Originally Posted By EdisYoda Give DDMAN a cigar! We're facinated with every detail of other people's lives, oh, but don't you dare do that to me. We can't have it both ways. Personally, keep your personal belief's away from me and I won't pester you with mine.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Anyone is welcome to support whatever legislation they choose.>> Does that also include spending millions of ad dollars lying about some legislation in an effort to mislead voters into voting for it when they don't actually support it?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Anyone is welcome to support whatever legislation they choose.<< Assumes that any topic ought to be up for legislation. The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect people from government intrusion. That's why, Josh, your right to practice Mormonism isn't up for a vote. Good thing, too, otherwise your faith would've been stamped out in the 19th century. So no, people are't welcome to support whatever legislation they like. They are only welcome to support legislation that doesn't violate the Constitution. Preventing gay marriage violates the Constitution. Ironically, you seem to understand this, hence your "I know it's inevitable" attitude.
Originally Posted By mele I will never understand how a group who has suffered so much from the prejudices of others can, in turn, do the same to others. It's one of the worst human traits imaginable.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The one great thing about growing old... you realize you've made so damn many mistakes in your life that you stop making judgments about others.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip More or less, yes. When you are young you think you know everything. At least I did.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "That's why, Josh, your right to practice Mormonism isn't up for a vote. Good thing, too, otherwise your faith would've been stamped out in the 19th century." So many Christians who would like to dump the SOCAS don't realize how it protects their own beliefs.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Everyone is SO damn entitled in this country. Since they find offense or don't like something, how dare anyone try to do it because GOD FORBID they become offended. With the risk of offending Christians, and I do bite my tongue a lot around here because I don't like offending people I like, wouldn't it just be better if we took the whole religious aspect out of marriage? If religious groups or organizations want to continue only marrying ONE man and ONE woman (gag) they are free to do that within their OWN church. But legally and in all churches who agree with marriage equality it would be recognized. That way the backwards church down the street who has the "You will burn in Hell" sign on their front lawn isn't forced to marry anyone their twisted minds deem wrong, but they still don't have the power to legally take it away from anyone else. Seems like a logical solution to me.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal contract that confers certain legal and economic benefits on to the couple. The various states recognize marriages performed by judges, court clerks, justices of the peace, religious figures and in the case of California anyone who gets a permit to officiate over a marriage ceremony. When religious figures perform ceremonies, the marriage isn't recognized by the state until the state is notified that the ceremony happened. So marriages are only legally binding until the state is involved. The ministers and priests in these marriages are performing as agents of the state and get their authorization from the state. The state can't compel a church to perform a ceremony that they find distasteful. But a church, which is acting as an agent of the state in officiating a marriage, shouldn't be able to compel the state to deny rights citizens.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As Tom points out, no church is forced to marry any (straight) couple they don't want to marry NOW. So those who say that their church's rights to not marry gay couples will be in jeopardy either don't know what they're talking about or are deliberately trying to foster fear. If you're a straight couple and you walk into a Catholic church and say "we want you to marry us," the first thing they're going to ask is "Are you Catholic?" If you say no, they're going to turn you down. If you say yes, they're going to ask if either of you has been married before and didn't get an annulment. You get the idea. They as a church get to make their own rules as to who they marry (I only bring up Catholics, because their rules are probably the best known) and who they don't. Obviously it's legal for straight couples to get married in all 50 states, yet no church can be compelled to marry any of those legally-eligible couples they don't want to. Some churches require you to be a member of their denomination; others even require you to be a member of their particular congregation. Others don't care. And of course if you can't find any church willing to marry you, you can (and have ALWAYS been able in our country) to be married at the courthouse. None of that would change with marriage equality. Some churches would do it (some already do); most wouldn't at first but may start up later, some may never. It would be up to them, as it is now with any straight couple who wants to get married.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Seems like a logical solution to me." Religious people don't listen to logic. If they did they wouldn't be religious.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Religious people don't listen to logic. If they did they wouldn't be religious." OK, this kind of comment doesn't do much to further any kind of reasonable debate because it over-generalizes (if there is such a thing) and stereotypes people who believe in God, if you maintain that anyone who believes is "religious". I believe, but I also don't subscribe to any particular religion. But because I've made a conscious decision to believe in God doesn't make me illogical, not by a long shot. Matter of fact, I used logic to get to my belief, so I could turn it around if I wanted. People who don't believe are illogical, but that wouldn't be respectful to their point of view. I believe there will be a next minute, this evening, a tomorrow and a next year, even though they haven't happened yet and therefore aren't real. Can't see it, can't touch it, but it's coming. Matter of fact, since I began this paragraph, some of it is already here. I don't think it's a stretch to assign that thought process to believing in God when coupled with other things I've encountered in my life. NONE of which has anything to do with the Bible's definition of marriage, but there you are.
Originally Posted By ecdc I agree that the statement that religious people are illogical is unfair and paints with far too broad a brush. But I understand the place the statement comes from. Science exists to test the observable and the falsifiable. Belief in God falls outside of this. That's neither a criticism nor a praise; it's just how it is. God is not observable or falsifiable. Value judgments (ie, notions of sin) also fall outside of the realm of science. Often, however, science will demonstrate that more specific religious teachings or beliefs are inaccurate. Science cannot demonstrate anything with 100% accuracy, but by observing and falsifying (and failing to falsify) it can come pretty dang close. This is where some religious believers get in trouble and look ridiculous. Hard science tells us that the earth is billions of years old, not six-thousand. Social sciences tell us entire New Testament stories appeared centuries after the death of Jesus. They tell us Solomon's Temple probably never existed and that Jews were never mass enslaved by Egyptians. So religious believers often do one of two things: They mock and dismiss science, or they engage in pseudoscience to "prove" their beliefs. Many Christians have no problem admitting the age of the earth; but many more are discomfited by New Testament textual criticism. I get it: there are many, many people of faith who do none of these things, who harmonize science and faith with little trouble. But there are millions of Americans who don't, and they use the luxury of their ignorance as ammo against science and reality to avoid the conflicts of Sunday school and fifth grade earth science class. Those many millions of people are, by definition of the fallacies they engage in to sustain their beliefs, illogical.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "OK, this kind of comment doesn't do much to further any kind of reasonable debate because it over-generalizes (if there is such a thing) and stereotypes people who believe in God, if you maintain that anyone who believes is "religious"." Does everything posted here need several paragraphs to be explained? Yep, I made a broad generalization, but the point was clearly made. From my view as an atheist a belief in a higher power is completely illogical.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip To me the thought of the universe without God is illogical. The "big bang" is generally credited with creating the universe. I agree with that. But that tightly packed ball of mass and energy had to come from SOMEWHERE. If not God, where? Science has no theories and God is as reasonable an explanation as any.
