Why against gays?

[Godless]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

I understand what you're saying, but:

I disagree. Public opinion within your specific sphere of reference strongly supports gay marriage, but when it's come down to votes: It's been outvoted in every state it's been voted on and has only been struck down in the courts. If I'm wrong, and I don't think I am, can you quote source for when it's been put to a vote and supported? I believe in something like 29 states, it's been outvoted.

I don't have time to look up detailed statistics, but the numbers I've found so far indicate that you're correct. The states that have legalized gay marriage have done so through legislative vote, not popular vote. My mistake.

It's part of the culture.

You might think it's a wrong part, but I want you to consider this: If you moved to a place where Hinduism was the cultural majority and laws prevented the purchase of beef, would you start a protest for a McDonald's to open up?

If you moved to a Jainism majority area and laws prevented the eating of any animal products, would you protest the lack of bacon and eggs in the morning?

If not, why not? And if you would, how would you go about trying to force the Jainist state to open up a slaughterhouse and where would you think it appropriate to go eat a nice big juicy steak?

I detest theocracy in any and all forms it takes. Religion should not dictate secular law, period. That said, I realize that I'm fortunate to live in a country where I can't be hung for opposing the religious majority. I'd love to see sharia law abolished in the Middle East, but I have no desire to change an entire culture.

You claim that Christian values are part of our culture. You're right, but this isn't Saudi Arabia. Minority religions and people of no faith have the right to be spoken for in this country as well. Keep the Christian majority in our culture, not our laws.

[annewandering]

Originally Posted by Godless

You claim that Christian values are part of our culture. You're right, but this isn't Saudi Arabia. Minority religions and people of no faith have the right to be spoken for in this country as well. Keep the Christian majority in our culture, not our laws.

OK but problem is how do you keep Atheism from being the state religion if you do that? We are not an atheist country so why should the state take it as its religion?

[Godless]

Originally Posted by annewandering

OK but problem is how do you keep Atheism from being the state religion if you do that? We are not an atheist country so why should the state take it as its religion?

Religious neutrality isn't the same as state-sponsored atheism. Christianity will always be the majority religion. But that doesn't mean that we can impose Christian values on our society via legislation. Religious freedom applies to ALL religions, and those of no religion deserve protection under the law as well. In some cases, that means protection from the Christian majority.

[annewandering]

Originally Posted by Godless

Religious neutrality isn't the same as state-sponsored atheism. Christianity will always be the majority religion. But that doesn't mean that we can impose Christian values on our society via legislation. Religious freedom applies to ALL religions, and those of no religion deserve protection under the law as well. In some cases, that means protection from the Christian majority.

Oh I understand what you are saying but if you force no religion at all then you have atheism since that is what atheism is. That is why we have not been able to find a way to solve the problem of religion in government. Now the constitution says we can not have one religion favored. That is not the same thing as saying we can not have religion at all.
Honestly, I doubt there is a solution especially when some religions/groups do want to be the one making the rules.
It is a case of 'does not play well with other children'. No give and take.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by Godless

Religious neutrality isn't the same as state-sponsored atheism. Christianity will always be the majority religion. But that doesn't mean that we can impose Christian values on our society via legislation. Religious freedom applies to ALL religions, and those of no religion deserve protection under the law as well. In some cases, that means protection from the Christian majority.

I see what you're saying, Godless, but can you explain the difference between Christian values and regular old values? Or are you suggesting that you can't force values at all on other people via legislation?

I'm cautious. I suspect you definitely aren't saying the latter, but without knowing what you think should be the basis for the creation of law, it's hard to discuss this effectively.

[Godless]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

I see what you're saying, Godless, but can you explain the difference between Christian values and regular old values? Or are you suggesting that you can't force values at all on other people via legislation?

I'm cautious. I suspect you definitely aren't saying the latter, but without knowing what you think should be the basis for the creation of law, it's hard to discuss this effectively.

There are things that society in general views as wrong, like murder, rape, and theft. People of all religions (and no religion) know that these things are bad. Other issues, like gay marriage and reproductive rights, are at the focus of an attack that is being spearheaded almost exclusively by Christian conservatives. These are issues that are divisive even among Christians, let alone the rest of us. But the fact remains that homosexuals are becoming more and more accepted in our society. Last year's repeal of DADT speaks volumes about the changing moral landscape in this country.

As I mentioned previously, I do not and will never condone any attempt to force religious institutions to condone gay marriage, but I think a strong case can be made for it on a secular level. Let churches decide who they want to marry, and let gays get married outside of the realm of religious control.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by Godless

There are things that society in general views as wrong, like murder, rape, and theft. People of all religions (and no religion) know that these things are bad. Other issues, like gay marriage and reproductive rights, are at the focus of an attack that is being spearheaded almost exclusively by Christian conservatives. These are issues that are divisive even among Christians, let alone the rest of us. But the fact remains that homosexuals are becoming more and more accepted in our society. Last year's repeal of DADT speaks volumes about the changing moral landscape in this country.

As I mentioned previously, I do not and will never condone any attempt to force religious institutions to condone gay marriage, but I think a strong case can be made for it on a secular level. Let churches decide who they want to marry, and let gays get married outside of the realm of religious control.

Okay - You didn't really answer my question, Godless. Can you tell me what you think should be the basis for creating laws within a society? Would it be a moral majority? Two thirds majority? Universal majority?

In order to get to the meat of the disagreement, we need to know what laws should be based on.

I agree that you cannot create a tyranny of the majority, so what should our laws be based on?

[Godless]

I believe that the Constitution should be used as a basis for legislation in the US. As I mentioned before, I don't see any room for overlap between the Constitution and the Bible on the issue of gay marriage. Banning gay marriage is a restriction of the liberty of a significant number of our citizens, and that's unconstitutional.

I'm not against the idea of a moral majority when the consensus is in the best interests of all members of society. It's when the religious majority tries to dictate our morals at the expense of a harmless minority group that I take issue.

[anatess]

Originally Posted by Godless

I believe that the Constitution should be used as a basis for legislation in the US. As I mentioned before, I don't see any room for overlap between the Constitution and the Bible on the issue of gay marriage. Banning gay marriage is a restriction of the liberty of a significant number of our citizens, and that's unconstitutional.

This is not true. State recognized marriage has always been a privilege, not a right. Hence, you can ban marriage between first cousins from being recognized as a valid union.

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by Godless

I believe that the Constitution should be used as a basis for legislation in the US. As I mentioned before, I don't see any room for overlap between the Constitution and the Bible on the issue of gay marriage. Banning gay marriage is a restriction of the liberty of a significant number of our citizens, and that's unconstitutional.

I'm not against the idea of a moral majority when the consensus is in the best interests of all members of society. It's when the religious majority tries to dictate our morals at the expense of a harmless minority group that I take issue.

Okay, Godless - And who dictates that they're harmless? Obviously, the religious majority doesn't think that it's a harmless minority group. In this very thread, whether you agree or not(And I certainly do not with many, as I've stated), there have been several statements of why they believe it isn't harmless.

Also, let's address the 'liberty' part. What do you think the definition of liberty is and why would a 'Marriage by a different name' law restrict the liberty of a significant number of your citizens?