Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jasonluckydog

ChicK-Fil-A hates gays and my Insurance company supports them

528 posts in this topic

Your point would be relevant if christianity or any other religion were the only ones that didn't allow gays to marry. The truth is that there have been very few cases of cultures that recognized same sex marriage throughout history, christian or otherwise. The tradition of opposite sex marriages only goes back beyond the time of Christ. Even the ancient greeks who practiced homosexuality openly, didn't really go for same sex marriage. In a few cases perhaps, but marriage was generally seen more as a contract designed to produce stable families/children. Its a tradition that has existed for the last several thousand years and to expect it to be changed in a period of a few years and that everyone would go along with it is ludicrous. Attitudes are going to take time to change, and thats just the way it is.

While a large percentage of those that are against same sex marriage are religious, that doesn't mean that the 1st amendment religous freedom has any bearing on government recognition of marriage. The 14th amendment is likely what will eventually get rules against gay marriage overturned, not the 1st.

Btw, Muslims do outlaw pork.

Muslims don't try to outlaw pork for everyone else in the U.S. That's what I was getting at.

And yes other faiths prohibit it, but in the United States, Christians are for the most part the driving religious demographic that actively votes against their rights. Whenever politicians that don't support gay marriage are asked why - you usually get the whole "biblical definition" and "traditional family," and most of, if not all the time, they have Christian backgrounds. I have yet to see Muslims or Jews actively pursue the "defense of marriage" in the United States like Christians have. Regardless, even if they did - the DOMA definition still adheres to a religious definition and was voted into place by religious people because they agreed with that religious definition. Therefore, that law respects those faiths particularly, which in the United States, is Christianity. If a legislator argues to defend the "biblical" definition of marriage, how is any legislation doing so not a respect to the establishment of Christianity? A small minority against same sex marriage may be not be against it due to religious reasons (still have yet to meet any of that minority, though) but one must acknowledge the fact that in United States politics and government, Christianity the driving force behind "no gay" (we'll call it that for now) legislation. Take Christianity out of the picture, and "gay marriage" wouldn't be an issue. That in itself speaks for how tied to religion the whole ordeal is - it's hardly a matter of culture in the U.S as much as it is a matter of religion.

And perhaps, yes, it is hard to change "thousands of years of thinking" but for hundreds of years, the U.S use to think that slavery and humans as property was okay, and obviously many people were firmly rooted in that belief, enough so for it to serve as one of the biggest catalysts of the South succeeding and the Civil War. Totally different matter? Yes, but just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it doesn't need to change, and change right now.

We as a race are the only race that puts a "taboo" on homosexuality. It occurs in nature, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehh I don't know, might be able to make the argument that this is people voting in a law favoring certain religious beliefs to "irreligious beliefs" which is tied to the 14th amendment (see Gitlow v. New York and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet) but I tend to think Davidson Deac II is correct in that 14th is where this is most likely to get traction in unconstitutionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 14th is where it'll happen too, it's an easier argument to make and prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We in the Tinderbox spend most of our time accusing one another of being bigots and racists for no reason at all. So when actual bigots show up, sheeeeiiiit, it's gonna go for some time.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims don't try to outlaw pork for everyone else in the U.S. That's what I was getting at.

And yes other faiths prohibit it, but in the United States, Christians are for the most part the driving religious demographic that actively votes against their rights. Whenever politicians that don't support gay marriage are asked why - you usually get the whole "biblical definition" and "traditional family," and most of, if not all the time, they have Christian backgrounds. I have yet to see Muslims or Jews actively pursue the "defense of marriage" in the United States like Christians have. Regardless, even if they did - the DOMA definition still adheres to a religious definition and was voted into place by religious people because they agreed with that religious definition. Therefore, that law respects those faiths particularly, which in the United States, is Christianity. If a legislator argues to defend the "biblical" definition of marriage, how is any legislation doing so not a respect to the establishment of Christianity? A small minority against same sex marriage may be not be against it due to religious reasons (still have yet to meet any of that minority, though) but one must acknowledge the fact that in United States politics and government, Christianity the driving force behind "no gay" (we'll call it that for now) legislation. Take Christianity out of the picture, and "gay marriage" wouldn't be an issue. That in itself speaks for how tied to religion the whole ordeal is - it's hardly a matter of culture in the U.S as much as it is a matter of religion.

And perhaps, yes, it is hard to change "thousands of years of thinking" but for hundreds of years, the U.S use to think that slavery and humans as property was okay, and obviously many people were firmly rooted in that belief, enough so for it to serve as one of the biggest catalysts of the South succeeding and the Civil War. Totally different matter? Yes, but just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it doesn't need to change, and change right now.

We as a race are the only race that puts a "taboo" on homosexuality. It occurs in nature, and has been for hundreds of thousands of years.

There are very few societies christian or otherwise today that recognize gay marriage. If you remove christianity, would that mean that the US would accept gay marriage? Well it would depend on what you replace it with (and it would be replaced with something). Replace it with Hindu or Islam or Chinese communism, and we aren't even having this discussion. And regarding your comparison to slavery, it took society as a whole, hundreds, and even thousands of years to change attitudes on Slavery. Compared to that, attitudes towards gay marriage are occurring at a very rapid pace.

Muslims don't try to outlaw pork in the US because there aren't enough of them to try it. If they were the majority, we don't know what they might or might not try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehh I don't know, might be able to make the argument that this is people voting in a law favoring certain religious beliefs to "irreligious beliefs" which is tied to the 14th amendment (see Gitlow v. New York and Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet) but I tend to think Davidson Deac II is correct in that 14th is where this is most likely to get traction in unconstitutionality.

If it comes to the Supreme Court, some on the far left of the court might cite the 1st amendment, and religious beliefs, but for the rest of them, I think the 14th will be the centerpiece of their argument should laws against gay marriage be overturned.

Of couse, the whole thing would go away if governments get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, and make it a purely religious function. And they should, (but they wont).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few societies christian or otherwise today that recognize gay marriage. If you remove christianity, would that mean that the US would accept gay marriage? Well it would depend on what you replace it with (and it would be replaced with something). Replace it with Hindu or Islam or Chinese communism, and we aren't even having this discussion. And regarding your comparison to slavery, it took society as a whole, hundreds, and even thousands of years to change attitudes on Slavery. Compared to that, attitudes towards gay marriage are occurring at a very rapid pace.

Muslims don't try to outlaw pork in the US because there aren't enough of them to try it. If they were the majority, we don't know what they might or might not try.

I was speaking in terms of a secular society, taking Christianity out of the equation doesn't mean you need to fill the hypothetical absence of faith with another faith. Regardless of whatever religion you could replace it with, religious texts/beliefs should play no part in influencing governing and law making. If a politician agrees with the "biblical definition" of marriage, fine, but when they argue their point on a political/legal/governing stage, a legitimate argument must be presented that has nothing to do with the bible or religion, and "tradition" is not a legitimate argument. The same goes for a Muslim, or a Jew, and their respective faiths/holy books. The general populous should not be subject to the beliefs of the majority simply because they are the majority.

And the whole "replace it with Chinese Communism" is a completely, completely different matter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother sister, or mother-son relationships lead to some terrible issues with children. That's why it's illegal.

Gay marriage is completely different. Completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me lol

Dear Religion,

While you were arguing what chicken sandwiches were okay to eat and who should marry who, I just landed on Mars.

Sincerely, Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me lol

Dear Religion,

While you were arguing what chicken sandwiches were okay to eat and who should marry who, I just landed on Mars.

Sincerely, Science.

And I created Mars

Sincerely, God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I created Mars

Sincerely, God

And I created God

Sincerely, Bronze Age Bedouin Goat Herder

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man you are the gold winner of the reach-o-lympics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites