the conservative case for same sex marriage

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Given that all three of the major religions share negative views of homosexuality, exactly which theology is being imposed? Catholicism? Presbyterianism? Judaism? Mormonism? You can't have a pluralistic theocracy Philly.

But it's ok to "impose" secular values on people of faith right?

So, you're in favor of tyranny of the majority? Infringing upon the rights of minority groups because the majority says so?

Secularism doesn't impose. That's the nature of secularism. Secularism is not a religion; it has no hierarchy, no demographic, no membership. It's a concept, nothing more. That's why it's the best thing to rule, because it's not a club, a political party, a religion. It's just an idea. It's a collection of logic, nothing more, nothing less.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BVS

I know you won't answer me but I'll ask anyways...

How and where is a "secular value" imposed on people of faith?

So when I believe that all consenting adults are created equal, how does that effect your faith?

Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal. No public debate, no vote, just POW. And it remains an acrimonious issue to this day because it was imposed rather than legislated and has never enjoyed majority support.

But for the most part we don't impose laws in this country.

Since I answered you, what is an example of religious theocracy "imposed" on an unwilling citizenry in America?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

So, you're in favor of tyranny of the majority? Infringing upon the rights of minority groups because the majority says so?

You mean like health care reconciliation?

Secularism doesn't impose. That's the nature of secularism. Secularism is not a religion; it has no hierarchy, no demographic, no membership. It's a concept, nothing more. That's why it's the best thing to rule, because it's not a club, a political party, a religion. It's just an idea. It's a collection of logic, nothing more, nothing less.

You mean like the Communist Soviet Union?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal. No public debate, no vote, just POW. And it remains an acrimonious issue to this day because it was imposed rather than legislated and has never enjoyed majority support.

But for the most part we don't impose laws in this country.

Since I answered you, what is an example of religious theocracy "imposed" on an unwilling citizenry in America?

Well besides not having your facts correct...

Abortion, not a strictly religious debate.

Gay marriage opposition is...

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You mean like health care reconciliation?


You mean like the Communist Soviet Union?

Apples to oranges.

Communists = political party.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Given that all three of the major religions share negative views of homosexuality, exactly which theology is being imposed? Catholicism? Presbyterianism? Judaism? Mormonism? You can't have a pluralistic theocracy Philly.

But it's ok to "impose" secular values on people of faith right?

Monotheism for starters.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal.

Huh. I thought the country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find that the government did not have control over women's reproductive systems.

[The_Pac_Mule]

But what he doesn't understand or explain is how? When all those straight white conservatives get married in a church do they also have to get unioned by the government? Also what if the church does want to marry gay couples, what happens then?

Yes, what I was suggesting is that marriage ceremonies would no longer have any legal bearing, so if they want their benefits they would get unionized by the gov't. And if a church wants to marry gay couples, other churchs can't do anything about it.

Many people will argue against same-sex marriage because of "seperation of church and state," as they believe marriage is a purely religious ceremony. Obviously many members here argue against that. But if what I was saying came to pass, that argument goes out the door, and the only people that would make an argument against same-sex unions would be a few ultra-conservative homophobes. So everyone wins?

Which is a cop out logically because we all know that's completely unrealistic.

I don't think so.

[martha]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

So everyone wins?

Except those of us who like being married, not unionized for 20+ years.

Why is it that people will take away my marriage just so gays and lesbians can't do it?

[The_Pac_Mule]

Except those of us who like being married, not unionized for 20+ years.

Why is it that people will take away my marriage just so gays and lesbians can't do it?

I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.

[martha]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.

And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal. No public debate, no vote, just POW.

Kind of like those poor white children who were comfortable in their segregated schools, and then POW. One fine morning in 1954 they woke up and they were forced to go to school with black children. No vote, but plenty of public debate. Just POW. And there were PLENTY of religious reasons to keep 'em separated, so don't go there.

[The_Pac_Mule]

And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?

Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.

[martha]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Heres what I think:
Marriage is a religious ceremony. ..... I believe marriage should be taken out of laws and the governments hands. Instead of marriage, something similar to civil unions should be enacted that gives couples the same benefits of todays marriages. This would include same-sex couples. Then if they want, the unionized couple can go get married wherever it is they worship. I think this would allow a lot more people (including me) to reconcile with their religious beliefs while giving everyone the same rights.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.

So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?

I can't see any other purpose to this other than to discriminate.

[The_Pac_Mule]

So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?

Nope. There's plenty of churchs today that perform marriages for same-sex couples. There's also a church for atheism.

I can't see any other purpose to this other than to discriminate.

Right, thats my intention

[Vincent Vega]

A church for atheism? How cool is that?

We are playing semantics so a few conservatives can sleep better.

[A_Wanderer]

A church for atheism, WTF!

[Vincent Vega]

Do we have a pope?

[The_Pac_Mule]

A church for atheism, WTF!

Haha, I was thinking that too.

First Church of Atheism