Originally Posted By jonvn Which big inaccurate statement? The one where I said does instead of did, where the other person stated it was otherwise inaccurate? Sorry, but that's a bit too easy for you. The facts are what I said them to be. They did not allow black people to become bishops because of a made up reason. And the people they made up a reason about just happened to be the downtrodden in this country when the religion was invented. I stopped paying attention to mormon theology a while back. Mostly because I had learned enough about it at that point to understand what it was all about. My comment about keeping up with mormon theology was a bit of humor. I keep up with the theology about as much as I need to, which is basically hardly at all. I do not see a need to verse myself in the inner workings of a group of people who engage in irrational nonsense. Neither do I delve into the inner thoughts of those people who worship Odin, or those who claim to be devil worshippers. They are all the same sort of thing to me.
Originally Posted By jonvn But my "facts" are what they are. If you can find an error in them, feel free to point that out. Maybe you'll change my mind about something if you can do so. In this case, it really is of no consequence with regards to the discussion at hand.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Neither do I delve into the inner thoughts of those people who worship Odin, or those who claim to be devil worshippers. They are all the same sort of thing to me.>> So anyone who is religious is a kook.
Originally Posted By jonvn Not a kook, but certainly deluded. Explain to me why they are not. Explain to me what the difference is of believing in Jesus as opposed to Odin. Or someone worshipping the Roman god Jupiter. Explain it to me.
Originally Posted By ecdc "So anyone who is religious is a kook." I don't think anyone who is religious is a kook - not by a longshot. But, to get back to the issue of gay marriage and advocating laws to appeal to people's inbred dislike of homosexuality, I think it is valid to step back and point out that one person's religion is another's superstition. When we start talking about legislating religious beliefs, be it anti-gay legislation, prayer in schools, or the 10 commandments in court houses, it's fair to ask why we're singling out one kind of faith or belief in the unknown and unprovable and not another. As I've said before, Tom Cruise can believe all he wants in Scientology. But if he starts saying that Xenu is on his way back to earth to destroy us and we need to raise taxes to fight him off with a giant laser, then I have the right to say "No thanks - don't make me pay for your religioius beliefs." Same thing with any unprovable religious belief, like, say, God doesn't like homosexuality.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So if religious people shouldn't be allowed to force their beliefs on the secular, should secular people be allowed to force their beliefs on the religious?
Originally Posted By jonvn No one should force their beliefs on anyone. Particularly through use of the government and its laws.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Particularly through use of the government and its laws.<< What if you believe that children would be better served being raised in an orphanage than by a parent?
Originally Posted By jonvn Has nothing to do with religion, which is what I was referring to in response to Douglas.
Originally Posted By jonvn You see, I'm all for religious freedom. Provided it doesn't affect me. If you want to go handle snakes or speak in tongues and raise your hands over your head and get a dopamine high, fine by me. Go right ahead. Just don't try and tell me I should or should not do something based on your little version of insanity.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No one should force their beliefs on anyone. Particularly through use of the government and its laws.> Then we're in agreement that secular people shouldn't be able to force their belief that homosexuality is fine and that marriage should be between any two people on religious people who believe that homosexuality isn't fine and that marriage should be between one adult unmarried man and one adult unmarried woman who are not related, right?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Your belief is that the kids are better served in an orphanage, jon. Regardless of whether it is based on a religion, it's still a belief. My belief is that we support the family to raise healthy, well-adjusted kids instead of dividing the family apart. That's more of a political belief than a religious one.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then we're in agreement that secular people shouldn't be able to force their belief that homosexuality is fine" It isn't being forced on anyone. If you don't want to engage in homosexual behavior, then you don't have to. And if you belong to a church that thinks that homosexuals should not be married, then that church should not be forced to marry homosexual individuals. Otherwise, the government is there to enforce equal protection of the laws between people. Which means a legal marriage contract should be able to be exercised between two consenting adults. So yes, then, I suppose we do agree.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Regardless of whether it is based on a religion, it's still a belief." If you want to take it that way, sure. "My belief is that we support the family to raise healthy, well-adjusted kids instead of dividing the family apart." I would agree. Except that we are not doing that. And I think by making the alternative very unpleasant in doing what I suggest, we will help make that goal achievable. We are not doing that now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It isn't being forced on anyone.> It was in Massachusetts. <Which means a legal marriage contract should be able to be exercised between two consenting adults.> Of course, as long as they fall into the parameters established by the State, which is generally that marriage is between one adult unmarried man and one adult unmarried woman who are not related.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It was in Massachusetts." So the Catholic churches in Massachusetts were being forced to perform gay weddings, were they? Somehow I don't think they were. "which is generally that marriage is between one adult unmarried man and one adult unmarried woman who are not related." Marriage as defined by the government is basically a contract between two adults. If two adults can enter into this type of contract, then due to the equal protection clause then any two adults can enter into it. And if someone ELSE wants to go do that, it certainly does not force YOU into doing it. So no one is being forced into anything. No one's beliefs are being forced. Just equal application of the law. Equal application of the law DOES sometimes have to be forced, as it was with minorities in this country, who for years were treated as less than human, and forced into "separate but equal" types of activity. Well, that's wrong, the anti-gay marriage thing is wrong, and it is wrong for the same reason. And I personally don't even know why anyone even cares. If two people want to get married, there is no harm in it. And to the extent that people are against it, makes me really wonder about their sexual orientation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So the Catholic churches in Massachusetts were being forced to perform gay weddings, were they?> No, but religious people are being forced to recognize gay marriages. <Marriage as defined by the government is basically a contract between two adults.> Two adults who meet certain requirements that I mentioned previously. <If two adults can enter into this type of contract, then due to the equal protection clause then any two adults can enter into it.> As long as they meet the requirements previously mentioned, they can. <If two people want to get married, there is no harm in it.> That's a secular belief that religious people don't share. By your own admission, it shouldn't be forced on them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, but religious people are being forced to recognize gay marriages." But the religions are not. And they are forced to recognize them only insofar as they are legal contracts. Religious people are also being forced to have blacks sit in the same aisles with them in church. Kind of awful, you know? "Two adults who meet certain requirements that I mentioned previously." It's two adults. It's a contract. That's it. "That's a secular belief that religious people don't share." Well, it's fortunate for us then that religious belief isn't forced onto governmental activity, which does things like enforce contracts. Which is what marriage is.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Marriage is more than a legal contract between two people. When a state recognizes a marriage, then it's a contract between all of society. And society has the right to determine the terms of the contract.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Marriage is more than a legal contract between two people." As far as the government is concerned it isn't. That's why these things end up in court. As far as religion goes, it is. That's why they want to have a say in it. "society has the right to determine the terms of the contract." Society has many rights. But it does not have the right to discriminate against a group of law abiding citizens. That is what the EPC is all about. "Society" is what the civil rights movement for years have had to contend with. As far as religions go, I think they have every right to be exclusive. As far as the government goes? They do not.
