544 replies to this topic

[Davidson Deac II]

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).

[Coheed]

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.

[CCS]

I don't care if the owner of Chic-fil secretly sacrifices chickens to Satan, they have good food and I'm going to continue eating there. I think this entire thing is pretty hilarious honestly. Who gives a fug what the owner of a restraunt thinks about something political? The gays acting like they're being oppressed are hilarious and the Christians fighting for Chic-fil-a's right to party are even more funny. The people bashing on Christians and calling them ignorant racists or whatever are pretty annoying though. They BELIEVE that being gay is wrong just is much as you believe that's it's right, and you can't knock them for defending their religion. I honestly don't care about gay marriage either way but the gay marriage supporters come off as very arrogant and that ends up making me dislike them. I don't think that gay pride parades and making out in public are going to win them over any supporters.

[King]

This thread fuging depresses me and makes me hate humanity. The government should never have let the public vote on an issue that, the outcome of which, denies privilege to a group of people based on a lifestyle choice because our moron public will use their religion as a crutch to impose their bigoted ideals on society. Gay marriage does not force you to approve of gay marriage. It does not force your church to condone gay marriage. It does not force your pastor to marry gay people. It does not change the bible, and doesn't change your interpretation of what Jesus said. ALL it does is allow for civil unions between two loving people to be afforded the same government privilege that EVERYONE should have. The Supreme court should just rule that the governmental definition of marriage includes all legal two party unions, religion be damned. This is not a fundamentalist government and the asshats in this country continue to try to make it so.

This is precisely why social democracy is an awful system of government.

It exists solely as a justification for the oppression of individual rights. Liberals use it to loot the wealthy, just as conservatives use it to oppress religious minorities.

Your misanthropy is naive, though.

[King]

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.

More or less.

Even if Christianity were replaced only with a vacuum, gay marriage is still a big taboo. It would be opposed for the same reason that people oppose brother-sister marriages, or sexual relationships between sons and their mothers.

This was Aristophanes' defense against Plato and philosophy in ancient Greece. He argued that teaching children to think philosophically and deconstruct the world around them would lead to things like incest and family violence.

For the most part, he was right. Which begs the question: is philosophy worth it if it means tearing down taboos that are, for the most part, pretty disgusting. (The answer is yes.)

[cookinwithgas]

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.

[Panthro]

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.

[stirs]

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

[NanuqoftheNorth]

And I created Mars
Sincerely, God

And I created God
Sincerely, Bronze Age Bedouin Goat Herder

[King]

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.

People with health problems are also more likely to have unhealthy children.

I've never seen a serious proposal to make it illegal for fat people to have kids.

[cookinwithgas]

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

[mmmbeans]

And I created Mars
Sincerely, God

you know where the name Mars comes from right?

[mmmbeans]

Honestly, the most confusing thing about this whole debate is how many people think Chic-fil-a has good food.

[cookinwithgas]

It's not that bad, in fact I don't mind getting it once in a while. The problem is they don't really have a lot of choice there.

It's the "Stepford Wives" mentality of the employees that freaks me out a bit. They seem way too happy for people working in fast food. That may be an endorsement of the company culture for some, but kind of creeps me out.

[Panthro]

Honestly, the most confusing thing about this whole debate is how many people think Chic-fil-a has good food.

I wouldn't be able to eat there even if they weren't run by bigoted white trash.

Peanut Oil