A question about the opponents of gay marriage
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:06:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  A question about the opponents of gay marriage
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: A question about the opponents of gay marriage  (Read 12315 times)
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2015, 07:37:58 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said gay people were bad?

If someone supports a ban on gay marriage or supports any law that discourages homosexuality, they obviously have a problem with homosexuality.  If homosexuality is wrong, then presumably, there's something wrong with gay people.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 02, 2015, 10:26:17 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said gay people were bad?

If someone supports a ban on gay marriage or supports any law that discourages homosexuality, they obviously have a problem with homosexuality.  If homosexuality is wrong, then presumably, there's something wrong with gay people.

To Clarify: I do not buy into the Rick Santorum/Ted Cruz notion that homosexuality is a disease, nor do I consider being homosexual a choice. Now, you can force yourself to not act on those desires, yes, but you cannot take them away entirely.

Gay People should simply respect what was, until recently, respected as both secular and religious tradition, and avoid destroying the institution of marriage by extending it beyond a man and a woman.

Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2015, 10:55:13 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said gay people were bad?

If someone supports a ban on gay marriage or supports any law that discourages homosexuality, they obviously have a problem with homosexuality.  If homosexuality is wrong, then presumably, there's something wrong with gay people.

To Clarify: I do not buy into the Rick Santorum/Ted Cruz notion that homosexuality is a disease, nor do I consider being homosexual a choice. Now, you can force yourself to not act on those desires, yes, but you cannot take them away entirely.

Gay People should simply respect what was, until recently, respected as both secular and religious tradition, and avoid destroying the institution of marriage by extending it beyond a man and a woman.


You've got to be kidding me.  Changing marriage's definition "destroys" it?  Would you prefer to go back to the days where miscegnation was illegal and wives were essentially treated as the husbands' property by law, and polygamy was allowed as well?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2015, 05:26:15 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said gay people were bad?

If someone supports a ban on gay marriage or supports any law that discourages homosexuality, they obviously have a problem with homosexuality.  If homosexuality is wrong, then presumably, there's something wrong with gay people.

That assumes that the only purpose of a marriage is to unify two people into one relationship.  While even before the recent push for the recognition of SSM by governments it had largely devolved to only that aspect as far as civil law was concerned, whose who advocate limiting marriage to OSM generally don't have that view.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2015, 10:06:16 PM »

I've never understood the argument that same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage.  Same-sex couples who want to marry must believe in marriage, believe in the value of making a lifetime commitment to one another.  They also would believe that, if they have children, their children should be brought up in a loving family.  Both of these commitments are entirely consistent with the institution of marriage and serve valuable functions in society that society should be interested in protecting.  Broadening the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples won't destroy the institution, it will strengthen it.  Allowing all citizens a certain age of all genders and ethnic backgrounds to vote makes a democracy stronger than allowing only male property owners of one ethnic background to vote.  A similar logic applies here.  It may not be something looked kindly upon by those who belong to a religious tradition that prohibits it.  It may not be to the liking of secular people who grew up in a time and environment when and where homophobic attitudes were rampant.  But it should be available in a society that takes the freedom and equality of all citizens as a fundamental value.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2015, 12:03:02 AM »

Wulfric, the Bible is against divorced people remarrying. Why don't you feel equally strongly that remarriage should be illegal? Do you see an inconsistency here?
In an ideal world, that would be banned. However, that's not realistic in my wildest dreams. Banning SSM potentially is, at least for now. And in any case, remarriage is ineffective on the strength of the institution of marriage - it doesn't harm the sacred 'one man/one woman bonded together, primarily to raise children' definition of marriage, SSM is destroying that sacred and essential definition as we speak.

Now, comes the obvious question of "Why allow infertiles to marry?". First off, being required to show an official regulating marriage a significant part of one's medical record is a serious infringement on one's privacy. And secondly, the man-woman definition is still kept intact and is not destroyed. Finally, this sort of prohibition is not needed for rational basis review. Rational basis allows for an imperfect fit - as long as it does not destroy the logic behind the policy, and infertile couples marrying does not destroy the logic of man-woman marriage, which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.


Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2015, 12:50:35 AM »

Gay marriage is saying you are proud of sin. Entering into a lesser relationship indicates you have some degree of shame and can therefore be tolerated by society. But once you enter a gay marriage, you have no shame for your sin, and worse, are directly telling society that sin is o.k.

Gay sex is not a good thing, but it is a far lesser and much more tolerable sin than that of gay marriage.

What your religion says is irrelevant to public policy.  We don't live in a Christian theocracy.  You can't just say that gay sex or pork or dancing is haram and thus needs to be illegal or disfavored by the government.  You need to have a rational basis for legislation.  You need to have a reason why gay sex or gay marriage is in some way harmful.  And, you don't, so shut your pie hole.

True.  But, and this is me speaking as a gay man, perhaps the biggest issue I have with the pro-SSM lobby is that the United States being a secular nation =/= voters not being allowed to take into account a politician's position on gay marriage/abortion/euthanasia/any other type of "religious" issue when they vote.

I'm seriously confused, do most people here think that Christians should have to "check" their values at the door before walking into a voting booth?  And, is voting based on one's religious convictions a form of "theocracy"?
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 04, 2015, 02:50:40 AM »

Wulfric, You never answered my earlier question about what your ideal version of a civil unions law would look like, so let me try to reframe my question in terms of your religious opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage:

You say you oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because God is opposed to same-sex marriage. But you have said numerous times that you support legalizing some form of civil unions so long as they are not "marriage-in-name-only." So can you identify even just one particular right of married couples that you would specifically absolutely oppose providing to gay couples in civil unions? What is it besides the label "marriage" that must be kept from gay couples according to your beliefs?

Approaching this another way, which rights do you think God would be ok with the state extending to civil unioned couples? Or is it purely an aggregate thing? Like, is it ok for the state to give straight couples the full bundle of marriage rights and then give gay couples that bundle minus one random right so long as they know they're getting slightly fewer rights?

Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 04, 2015, 03:16:02 AM »

Wulfric, You never answered my earlier question about what your ideal version of a civil unions law would look like, so let me try to reframe my question in terms of your religious opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage:

You say you oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because God is opposed to same-sex marriage. But you have said numerous times that you support legalizing some form of civil unions so long as they are not "marriage-in-name-only." So can you identify even just one particular right of married couples that you would specifically absolutely oppose providing to gay couples in civil unions? What is it besides the label "marriage" that must be kept from gay couples according to your beliefs?

Approaching this another way, which rights do you think God would be ok with the state extending to civil unioned couples? Or is it purely an aggregate thing? Like, is it ok for the state to give straight couples the full bundle of marriage rights and then give gay couples that bundle minus one random right so long as they know they're getting slightly fewer rights?



Rights highlighted in red would not be allowed under a civil union.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is only a rough list, if I was in government, I'd pour through the official list of marriage rights. But this should give you a rough idea.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 04, 2015, 03:59:33 AM »

So wait. I'm a Scotsman with an American husband.  Under your law neither of us would be able to settle together because we couldn't be sponsored for a settlement visa. Why?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2015, 07:14:36 AM »

...which is to encourage the kind of relationships that most help the state's interest in procreation, which is obviously man-woman marriage and not same-sex marriage.

I'm not in favor of prohibiting gay couples from living together or adopting. But the state should simply not be required to subsidize it because it is not the situation that best advances the state's interest in procreation.

If the state has an interest in procreation; i.e the having of and raising of children (and infertile, post menopausal couples sit aside from that 'just because'), yet you think its okay for gay couples to adopt, then why should children be given less rights than other children or be perceived as 'different' by law or by social convention, just because their legal parents happen to be of the same sex?

There are as much as 6 million children in the USA that live in such a situation. What have you got against them? Why should procreation/raising children - if that's what marriage is 'all about' only matter if their parents are of the opposite sex?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2015, 08:51:46 AM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 08:57:03 AM by bedstuy »

Gay marriage is saying you are proud of sin. Entering into a lesser relationship indicates you have some degree of shame and can therefore be tolerated by society. But once you enter a gay marriage, you have no shame for your sin, and worse, are directly telling society that sin is o.k.

Gay sex is not a good thing, but it is a far lesser and much more tolerable sin than that of gay marriage.

What your religion says is irrelevant to public policy.  We don't live in a Christian theocracy.  You can't just say that gay sex or pork or dancing is haram and thus needs to be illegal or disfavored by the government.  You need to have a rational basis for legislation.  You need to have a reason why gay sex or gay marriage is in some way harmful.  And, you don't, so shut your pie hole.

True.  But, and this is me speaking as a gay man, perhaps the biggest issue I have with the pro-SSM lobby is that the United States being a secular nation =/= voters not being allowed to take into account a politician's position on gay marriage/abortion/euthanasia/any other type of "religious" issue when they vote.

I'm seriously confused, do most people here think that Christians should have to "check" their values at the door before walking into a voting booth?  And, is voting based on one's religious convictions a form of "theocracy"?

This isn't about individuals voting.  You can vote based on which candidate's haircut you like better.  That's totally unrelated to the issue at hand.  You may support a policy because your religion tells you to, I agree 100%.  You can't justify a policy purely on that basis however.  You need to have a secular basis for any law.    

This is about passing laws that everyone has to abide by, not just you and your Christian cronies.  So, here are a few examples.

Let's say the state of Utah wanted to ban interracial marriage in 1950.  Their religion clearly stated that black people could not become Gods in the afterlife or join the Mormon lay priesthood, so it religiously made sense for them to ban interracial marriage.  That's no basis for a law that binds both Mormons and non-Mormons. Just because your religion believes in invidious, arbitrary discrimination doesn't mean that you can enforce it on everyone else.

Conversely, "thou shalt not steal" is one of the ten commandments.  However, you have create a secular, non-discriminatory justification for banning theft.  It almost goes without saying.  

So, in the case of gay marriage, what should count and what shouldn't?

Should not:
God hates sexual intimacy with same-sex couples.  
The Quran says that sodomy is the worst thing ever.
If we allow gay sex, God will shoot magic fireballs at us.
I hate gay people.

Should:
Gay marriage will lead to crime and economic blight.
Gay marriage causes straight couples to commit mass suicide
Homosexual couples being married creates a Voltron-like robot which lays waste to cities.

Opponents of gay marriage need to claim empirically supportable harms of gay marriage.  They can't just say, God says no or I want to express my hatred through laws to punish people.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 04, 2015, 01:25:46 PM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

The reason for extending government recognition to all marriages regardless of the genders of the two people is not secularism but that our constitution has made the philosophical choice to be biased in favor of equal treatment over other factors a society might choose to use in deciding policy, regardless of the rationality of them when applied to a specific policy.  I happen to think that philosophical choice is a good one, but I'm not about to claim it is a rational choice.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 04, 2015, 05:35:26 PM »
« Edited: March 04, 2015, 06:10:59 PM by RFayette »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.


I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  


Arguing that good comes from the truth is hardly ridiculous.

EDIT:  what bedstuy said.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 04, 2015, 06:09:46 PM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

The reason for extending government recognition to all marriages regardless of the genders of the two people is not secularism but that our constitution has made the philosophical choice to be biased in favor of equal treatment over other factors a society might choose to use in deciding policy, regardless of the rationality of them when applied to a specific policy.  I happen to think that philosophical choice is a good one, but I'm not about to claim it is a rational choice.

Alright.  How did you get that from what I wrote?  That clearly is not what I said.  I know you like being willfully obtuse, but I don't follow you.

Here's my point yet again:

If the only basis for a law is that it conforms to religious doctrine, it has no rational basis.  I think that's an obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 04, 2015, 06:38:23 PM »

It's telling that the words "due process" have not been used once in this thread. Anyways:

Opponents of gay marriage need to claim empirically supportable harms of gay marriage.  They can't just say, God says no or I want to express my hatred through laws to punish people.

Isn't the whole point of the remnant opposition that gay marriage hurts their identity as constituted by religious principles, leading to observable, valid harm in society?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2015, 07:23:12 PM »

It's telling that the words "due process" have not been used once in this thread. Anyways:

Opponents of gay marriage need to claim empirically supportable harms of gay marriage.  They can't just say, God says no or I want to express my hatred through laws to punish people.

Isn't the whole point of the remnant opposition that gay marriage hurts their identity as constituted by religious principles, leading to observable, valid harm in society?

If they could muster a valid, observable harm in society, they would have won a lot more of these cases.  But, they've lost almost all of them, so it appears that most people agree that they haven't found a "rational basis" for banning same-sex marriage. 

Can you think of such a harm?
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2015, 09:59:01 PM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.


I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  

You can touch and smell secular humanism?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 05, 2015, 12:57:07 AM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

The reason for extending government recognition to all marriages regardless of the genders of the two people is not secularism but that our constitution has made the philosophical choice to be biased in favor of equal treatment over other factors a society might choose to use in deciding policy, regardless of the rationality of them when applied to a specific policy.  I happen to think that philosophical choice is a good one, but I'm not about to claim it is a rational choice.

Alright.  How did you get that from what I wrote?  That clearly is not what I said.  I know you like being willfully obtuse, but I don't follow you.

Here's my point yet again:

If the only basis for a law is that it conforms to religious doctrine, it has no rational basis.  I think that's an obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment.

This is how I got that:
You need to have a secular basis for any law.

And you just reinforced with your last post your equation of secularism with rationalism by asserting that religion is nonrational.

The consequence of the 1st Amendment is not that religious reasons are nonrational, nor is it that religious doctrines cannot be used to choose various policy positions of the government.  Rather it is the limited consequence that you cannot be required to worship in a particular manner or to pay the costs of a particular religion.

While it is not how we've chosen to do things here in the US, I think the scheme common to many European countries, of paying a religious tax with the taxed getting to choose which religion is thereby funded by the tax collected from them would not be unconstitutional here.  Only if the government controlled which churches could be funded would it be repugnant to the 1st amendment. (And by religion, I include the religions of secular humanism and atheism.)
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 05, 2015, 10:41:57 AM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.

The reason for extending government recognition to all marriages regardless of the genders of the two people is not secularism but that our constitution has made the philosophical choice to be biased in favor of equal treatment over other factors a society might choose to use in deciding policy, regardless of the rationality of them when applied to a specific policy.  I happen to think that philosophical choice is a good one, but I'm not about to claim it is a rational choice.

Alright.  How did you get that from what I wrote?  That clearly is not what I said.  I know you like being willfully obtuse, but I don't follow you.

Here's my point yet again:

If the only basis for a law is that it conforms to religious doctrine, it has no rational basis.  I think that's an obvious consequence of the 1st Amendment.

This is how I got that:
You need to have a secular basis for any law.

And you just reinforced with your last post your equation of secularism with rationalism by asserting that religion is nonrational.

The consequence of the 1st Amendment is not that religious reasons are nonrational, nor is it that religious doctrines cannot be used to choose various policy positions of the government.  Rather it is the limited consequence that you cannot be required to worship in a particular manner or to pay the costs of a particular religion.

While it is not how we've chosen to do things here in the US, I think the scheme common to many European countries, of paying a religious tax with the taxed getting to choose which religion is thereby funded by the tax collected from them would not be unconstitutional here.  Only if the government controlled which churches could be funded would it be repugnant to the 1st amendment. (And by religion, I include the religions of secular humanism and atheism.)

Yeah, like I said, willfully obtuse. 

Some parts of religion could be rational.  But, that's incidental to being religious.

"Thou shalt not steal" = rational
"Thou shalt not make graven images" = irrational

So, you would have to find something that doesn't require I believe in your religion, that would justify your law.  If this law makes sense, if and only if, you believe in your particular religion, how is that the least bit appropriate?  You might have your own version of the 1st Amendment that you cooked up in your garage or whatever, but the one that we have in America would not allow that.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 05, 2015, 12:54:14 PM »

Why is "thou shalt not make graven images" irrational?  It's perfectly rational if one believes in one of the Abrahamic religions.

Maybe you're thinking of something like a generalized Blaine Amendment or the French concept of laïcité. but those aren't part of the US constitution.  Here is what is in there:

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A hypothetical law banning the making of graven images would indeed fail the first amendment, tho one banning the use of government funds to do so would not. Nor would one that disbursed government funds to religions to on the basis of individual preferences, even if it were used for making graven images by some religions.  The first amendment does not ban religion in government, it bans an establishment of religion, that is a state church which espouses a specific set of doctrines and beliefs.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 05, 2015, 01:01:36 PM »

That's not how the US Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment. 

What about this law?

Married women may not have their hair exposed in public.  Violaters will be subject to a fine of not more than $1000.

Legislative Findings:  We're passing this law because this is the belief of Hasidic Judaism according to the Talmud. 

I don't think that would fly.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 05, 2015, 01:44:56 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2015, 01:49:03 PM by True Federalist »

With those legislative findings, of course it wouldn't pass muster, but laws that ban or regulate practices or activities that happen to be religious are perfectly constitutional as per Employment Division v. Smith as long as the reasoning given is not religious.  That's why the Federal Government passed RFRA and many states passed similar laws.

Those who favor laws giving state recognition to only opposite-sex marriages have put forth non-religious reasons for doing so, tho strictly speaking those reasons aren't necessary as nonrecognition is not a punishment, nor does it interfere with people not in opposite-sex relationships from being married.  It isn't the First Amendment that does those laws in, but the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Incidentally, having thought on it some, the French policy of laïcité would be unconstitutional in this country.  It makes secularism the established religion of France.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2015, 02:19:40 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2015, 02:21:17 PM by bedstuy »

With those legislative findings, of course it wouldn't pass muster, but laws that ban or regulate practices or activities that happen to be religious are perfectly constitutional as per Employment Division v. Smith as long as the reasoning given is not religious.  That's why the Federal Government passed RFRA and many states passed similar laws.

OK.  Irrelevant though.

Those who favor laws giving state recognition to only opposite-sex marriages have put forth non-religious reasons for doing so,

Nope!  That's why they've lost.  They can't say strictly, same-sex marriage should be illegal because of the Bible, so they've had to attempt to find a basis aside from religion or animus.  I would submit that the anti-SSM side has failed to do that.

tho strictly speaking those reasons aren't necessary as nonrecognition is not a punishment,

No.  That's not how the American legal system works.  Where are you getting that from?  When you just boldly make stuff up, I can't really have a discussion with you.  The 14th Amendment applies to the entire body of law, right?  But, you've decided that it only applies to punishments or penalties from the government?  OK.  In your fantasy land, maybe you have a point, but I thought we were discussing the real world. 

nor does it interfere with people not in opposite-sex relationships from being married.

Well, I guess you solved the problem.  Same-sex marriage isn't an issue if you choose to ignore everyone who it affects.  I guess ovarian cancer isn't a problem because it doesn't kill men.

It isn't the First Amendment that does those laws in, but the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

OK, that's not what I said.  I said that the First Amendment limits the permissible bases for banning gay marriage, specially excluding the basis, "Christianity forbids sodomy." 
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 05, 2015, 04:42:44 PM »

bedstuy, the idea that is the basis of your last post: that secularism is inherently rational and objective; it is laughable.  Secularism is just as prone as any other -ism to disparate treatment of groups.


I think that basing policy beliefs on things that actually exist for sure - that we can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or objectively measure - is inherently superior to basing them off of an old text that may or may not be true.  

You can touch and smell secular humanism?

I suppose I might be referring to something different than you are.  When I say "secularism," I mean making policy preferences without invoking the supernatural and basing it off of things that can be observed, measured, and/or tested in the real world. 

Granted, secularists can have plenty of bad opinions, but secularism as a philosophy is more rational than faith-based governing philosophies because secularism does not invoke things that do not exist as evidence.

Humanism is a philosophy which many secularists hold, and is a much different beast.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.