able to escape the temptation, you can and should seek to rise above the temptations in your way. This does not relieve them of accountability or legitimize their sins. Therefore, I still don't think there is any obligation to extend marriage towards them. Marriage is about building families in the direction that God endorses. For thousands of years, the state also endorsed this direction, and there was no problem...

It is that chosen lifestyle that we don't want to publicly endorse. While they should receive the same civil rights as those with a more mainstream lifestyle, I am still cinvinced that an appropriately motivated state can find a way to grant this without giving them full religiously sanctioned rites of marriage.

I can think of 6, and at least 4, maybe 5 have posted in this thread.

I suspect that this may be an arguement to demand that gays be given the right to marriage.

I don't find that surprising. I was pointing out the Evangelical Christians, and other Christians, while not as publicly supportive as the Evangelicals, would vave chosen Republicans over Democrats on moral issues like Gay Rights and Abortion. Some of them might have prefered Democrat policies may have voted for Bush instead because of his moral stance.

Personally, I don't think either of the two American parties sufficiently represent Christianity. While the Republicans seem to get the picture with the "thou shalt not" side of the faith, they don't seem to advance the positive traits that Christ taught in the New Testament. I see the Democrats excel in that area, but I find them weak on such moral issues. AS long as the moral issues carry a heavy weight with the people, that's an advantage I see the Republicans holding.

It was the image of the Evangelicals that came to mind. I apologize for the overgeneralization. Correction noted.

Just another wonderfully confusing part of English grammar. I was referring to a "general" you in that post, as opposed to the "specific" you that would have rightly offended you (specific this time)...

 

Gnarff, a fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the argument invalid in whole. An incorrect fact (please note that I am in no way conceding your argument that homosexuality is a temptation rather than an orientation) is not a fallacy, so Aldeth's argument, by definition, is no fallacy.

That said, Gnarff, your opinion is not universal. It may well be universal in your spiritual tradition, but yours is hardly the only spiritual tradition or point of view in the world.

How is this even relevant, here? We don't all agree on your opinion on God's plan, nor does is fulfilling God's plan the purpose of law.

You contradict yourself in your own argument. You argue that the people didn't complain when the "courtesy" of legally binding marriages was "granted" to the state*, and then argue that their will was somehow usurped when officials that the people themselves elected legalized gay unions.

Progress! After two threads and almost fifteen pages, you have finally conceded that the state sees marriage as a simple contract! That said, you don't appear to know your biblical history. In addition to being ideal, holy and purposeful, Judaism views marriage as a contractual agreement between two people with legal rights and obligations. The marriage contract is part of Jewish law, and references to it go back as far as Isaac. It is called a Ketubah. This contract explains the basic material, conjugal and moral responsbilities of the husband to his wife. It is signed by the groom, as well as two witnesses, and given to the bride during the wedding ceremony, and since the Jews saw marriage as a private contractual affair, the ceremony was allowed to be private. No witnesses are required for the ceremony, and a rabbi isn't even required to attend or officiate. That is your holy origin of marriage (if you believe that Judaism is the world's oldest religion and that marriage originated with them, at least). Apparently, Gnarff, the Jews from whom your Christian faith auspiciously stems "spoiled" marriage thousands of years before the state even had the opportunity.

Replace "the eating of meat" with "murder" and see if you still agree with your own argument. To a hindu, meat consumption is seen as murder.

Of course it does. Now, what exactly does this have to do with the fact that your opinion on homosexuality isn't universal?

They don't. That's the entire point. Enforcing an arbitrary set of moral standards isn't the purpose of law, so this isn't a problem.

* Which is incorrect, anyway. The Church didn't give its power to the state. The state took it from the church, and if you know your history, you already know about the abuses that made doing so necessary. For the better half of a millennium in the western world, it is the church who has operated by the permission of the state.

 

I never saw that mentioned in the Bible. Is that in the Book of Mormon? I know that the Bible calls homosexual acts an abomination, but I didn't think it stated anywhere that there was no such thing as a gay person. Whatever though - you are entitled to your opinion on that, however out of the mainstream that opinion may be. Actually, being that out of touch actually does shine a bright light on why you feel the way you do on the topic of gay marriage - no need to offer marriages rights to people who don't actually exist!

I, on the other hand, do believe there are gay people and straight people. I still maintain that the only way engaging in a homosexual act would be tempting would be if you were already gay. If you're straight, the image of taking part in any type homosexual act is extremely unappealing. To use myself as an example - while I have never cheated on my wife, and I have no plans of ever cheating on my wife, I can tell you for damn sure that if it were ever to happen, I wouldn't be fooling around with another MAN. (Think Pulp Fiction with the specific line, "Would you ever give a GUY a foot massage?") A cute little 20-something woman might prove to be very tempting. A 20-something man - no matter how cute he is - would not.

What specific part of God's plan are you referring to? The part in Genesis where He says to go forth and be fruitful and multiply? Because one of those imaginary gay people living in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage or gay civil unions is unlikely to get married to a woman instead and settle down and have kids. So they aren't going to fulfill God's plan anyway. And keep in mind that anyone who isn't Mormon may not share your vision of exactly what God's plan is - and anyone who isn't even Christian is almost certain to not share your vision.

I still maintain that you have this completely ass backwards. It is the state that choses to acknowledge all the different religious marriages and not the churches that chose to acknowledge all the marriages taking place at courthouses. The First Amendment of the Constitution assures this is so. Freedom of Religion REQUIRES that the state and federal government either acknowledge ALL religious weddings or acknowledge NO religious weddings. To do otherwise would be showing a preference of one religion over another. The government has obviously chosen the former option. By the same concept, because many religions have conflicting rules over who can and cannot get married, the state is REQUIRED not to use the specific rules of one religion as that would be showing a preference.

Why would anyone need a consensus on their own code of morals or ethics? I have certain morals and ethics and I certainly don't look to the rest of society to say that it's OK that I think a certain way. I'd say you do the same thing Gnarff - it's not like the Mormon code of morals is the consensus among all Christians - much less all people. Morals and ethics are personal choices - you get to chose which ones you have independent of the opinion of others.

And just for a little emphasis here - while the majority of Americans are Christians, since there are so many different Christian groups with conflicting views on a lot of things, you really cannot lump all Christians together. Evangelicals are not only different from Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but they are even different from other Protestants. To be honest, I'm not even sure which Protestant groups comprise the Evangelical movement. Certainly Southern Baptists and United Methodists are evangelicals, but I'm not sure if, for example, Episcopals are or are not. Is there are a hard definition?

EDIT: Apologies for repeating some of Drew's points - he posted while I was typing this.

 

I believe Gnarff just added support of my argument.

QED.

 

Duh! Marriage originated with God, therefore His divine plan is relevent. The "secular marriage" that you keep claiming is marriage is nothing but a framework by a secular government to accommodate this union common to numerous faiths within their borders. Because of their binding covenent with the governed people, they must extend that framework to all, even where the religious rite would be denied or unwelcome. But that Framework is not marriage. By calling it marriage the secular state rewrites a portion of religious doctrine to suit their secular purposes--something suposedly forbidden under the First Ammendment...

In Canada, that was a betrayal of the Canadian people by people with a political agenda. In Massechusettes and California, this was the betrayal by appointed Judges with their own agenda. The 44 of 50 states I mentioned was where Democracy actually fulfilled it's mandate--the will of the people to defend Marriage as between a man and a woman.

I did not endorse such a position. Further, I have continued to refer to a framework built around the religious rite of marriage. And if I recall, I was warning about the danger to social morality of reducing marriage to a mere contract, as those of you here are trying to.

And Marriage itself dates back to the first humans, Adam and Eve, who were married by God. All you show is that secular meddling in spiritual matters goes back about 4000 years, likely even longer...

So you want to make it akin to decriminalizing abortion. That's another thread.

Then if there is no consensus, then isn't enforcing an arbitrary set of morals what the government is doing? That is a problem...

Taking the ordinance from the church outright is unconstitutional. Building a framework around it so that it may be regulated is not. That is how they solved the problem. Because "All men are created equal", that framework has extended quite well to heterosexual couples who did not seek the blessing of any church. As long as the Nomenclature makes it clear that it is secular, or Civil in authority, that framework can apply to homosexuals if the secularists would forget about trying to subjugate religion to their views and try to solve the problem at hand--that of civil rights being denied to same sex couples--they'd have their rights long ago. You put these people as hostages in an attempt to subjugate another group that has irreconcilable differences with them. I can live with them being denied rights due to the incompetence of government...

Now we see the agenda of secularism--to control the operation of religion.

That's becauase it's not in a religious book. Some here try to equate homosexuals to blacks, Jews, or women. This is false. Just as a gamer is someone who not only plays games, but identifies themselves by the activities, the homosexual identifies themselves by their actions and chosen lifestyle. I believe it was Drew that stated that in times of duress, homosexuals will keep their sins quiet and abandon the lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a race, religion, ethnicity or gender, but a chosen way of life. This weakens, to some degree, the gay rights position somewhat...

While innately gay people don't exist, those that choose that lifestyle do have certain rights. The problem in this thread is where the government interfered in what is a religious institution. It seems as though more people want religious doctrine trumped and rewritten to accommodate the mandate of the state than preserve the seperation of church and state.

If I remember correctly from my college days, some Psychology texts have suggested that the mechanics of orgasm and sexual stimulation are the same, and for most acts, gender is actually irrelevent. Therefore it is logical to follow that it is taste in partner that is the case here. Just as you have your tastes in women you find tempting, others may find that temptation towards members of the same or either gender. These tastes or temptations are not chosen, but identifying yourself by them is a choice.

That is exactly what I meant. That commandment is more important than you realize to God's plan. Two guys doing things that are none of our business in privacy does not further this commandment.

So you suggest that the State is interfering in religious matters. Religion did not see the problem with that until the state started to suggest legalizing same sex marriage. So yes, Religion, and the people, did allow the state to do as they pleased as long as it didn't contradict their faith. Now that the state is suggesting to do otherwise, we have a problem...

By viewing the laws around marriage as a framework, that problem is solved. That framework would extend to all couples who could legally benefit from the civil and taxation benefits--regardless of what anyone feels about the union.

If Secular government includes, as a part of maintaining order, imposing some morality on the people. Somethings are easy to reach a consensus about, like Murder. Some other things where there is no consensus but are ruled on anyway will unnecessarily curtail the rights of groups that have no problem with the activity being curtailed. It just seems hypocritical that a group that claims no values as their own is trying to force their values on us after complaining that we are trying to force our values on them.

I believe certain things are common enough to most if not all Christian faiths that a consensus can be claimed, like the Ministry and Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments. Even where some differences of opinion exist, there is still a commonality in Creation Doctrine, the fall of Adam, the Great Flood, David and Goliath. Enough of a majority forbids homosexuality that I can claim that support.

I would not be surprised if there is, but I don't know it, as evidenced by my overgeneralization.

 

It's all clear to me now Gnarff. I cannot believe it didn't hit me until you actually said it. Because you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, you believe that God, not people, created marriage. It logically follows from such a belief that all marriages are religious in nature.

This is why you misinterperet the Constitution, and specifically the First Amendment thereof. This is why you feel that secularism is trying to take away or change you belief system.

The problem is, I don't share that belief, and neither do the others here that are arguing with you. We're trying to get into the minutiae of this argument when we are starting from totally different premises. Unfortunately, I don't think a common ground of understanding is possible for the starting points, and that is why I don't see any point in continuing this. I keep trying offer you differnt points of view, and all you do is repeat the same arguments over and over. Which is fine by me - it's just not getting us anywhere.

 

A couple problems with this. Not all of us believe in God, not all of us believe marriage began with God, not all of us agree on what God's plan is or even if God has a plan.

Judges, my friend, are either elected or appointed by elected officials. The elected legislatures in California and Massachusetts could have overridden the courts by simply amending the constitution, but they didn't did they? Your elected government could have overridden its provincial courts by amending their constitution, but they didn't do that either, did they?. Instead, On July 20, 2005, Canada passed Civil Marriage Act, becoming the fourth nation in the world to legalize gay marriage nationwide. The Civil Marriage Act was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. Then, On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years. Yeah, the will of the people was obviously thwarted.

Gnarff, back then, church and state were synonymous. Marriage Contracts also explicitly covered in old testament scripture. Read Exodus 22:15-16, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and try again. You should probably read Leviticus, too, for good measure. For a self-purported expert on the bible, your ignorance about what's actually written in it can be positively staggering at times.

No, Gnarff, I don't. I don't think we should ban meat consumption or gay marriage, and I'm not convinced that a flat ban on abortion is a good idea, either*. The only reason you don't want the government to ban meat consumption is because your religion doesn't doesn't view it as immoral. I want you to finally comprehend that the only set of moral standards you actually want the government to protect is your own, and to get you to ask yourself why that is. Then, I'd like you to ask yourself if you'd like to live in a society that forced an arbitrary set of moral standards that you do not hold or agree with - like, say, requiring women to wear the hijab or, worse yet, the burka; requiring female "circumcision", or banning meat consumption - upon you. Understanding the answers to these questions will enable you to finally understand the benefits -no, the absolute necessity - of the separation of church and state. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not holding breath and expect yet another uncomprehending response in which you make no effort whatsoever to see the larger world around you. When I get it, I'll wash my hands of this thread. If you are absolutely dead-set on remaining completely ignorant to the realities of the world around you, I'll pity you your lonely existence, but I won't try to stop you.

The law doesn't exist to enforce morality. It exists to protect individual rights. Murder isn't illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because murdering a person violates the victim's rights. Fraud isn't illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because defrauding a person violates his civil rights. The government doesn't create speed limits because driving too fast is immoral, either. It creates speed limits because driving too fast is dangerous. It fines speeders not because speeding is immoral, but because it endangers other drivers and pedestrians.

Gnarff, exactly what constitution are you talking about? The Church was stripped of its authority over affairs of state before or during (depending on the nation) the protestant reformation, which happened between 1517 and 1648. Europe didn't see it's first constitutional monarchy until the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

During and after the protestant reformation, the state controlled the church. If the State established religion acted in a manner which the head of state did not approve, the heads of state can and did replace them. Clergy and laymen who refused to change over were persecuted and often executed. Remember how England whipsawed back and forth between the Catholic and Anglican Churches, each change accompanied by its own little wave of executions? By officially separating the powers of church and state, our founders did the various faiths - and the people who practiced them - a favor. The church no longer had to worry about appeasing the state and was free to operate as it chose. It no longer had to worry about being ousted from the country or dissolved; or having its ministers and parishioners arrested or killed just because it refused to grant some jackass with power another annulment.

* While it's completely off-topic and I do not want to go into this in this thread, I'll head off any questions by stating that I think abortion should be legal during the first trimester or so and illegal thereafter.

 

Quote: from Gnarff
"Legalizing the eating of meat would be akin to decriminalizing homosexuality. It is a stance of non-intervention. That is where the line should be drawn. "

Quote: from Drew
"Replace "the eating of meat" with "murder" and see if you still agree with your own argument. To a hindu, meat consumption is seen as murder."

Thats not actual true for all hindus drew as a fair percentage eat meat. Hinduism isn't a good choice for a justification as the various sects of it believe in : 1 god, many gods & no gods. They are even more mixed up than the christians.

Leave marriage to the church & keep civil matters civil.

 

It is true that some hindus that eat meat just as it is also true that some Christian denominations perform gay marriages. Less than 20% of Indians eat meat, Martaug, and a majority of that 20% are Muslim, so the number of devout hindus that eat meat isn't nearly as great as you imply.

 

OFF-TOPIC: most of the sites i have looked at indicate about 25-30% of Hindus eat meat drew, not Indians, Hindus. That is a fairly significant number.

But quick, back to the subject before i get the deadly pink breath weapon from he who must not be named!

 

That's hardly surprising, Martaug. How many Christians have pre-marital sex, get divorces, or commit adultery? How many Christian denominations perform gay marriages? How many Non-Middle-Eastern muslims wear the hijab?*. How many have pre-marital sex? How many drink? How many Jews actually follow the Kosher dietary laws? How many Catholics are pro-choice? How many drow are angst-ridden chaotic good two-scimitar wielding maniacs rebelling against contemporary drow society?

We aren't talking about the new-age trend of foreigners coming to hinduism and picking and choosing which parts of the faith to follow while cheerfully discarding the rest, or about the movement of the African-American community to Islam "lite", discarding the Quran's teachings about modesty, sexuality, and drinking without a second thought. We are talking about devout, fundamentalist Hindus who follow the edicts of their faith to the letter, and who most assuredly do view meat consumption as murder. No, their beliefs aren't universal. Neither are Gnarff's, so why does this matter?

Gnarff is talking about passing the values of his deeply devout and highly rigid brand of Christianity - values which are not universally shared by all Christians, let alone all people - into law. Since not all Christians have a problem with Gay marriage despite the fact that the bible is quite clear on the matter, the fact that not all Hindus have a problem with eating meat despite the fact that Baghavad Gita (the most universally accepted Hindu holy book) and pretty much every other Hindu holy book is also very clear on the subject renders your point wholly irrelevant in the context of the argument at hand. Please stop wasting my time with petty little distractions like this.

* There are a few, but a lot of the "black muslims" you see in hijabs or bourkas are actually Sudani immigrants.

 

Oh !, Oh !, i know the answer to #10(the drow Q)!! It seems like at least Half of the entire danged race!!! Were are these Evil drow we keep hearing about? All i see are the angsty ones


Topic? What topi . . . OH Yeah that one.

I am actually looking at it from around the corner as i don't really disagree with points made on both sides. I think that leaving marraige to the churches & having a seperate civil distinction for all other types of "Life-Partners" is just more in keeping with what the majority of the country seems to believe about marriage(note that an overwhelming majority of the states consider it that way & more than 50% have passed constitional amendments to keep it that way in their state)



I happen to agree with gnarff about the california deal as the politicians put the matter up to a vote by the people on a new law banning same sex marriages, the people voted to ban these marriages & then 4(out of 7) judges decided that it didn't matter what the people wanted.

Wouldn't you be ticked(at least) if the state goes to the trouble to draft a new law & puts it to a vote of the people, the state spends all the money to have a public vote, the law is approved by the people & signed into law by the elected officials of the people & then you are told " oh well, your vote in this matter doesn't really count, we are gonna do the EXACT opposite of what y'all want"

And some in the government wonder why so few people vote??

Oh as far as not believing that some secularists wish to destroy any bit of religion they can, what do you consider the almost 20 year legal travesty to destroy the cross at the mount soledad war memorial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy
Which, BTW, has had a cross there since 1913 with no problems until 1989 when an athiest got offended & sued.

 

Martaug, when the Supreme court de-segregated the schools, the public was against it. When the Supreme court shot down the ban on inter-racial marriage, the public was against it. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The courts were created in part to defend minorities from "the tyranny of the people", one of the few potential weaknesses of pure, unfettered democracy. The founders ensured that the courts wouldn't be beholden to the people for that very reason.

Regarding CA, while the legislature did indeed alter the family code in a ballot initiative back in March of 2000, the legislature has yet to revise its constitution. Ultimately, we'll see what the people of California decide to do in November.

 

Exactly. And that is also why I am unwilling to accept same sex unions as marriage.

Quite clear actually, A "Secular" definition of Marriage, which removes divine implications and extends this sacred ordinance to homosexuals is a direct contradiction to such religious doctrine--something the Government has NO authority to do. By doing this, the government is favouring those that have non-Christian beliefs over those that are Christians.

But these different points of view still fail to address the failure/refusal to seperate church from state in this matter.

The United States has official statements asserting a general belief in God (like putting "In God We Trust" on the money).

Marriage predates ANY record of government, so you can't claim it as secular in origin either.

I believe that there is sufficient consensus on this matter however.

I believe the highest judges in the US are infact appointed. After the officials are elected, they do what they please anyway. This is not an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

California has that ammendment on the ballot in November. If it fails, then your arguement has some sway.

First, I saw 2005 and 2006, but where was the third different year you mentioned? Secondly, That was only under two governments, with only two Prime Ministers. Don't believe in Mathematics either?

When the bill first passed, three of the four parties intimidated renegade members, threatening them with expulsion from caucus (a bad thing in political circles) if they didn't tow the party line. Secondly, the votes were not recorded on the issue. That was the Juse 28 vote. The bill then had to pass the liberal dominated elected senate, where Chretian had 12 years to replace retiring members with his buddies. Then "Royal Ascent" means that the puppet of the PM who pushed the legislation signed the law to make it official. Do you call that democracy?

The 2006 vote occurred when the Conservatives took power in 2006. They promised to revisit the issue, and had to get that passed the house of commons. Once again, the other three parties pulled the same tricks to block this.

I expect a third vote sometime in early 2009. The Liberals, who's leader is the best punch line in Canadian history, are talking about standing up to the PM, who is talking about calling his bluff, possibly leading to an October election. I predict a significant Conservative Majority, where they can revisit the issue of Same Sex Marriage once again...

I beg to differ: The Scribes and Pharisees were Secular Authority, who concerned themselves with the more practical side of the law. While they started from the Ten Commandments, they kept re-interpreting matters closer and closer until they came up with some laws that contradicted the Spirit of the commandments given. Kind of like Secular Government today. I guess that politics also predates reliable recorded history too.

Genesis 2:21-25 covers the creation of Woman and the binding of them. It explicitly defines this relationship as between a man and a woman, and identifies Eve as his WIFE. While the word Marriage is not used, Identifying Eve as the Wife should suffice for this arguement.

But you're trying to force a different standard of Marriage upon us. The Government once used the full force of law to silence one minority who proposed a different definition. This legally binds them to preserve that same definition in the face of a new challenge or admit that their actions against the first group were based out of hatred and prejudice. It's about preserving the standards that the state has set.

But yet, you would allow the State to redefine religious doctrine within it's borders to set the standard they want? Seperation means that the State operates in it's element, and the religion does it's thing, and the two don't interfere with each other. By changing the definition of marriage, the State is interfering with Religion. It is just the same as the abominable practices that you suggest.

I just assumed that politicians were lazy. Are you suggesting that they really HATE religion?

You've shown me that there is much disdain for the faithful out there, and there are people that are trying to *****-slap religion into obedience while claiming otherwise. I see your credibility eroding by holding to that contradictory position.

For your information, that "lonely existence" has more to do with disability, not my mindset. And I'll thank you to stay the **** out of my personal life! That comment was way over the line!

Do some research, and you'll find that most systems of morality believe that immoral actions cause some erosion to human rights or public or personal safety. My stance here is that Marriage, when honoured properly, is the keystone of a healthy and peaceful society. In the home, children are taught the values that they need to learn to contribute to society.

The US Constitution, but also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both have clauses regarding the seperation of Church ans State. The State has the authority to build a framework around the ordinacne, but not to take control of it outright.

Is that what you want to go back to?

We all sin, what's your point?

No, I'm advocating that the State handle it's problem in a manner that does not impose itself on Religious doctrine. And yes, I am aware that many Christian sects would oppose even granting civil rights to gays and lesbians.

Whatever happenned to "If you don't like it here in America, then don't let the doors hit you in th ebutt on your way out?"

 

First of all, not all of us live in the US (however, the situation tends to be very similar there too, marriage is marriage even in civil court between two men - at least where it's allowed at all). And second, those statements still don't change the fact many people don't believe.

Just a sidenote, I'm not going to stick my hand into this pile any deeper. No sir, I've learned my lesson about arguments between those who don't believe and those who do. Mainly it's just banging your head against a wall on both sides. Or banging heads together until one can't go on any longer. Painful and really doesn't take anything anywhere.

 

Gnarff - Yeah, that's a good place for it. I guess that's why they call it "The Almighty" dollar.

It's still a common slogan among some of the uneducated in our country. It's the only way some people know how to express themselves.

I'd really like to see you prove that one. There's a reason why there are different religions...

What does it mean to "contribute to society?" More specifically, what would you like them to "contribute." What "values" are you speaking of? Sounds like a set-up to me.