Wow, erm, looking back we sure have gone off topic. The original question was why being against g*y marriages is deemed homophobic, not whether g*y marriages should be allowed or not.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-) n. -Fear of or contempt for lesbians and **** men. -Behavior based on such a feeling.
I think it is deemed homophobic, because people are so use to the idea that only females and males marry. That it only makes sense a lady and man should marry in later thought of reproducing, which homosexuals can't. And that the thought of being as intimate as with a lady, but with a man (same sex), makes them feel homophobic.
Hmm... seems more fear of what the new definition of marriage may become; less so of fear/hate towards *** and lesbians themselves. A portion of nay sayers toward **** marriages don't actually actually have "fear or contempt" of homosexual individuals.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Reminds me of a comment one of my friends made once. "Homophobic? **** that, I'll kick any g@y guy's **** no problem."
Homophobia as it is used these days doesn't have anything directly to do with fear. Homophobia has come to mean any feelings of intolerance towards homosexuals.
Whether or not thinking homosexual marriages are right is homophobic is a gray area, it depends where you are comming from because there actually are legitimate reasons for not having homosexual unions be equal to legal marriage. For one there are tax exemptions given to married couples based on the fact that one of them is a female, some of it has to do with the fact that women make less on average then men, most of it has to do with the fact that when a women has a child she has to take maternaty leave and usually her carreer is either ended or put on hold. There are also assumptions in current marriage legislation that give health benifets almost entirely based around the idea that one person in the marriage will be bearing a child. So under these circumstances I can see why homosexual unions can't be considered a legal marriage.
On a sidenote passing any legislation for religious reasons is incredibly silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Aug 14 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Aug 14 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a free land right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No its not, you silly person you...NOW GO BUY MCDONALDS AND CONFORM TO US BWHAHAHAH
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Separation of church and state does not mean you have the right to practice your religion however you like regardless of the law - in fact, it's exactly the opposite<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you just reversed yourself? I am completely confused now <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope. Not once have I reversed myself. My position has always been that church and state should not meddle in each other's affairs. If you think I have ever said otherwise, please indicate it to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 14 2003, 02:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 14 2003, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So under these circumstances I can see why homosexual unions can't be considered a legal marriage.
On a sidenote passing any legislation for religious reasons is incredibly silly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless, of course, the couple in question adopts, which many in fact do want to do. There are plenty of hetero couples that never have or want kids, and there are plenty of g@y couples that do want kids.
Regarding the sexism in earning potential thing, what if it's a lesbian couple? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> The argument reverses itself then. Of course, the entire thing is outdated because in this day and age men and women are supposed to be able to earn the same amount, and we should focus our efforts on making that's true rather than trying to compensate for inequality in our marriage laws.
And yes, passing legislation for religious reasons is silly. Monty Python silly, even.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unfortunately, it still carries the very negative connotations of fear and paranoia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Remember the quote I posted with the guy talking about "an attack on marriage"? Sounded like fear and paranoia to me.
The question of whether disallowing g@y marriage is "homophobic" can only be settled by looking at the actual arguments against g@y marriage. If all of them seem to come from ultimately "homophobic" standpoints, well, question settled.
I'd say that arguments settling on homosexuality being "evil" or "immoral" can be pretty well put into the "homophobia" box, just as arguments about interracial marriage being "unnatural" or whatever can be put into the "racist" box. If you don't like "homophobia", say "unfair discrimination against homosexuals" or whatever, it means basically the same thing. (Words like "homo-ist" or "g@y-ist" just don't sound right, so "homophobic" was coined.)
In any case, you earlier stated that the state cannot interfere legally with the affairs of a religious organization. You also stated you should be allowed to practice whatever religion freely, without government interference. Then you claimed that my example of Heaven's Gate was an example of when "religion should not be able to practice because it's against the law" (yes, that wasn't what your exact wording was but it was what you intended to say). Erm, forgive me, but that's a contradiction.
*edit* as was stated earlier, the beliefs of many Christians (yes, many, Nem) is that you should "hate the sin, but not the sinner." I can't say that I speak for religious fundamentalists, but that is far from homophobia.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In any case, you earlier stated that the state cannot interfere legally with the affairs of a religious organization. You also stated you should be allowed to practice whatever religion freely, without government interference. Then you claimed that my example of Heaven's Gate was an example of when "religion should not be able to practice because it's against the law" (yes, that wasn't what your exact wording was but it was what you intended to say). Erm, forgive me, but that's a contradiction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The way it works is this: the government does not have the authority to legislate against religious practices in and of themselves. They can only legislate certain actions independently of their status as religious practices.
Suicide is illegal whether or not it's being done for religious reasons. This is an example of the separation of church and state. If suicide were to be legalized simply because of the belief system of the Heaven's Gate, it would be a violation of that separation.
Similarly, if homosexual marriages are to be illegalized simply because of the fundamentalist Christian belief system, that is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Suicide is illegal for reasons independent of any particular religion - each citizen has a right to the pursuit of life, so society seeks to prevent people from robbing themselves or others of that right. Whether you agree with the notion that the government should try to protect citizens from themselves is another debate, but since homosexual marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of the people involved any more than it infringes on the rights of those around them, it's an irrelevant point.
Furthermore, any action which discriminates against people solely on the basis of their homosexuality can be construed as "homophobic" under the generally accepted usage of that term, just as any action which discriminates against people solely on the basis of their race can be construed as "racist". The two are tightly corresponding terms, even though their suffixes differ. Blame the linguists.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 06:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And yes, passing legislation for religious reasons is silly. Monty Python silly, even. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Send in the church police <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
anyhow I can't believe my last post was dismissed because I used sarcasm to support my argument; I also can't believe I'm the only one who sees the irony that people against g4y marriages are against it for reasons including the fact that, in their eyes, g4ys aren't supposed to engage in normal, monogamous behaviour. If you consider it so "devient" to have many partners and engage in other sketchy practices outside of the eye of society-at-large, it's totally nonsensical to forbid them from doing something "normal." *conjures another racism comparison* it's like making a black man wear blackface makeup and dance around because in your view he's SUPPOSED to be a stupid bumbling idiot.
I also haven't seen any arguments against my statement that if it's wrong in the eyes of God and the Church for g4ys to wed, then why don't we let individual priests make that decision for themselves?
Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the state has declared that there are some rights that you cannot voluntarily give up, for any reason outside of the due process of law. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
Even so, you cannot have separation of church and state without infringing upon the rights of the politicians themselves, who have their own moral beliefs. For example, the president is obviously letting his moral beliefs dictate his decisions on what should happen on this issue. How should you ask them to supress their own beliefs in service to the state? Preposterous.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lobby to legalize suicide and then you can claim that. people need to be protected from each other, which is why murder is illegal, and people need to be protected from themselves, which is why suicide is illegal. A person's religion can entail worship of the devil, being a nazi, believing humans should be sacrificed and that if they kill themselves they'll ride the tail of Halley's Comet with aliens, and it would all be legal as long as they didn't break the law, by actually assaulting or killing anyone or themselves. If you view laws against murder and suicide as "government-imposed views of criminality and morality," and that religion should be untouchable, then perhaps you're an anarchist or a fundamentalist... you really think people should be able to get away with murder by claiming it's their religious belief?
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 08:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> lobby to legalize suicide and then you can claim that. people need to be protected from each other, which is why murder is illegal, and people need to be protected from themselves, which is why suicide is illegal. A person's religion can entail worship of the devil, being a nazi, believing humans should be sacrificed and that if they kill themselves they'll ride the tail of Halley's Comet with aliens, and it would all be legal as long as they didn't break the law, by actually assaulting or killing anyone or themselves. If you view laws against murder and suicide as "government-imposed views of criminality and morality," and that religion should be untouchable, then perhaps you're an anarchist or a fundamentalist... you really think people should be able to get away with murder by claiming it's their religious belief? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course not, but I had to say it in order to make a point, because you were all gung-ho and haven't answered my question: Where do you draw the line? And, how do you determine where to draw the line? Obviously, you draw the line at the constitution, but then again that was drafted by some people over 200 years ago. Who's to say that they're right, if what you say is correct?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 08:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How should you ask them to supress their own beliefs in service to the state? Preposterous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I would expect that of anyone I vote for. When we elect a president he swears to "protect and uphold the constitution". When we elect legislators, we are similarly electing them to protect our rights, and to keep the country running smoothly. Their philosophies will obviously effect how they go about the second part, but the first part is always supreme in their loyalties. An elected official that imposes his own moral values over the rights of others is acting unconstitutionally, and I would hope that he be impeached.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 08:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course not, but I had to say it in order to make a point, because you were all gung-ho and haven't answered my question: Where do you draw the line? And, how do you determine where to draw the line? Obviously, you draw the line at the constitution, but then again that was drafted by some people over 200 years ago. Who's to say that they're right, if what you say is correct? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that we should question laws, especially those drafted by old men in white wigs; personally, I draw the line when harming oneself or another is involved. Laws should protect people, regardless of their religious beliefs. laws shouldn't limit people's freedoms, unless people having those freedoms would interfere with the life, liberty, or happiness of another (i.e. the freedom to kill someone).
but you're right: we strayed far from the original question. Being against g4y marriages is homophobic because there is no benefit to forbidding g4ys to wed besides the satisfaction of denying some americans a harmless right. you might say the benefit is preserving a time-honored tradition, but like you said, laws and traditions should be questioned and updated. let priests and other religious officials who have studied the bible all their lives decide, and at the very least allow g4ys secular marriages.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 05:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, you can't voluntarily give up your rights. Assisted suicide is illegal whether or not it's religious in nature, so the government is not interfering in religious practices - it's just that the religious practices are interrupted in the course of the government upholding its normal laws.
The normal laws are NOT allowed to restrict anything based on it being a religious practice. For example, the government would not specifically illegalize "ritual human sacrifice" - that would actually in in violation of the Constitution. It CAN illegalize "the killing of one human by another," though, since that restriction has nothing to do with religion.
Criminality and morality are two separate things, and need not agree with each other. Stealing bread to feed your starving family is moral (by most standards), but not legal. Cheating on your girlfriend is legal, but not moral. The state only has the power to create and enforce laws that protect its citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 05:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Obviously, you draw the line at the constitution, but then again that was drafted by some people over 200 years ago. Who's to say that they're right, if what you say is correct? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Constitution is basically what defines the US government. When debating law or politics of the United States, it's the highest authority.
As has been pointed out, we've drifted off topic significantly by now. I'm providing an argument in favor of allowing homosexual marriage, and I'm basing that argument on the Constitution of the United States. What you're doing, as far as I can tell, is providing an argument against it, basing the argument on the notion that we should throw out the Constitution and establish a theocracy. And somehow, this is supposed to prove that banning homosexual marriage is not discrimination against homosexuals, because homosexual marriage is akin to human sacrifice, because the Bible said so, and the Bible is admissible evidence because this is after all a theocracy, at least in your hypothetical world.
Seperation of Church and State was meant to protect the <b>Church</b> from government influence, not the state. Its a simple fact that when the Constitution was written up a massive portion of the population was Christian, and almost every state openly professed so.
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase while writing to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802, he wanted to assure them that his differing view of Christianity would not be pressed upon the church during his presidency.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics.
The problem is today, if you say you oppose homosexual marriage you are called a homophobe and a biggot. If you cite your Christian beliefs, you are called a zealot, by the same people who yell for tolerance. Well, call me whatever you want, but I oppose homosexual marriage.
Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto <b>my</b> faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, <b>this</b> is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.
If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the Knight Intiative, that is the same as abusing a loophole in the tax system. In other words, using the law in a way in which is was not intended. Obviously California law did not expect people to get married in Hawaii so they could get benefits while in California despite not being able to get married there. So from a legal prespective, its plain as day that it was an exploit. From a faith prespective...see above.
Im tired of typing now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Aug 14 2003, 10:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Aug 14 2003, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Seperation of Church and State was meant to protect the <b>Church</b> from government influence, not the state. Its a simple fact that when the Constitution was written up a massive portion of the population was Christian, and almost every state openly professed so.
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase while writing to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802, he wanted to assure them that his differing view of Christianity would not be pressed upon the church during his presidency.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics.
The problem is today, if you say you oppose homosexual marriage you are called a homophobe and a biggot. If you cite your Christian beliefs, you are called a zealot, by the same people who yell for tolerance. Well, call me whatever you want, but I oppose homosexual marriage.
Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto <b>my</b> faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, <b>this</b> is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.
If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the Knight Intiative, that is the same as abusing a loophole in the tax system. In other words, using the law in a way in which is was not intended. Obviously California law did not expect people to get married in Hawaii so they could get benefits while in California despite not being able to get married there. So from a legal prespective, its plain as day that it was an exploit. From a faith prespective...see above.
Im tired of typing now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Marriage is not religion-only. If it were, then atheists couldn't get married, and couldn't have the same benefits that Christians do. That is not right. All it is is discrimination against homosexual couples. Let them get married. Does it hurt you? No. Does it hurt children? Nope, despite what you may think. Does it hurt them? Not in the least.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto my faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, this is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How are they legally forcing their marriage onto you? We're not discussing churches limiting marriage, were discussing the state limiting marriage. That my friend is wrong. Now whether or not you want your church marrying same sex parties is up to your church. I find it highly hypocritical that people criticize how wrong it is for same sex couples to get married, yet they're perfectly OK with them living as a couple without a legal marriage.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Aug 14 2003, 09:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Aug 14 2003, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thomas Jefferson used the phrase while writing to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802, he wanted to assure them that his differing view of Christianity would not be pressed upon the church during his presidency.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thomas Jefferson wasn't a christian at all, he was a deist. So were most of the rest of the founding fathers. The nation very deliberately had no 'original faith'.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Aug 14 2003, 09:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Aug 14 2003, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mutated? Don't the words "separation of church and state" mean that the church and the state should be separate? And we all know what "separate" means right? Not tagether, having nothing to do with each other, and (here's the important one kiddies) having nothing to do with one another's decisions. Where's the mutation there? That's what the words friggin mean, there's no escaping that fact. And also, if the nation had kept it's "origional"(although by no means official) faith we'd probly still be burning witches and burning crosses on the lawn of catholics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto my faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, this is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forcing itheir views onto your faith? HOW?!?!?! No one is trying to pass a law making you ****, or disbanding the church, or even forcing shurches to marry homosexuals. There are other ways to get married, and they can use those. Marraige is not stricly the domain of religion, it is a legal thing, it's the government's business now, and has been for a while.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, while we're at it, let's treat homosexuals different in other legal ways too, like sentencing them more harchly for other crimes, and why not take it a step further, and make legal distinctions between the sexes, or maybe even the races! Yeah, then everything will be fair!
In case you havn't noticed, this isn't anatomy, it's law. Legally there should be no distinction based on the physical aspect of people.
As regards the separation of church and state, and the idea being "mutated", I suggest you read Dante's <i>Monarchia</i>, which is probably the earliest work espousing the separation of church and state (and it was written by a very devout Christian). Dante says, basically, that the church should govern spiritual matters, and the state should govern worldly matters, and the two should not mess with each other. The pope shouldn't use his position to influence the emperor, and vice versa. If you want the full argument as to why, read the book, but what he ends up laying out is that it's bad for all concerned if the two intermix.
Point is, the idea was not invented by the founding fathers, and it was not meant solely to protect the church from the state.
Comments
n.
-Fear of or contempt for lesbians and **** men.
-Behavior based on such a feeling.
I think it is deemed homophobic, because people are so use to the idea that only females and males marry. That it only makes sense a lady and man should marry in later thought of reproducing, which homosexuals can't. And that the thought of being as intimate as with a lady, but with a man (same sex), makes them feel homophobic.
Homophobia as it is used these days doesn't have anything directly to do with fear. Homophobia has come to mean any feelings of intolerance towards homosexuals.
Ok.
Whether or not thinking homosexual marriages are right is homophobic is a gray area, it depends where you are comming from because there actually are legitimate reasons for not having homosexual unions be equal to legal marriage. For one there are tax exemptions given to married couples based on the fact that one of them is a female, some of it has to do with the fact that women make less on average then men, most of it has to do with the fact that when a women has a child she has to take maternaty leave and usually her carreer is either ended or put on hold. There are also assumptions in current marriage legislation that give health benifets almost entirely based around the idea that one person in the marriage will be bearing a child. So under these circumstances I can see why homosexual unions can't be considered a legal marriage.
On a sidenote passing any legislation for religious reasons is incredibly silly.
No its not, you silly person you...NOW GO BUY MCDONALDS AND CONFORM TO US BWHAHAHAH
you just reversed yourself? I am completely confused now <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Not once have I reversed myself. My position has always been that church and state should not meddle in each other's affairs. If you think I have ever said otherwise, please indicate it to me.
On a sidenote passing any legislation for religious reasons is incredibly silly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, of course, the couple in question adopts, which many in fact do want to do. There are plenty of hetero couples that never have or want kids, and there are plenty of g@y couples that do want kids.
Regarding the sexism in earning potential thing, what if it's a lesbian couple? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> The argument reverses itself then. Of course, the entire thing is outdated because in this day and age men and women are supposed to be able to earn the same amount, and we should focus our efforts on making that's true rather than trying to compensate for inequality in our marriage laws.
And yes, passing legislation for religious reasons is silly. Monty Python silly, even.
Remember the quote I posted with the guy talking about "an attack on marriage"? Sounded like fear and paranoia to me.
The question of whether disallowing g@y marriage is "homophobic" can only be settled by looking at the actual arguments against g@y marriage. If all of them seem to come from ultimately "homophobic" standpoints, well, question settled.
I'd say that arguments settling on homosexuality being "evil" or "immoral" can be pretty well put into the "homophobia" box, just as arguments about interracial marriage being "unnatural" or whatever can be put into the "racist" box. If you don't like "homophobia", say "unfair discrimination against homosexuals" or whatever, it means basically the same thing. (Words like "homo-ist" or "g@y-ist" just don't sound right, so "homophobic" was coined.)
In any case, you earlier stated that the state cannot interfere legally with the affairs of a religious organization. You also stated you should be allowed to practice whatever religion freely, without government interference. Then you claimed that my example of Heaven's Gate was an example of when "religion should not be able to practice because it's against the law" (yes, that wasn't what your exact wording was but it was what you intended to say). Erm, forgive me, but that's a contradiction.
*edit* as was stated earlier, the beliefs of many Christians (yes, many, Nem) is that you should "hate the sin, but not the sinner." I can't say that I speak for religious fundamentalists, but that is far from homophobia.
The way it works is this: the government does not have the authority to legislate against religious practices in and of themselves. They can only legislate certain actions independently of their status as religious practices.
Suicide is illegal whether or not it's being done for religious reasons. This is an example of the separation of church and state. If suicide were to be legalized simply because of the belief system of the Heaven's Gate, it would be a violation of that separation.
Similarly, if homosexual marriages are to be illegalized simply because of the fundamentalist Christian belief system, that is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Suicide is illegal for reasons independent of any particular religion - each citizen has a right to the pursuit of life, so society seeks to prevent people from robbing themselves or others of that right. Whether you agree with the notion that the government should try to protect citizens from themselves is another debate, but since homosexual marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of the people involved any more than it infringes on the rights of those around them, it's an irrelevant point.
Furthermore, any action which discriminates against people solely on the basis of their homosexuality can be construed as "homophobic" under the generally accepted usage of that term, just as any action which discriminates against people solely on the basis of their race can be construed as "racist". The two are tightly corresponding terms, even though their suffixes differ. Blame the linguists.
Send in the church police <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
anyhow I can't believe my last post was dismissed because I used sarcasm to support my argument; I also can't believe I'm the only one who sees the irony that people against g4y marriages are against it for reasons including the fact that, in their eyes, g4ys aren't supposed to engage in normal, monogamous behaviour. If you consider it so "devient" to have many partners and engage in other sketchy practices outside of the eye of society-at-large, it's totally nonsensical to forbid them from doing something "normal." *conjures another racism comparison* it's like making a black man wear blackface makeup and dance around because in your view he's SUPPOSED to be a stupid bumbling idiot.
I also haven't seen any arguments against my statement that if it's wrong in the eyes of God and the Church for g4ys to wed, then why don't we let individual priests make that decision for themselves?
Btw the only time Samwise said state has a right to meddle in religious affairs is when religious affairs infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. the state isn't going to let you commit human sacrifice just because it's part of your religion.
Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant.
Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction?
Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the state has declared that there are some rights that you cannot voluntarily give up, for any reason outside of the due process of law. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lobby to legalize suicide and then you can claim that. people need to be protected from each other, which is why murder is illegal, and people need to be protected from themselves, which is why suicide is illegal. A person's religion can entail worship of the devil, being a nazi, believing humans should be sacrificed and that if they kill themselves they'll ride the tail of Halley's Comet with aliens, and it would all be legal as long as they didn't break the law, by actually assaulting or killing anyone or themselves. If you view laws against murder and suicide as "government-imposed views of criminality and morality," and that religion should be untouchable, then perhaps you're an anarchist or a fundamentalist... you really think people should be able to get away with murder by claiming it's their religious belief?
Exactly. And I'll chime in again because this seems to be a confusing point - the state isn't even really "meddling in religious affairs". It's preventing a murder or assisted suicide. The religious aspect of it is completely irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the fact that it is "assisted suicide" or murder is completely irrelevant. If you are concerned about strict separation of church and state, the government is not allowed to intervene. As I said before, you can voluntarily give up your rights.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lobby to legalize suicide and then you can claim that. people need to be protected from each other, which is why murder is illegal, and people need to be protected from themselves, which is why suicide is illegal. A person's religion can entail worship of the devil, being a nazi, believing humans should be sacrificed and that if they kill themselves they'll ride the tail of Halley's Comet with aliens, and it would all be legal as long as they didn't break the law, by actually assaulting or killing anyone or themselves. If you view laws against murder and suicide as "government-imposed views of criminality and morality," and that religion should be untouchable, then perhaps you're an anarchist or a fundamentalist... you really think people should be able to get away with murder by claiming it's their religious belief? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not, but I had to say it in order to make a point, because you were all gung-ho and haven't answered my question: Where do you draw the line? And, how do you determine where to draw the line? Obviously, you draw the line at the constitution, but then again that was drafted by some people over 200 years ago. Who's to say that they're right, if what you say is correct?
Actually I would expect that of anyone I vote for. When we elect a president he swears to "protect and uphold the constitution". When we elect legislators, we are similarly electing them to protect our rights, and to keep the country running smoothly. Their philosophies will obviously effect how they go about the second part, but the first part is always supreme in their loyalties. An elected official that imposes his own moral values over the rights of others is acting unconstitutionally, and I would hope that he be impeached.
I agree that we should question laws, especially those drafted by old men in white wigs; personally, I draw the line when harming oneself or another is involved. Laws should protect people, regardless of their religious beliefs. laws shouldn't limit people's freedoms, unless people having those freedoms would interfere with the life, liberty, or happiness of another (i.e. the freedom to kill someone).
but you're right: we strayed far from the original question. Being against g4y marriages is homophobic because there is no benefit to forbidding g4ys to wed besides the satisfaction of denying some americans a harmless right. you might say the benefit is preserving a time-honored tradition, but like you said, laws and traditions should be questioned and updated. let priests and other religious officials who have studied the bible all their lives decide, and at the very least allow g4ys secular marriages.
*edit* In fact, government intervention itself is forcing upon people its own views of "criminality" and "morality". Where can you draw the distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you can't voluntarily give up your rights. Assisted suicide is illegal whether or not it's religious in nature, so the government is not interfering in religious practices - it's just that the religious practices are interrupted in the course of the government upholding its normal laws.
The normal laws are NOT allowed to restrict anything based on it being a religious practice. For example, the government would not specifically illegalize "ritual human sacrifice" - that would actually in in violation of the Constitution. It CAN illegalize "the killing of one human by another," though, since that restriction has nothing to do with religion.
Criminality and morality are two separate things, and need not agree with each other. Stealing bread to feed your starving family is moral (by most standards), but not legal. Cheating on your girlfriend is legal, but not moral. The state only has the power to create and enforce laws that protect its citizens' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Constitution is basically what defines the US government. When debating law or politics of the United States, it's the highest authority.
As has been pointed out, we've drifted off topic significantly by now. I'm providing an argument in favor of allowing homosexual marriage, and I'm basing that argument on the Constitution of the United States. What you're doing, as far as I can tell, is providing an argument against it, basing the argument on the notion that we should throw out the Constitution and establish a theocracy. And somehow, this is supposed to prove that banning homosexual marriage is not discrimination against homosexuals, because homosexual marriage is akin to human sacrifice, because the Bible said so, and the Bible is admissible evidence because this is after all a theocracy, at least in your hypothetical world.
Have I misconstrued anything you've said?
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase while writing to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802, he wanted to assure them that his differing view of Christianity would not be pressed upon the church during his presidency.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics.
The problem is today, if you say you oppose homosexual marriage you are called a homophobe and a biggot. If you cite your Christian beliefs, you are called a zealot, by the same people who yell for tolerance. Well, call me whatever you want, but I oppose homosexual marriage.
Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto <b>my</b> faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, <b>this</b> is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.
If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the Knight Intiative, that is the same as abusing a loophole in the tax system. In other words, using the law in a way in which is was not intended. Obviously California law did not expect people to get married in Hawaii so they could get benefits while in California despite not being able to get married there. So from a legal prespective, its plain as day that it was an exploit. From a faith prespective...see above.
Im tired of typing now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase while writing to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802, he wanted to assure them that his differing view of Christianity would not be pressed upon the church during his presidency.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics.
The problem is today, if you say you oppose homosexual marriage you are called a homophobe and a biggot. If you cite your Christian beliefs, you are called a zealot, by the same people who yell for tolerance. Well, call me whatever you want, but I oppose homosexual marriage.
Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto <b>my</b> faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, <b>this</b> is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.
If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the Knight Intiative, that is the same as abusing a loophole in the tax system. In other words, using the law in a way in which is was not intended. Obviously California law did not expect people to get married in Hawaii so they could get benefits while in California despite not being able to get married there. So from a legal prespective, its plain as day that it was an exploit. From a faith prespective...see above.
Im tired of typing now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marriage is not religion-only. If it were, then atheists couldn't get married, and couldn't have the same benefits that Christians do. That is not right. All it is is discrimination against homosexual couples. Let them get married. Does it hurt you? No. Does it hurt children? Nope, despite what you may think. Does it hurt them? Not in the least.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How are they legally forcing their marriage onto you? We're not discussing churches limiting marriage, were discussing the state limiting marriage. That my friend is wrong. Now whether or not you want your church marrying same sex parties is up to your church. I find it highly hypocritical that people criticize how wrong it is for same sex couples to get married, yet they're perfectly OK with them living as a couple without a legal marriage.
The forefathers never intended for the nation to stray so far away from its original faith that 5 simple words would be mutated to keep the Church <b>out</b> of politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thomas Jefferson wasn't a christian at all, he was a deist. So were most of the rest of the founding fathers. The nation very deliberately had no 'original faith'.
Mutated? Don't the words "separation of church and state" mean that the church and the state should be separate? And we all know what "separate" means right? Not tagether, having nothing to do with each other, and (here's the important one kiddies) having nothing to do with one another's decisions. Where's the mutation there? That's what the words friggin mean, there's no escaping that fact. And also, if the nation had kept it's "origional"(although by no means official) faith we'd probly still be burning witches and burning crosses on the lawn of catholics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? Because Im one of those 'old fashion Christian' people, I don't hate homosexuals, but when they try to legally force their views onto my faith then I have a problem with it. This is where that whole Seperation of Church and state thing comes in, this is what it was meant for. To protect the beliefs of people from political influence. Pretty much what the church is being told these days by many same sex marriage lobbyist is that if you belive true marriage is between male and female your homophobic, a biggot, old fashioned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forcing itheir views onto your faith? HOW?!?!?!
No one is trying to pass a law making you ****, or disbanding the church, or even forcing shurches to marry homosexuals. There are other ways to get married, and they can use those. Marraige is not stricly the domain of religion, it is a legal thing, it's the government's business now, and has been for a while.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, while we're at it, let's treat homosexuals different in other legal ways too, like sentencing them more harchly for other crimes, and why not take it a step further, and make legal distinctions between the sexes, or maybe even the races! Yeah, then everything will be fair!
In case you havn't noticed, this isn't anatomy, it's law. Legally there should be no distinction based on the physical aspect of people.
Point is, the idea was not invented by the founding fathers, and it was not meant solely to protect the church from the state.