[ionia23]

Originally posted by Gank
Add religion beside law and you've covered the causes of most of the worlds problems.

There's this nifty little show on PBS right now that's a semi-reality show where people have to live in a village under colonial law, 1700's.  One part of the story arc deals with a 'law' stating that attending Sunday church service is mandatory.

As I've said in other threads, I have no issue with any religion that says you have to take the sacraments, pray in a certain direction or a certain number of times per day, wear your hair or beard a certain length, cover your head, or burn sage in your house to scare away spirits.  That's fine.

The only group that should ever have an issue with it is the church you align yourself with.  That's fine as well.

When it becomes a crime against the state when you don't, you have an issue.

Given, I can't be sent to prison in America for not going to church (which I don't.  My relationship with God is MINE.)  But a great deal of morals held up as irrefutable are the backbone for decisionmakers, policymakers, lawmen, councilmen, whatever in this country.  This easily allows them to use the influence of the Church over the State without necessarily violating the separation of the two.  It's sneaky and it's underhanded.  If you're going to run a country with freedom of worship, freedom to NOT worship must be considered as well.

People seem to confuse the separation of church and state with the utter denial of religion.  It's not.  If you want to wear a crucifix around your neck at the office, I see no reason why this should be any more of a problem that someone wearing a headdress.  However, you (the subjective 'you', not 'you' personally, Gank) keep that damned preaching to yourself.  Always.

We don't agree on anything, but we do agree on preventing religion from becoming national policy in our own homes.

[Rictor]

I'll go along with that. Cetainly, France is taking the issue in ENTIRELY the wrong direction, but the ill effects of having fundamentalists in charge of the country is readily apparent. When the President and a large section of his cabinet believes that Rapture is coming any day now, and that they will best serve the Lord by wiping out the opponents of Israel, well then you've got a problem.

I remember a survey from a few years ago that showed that Americans could accept a woman as the President, a black as the President, even a homosexual as the President, but not an aethiest.

[Flipside]

If theres any kind of Doomsday coming, it's being created by those who will be Judged. I wonder what kind of judgement will be passed?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
I remember a survey from a few years ago that showed that Americans could accept a woman as the President, a black as the President, even a homosexual as the President, but not an aethiest.

That doesn't entirely suprise me, hence my earlier post.  Think back to Colonial times here, the 1700's when the practice of religion was not only permitted, but mandated.  A lot of those principles are still ingrained in society, and might very well always be.

It's like trying to convince the National Rifle Association here that banning assault-type weapons from commercial sale does NOT mean that they can no longer bear arms.  They just won't see it that way.  Or perhaps convincing the Christian Coalition that men are just as capable of loving other men, or women capable of loving other women, in the same context as a mixed-gender relationship.  They won't buy it.  Or like trying to convince the National Organization for Women that banning 3rd trimester abortions for reasons other than rape, severe deformity, or to save the life of the mother is not necessarily a bad thing.  You won't do it.  Any tiny little chip at a 'right' (heh heh, 'priviledge') is a threat to the whole.

The question the survey should have asked is, would you accept a Muslim or Pagan President?  I'd love to see that

[Flipside]

Yes, but then, the funny thing is that all Presidents ARE atheists, you don't get to the top without realising that religion is a tool to control people just as much as prejudice, fear, ignorance, money and whole host of other things.

Even Sgt Shrubbery would get that one, though possibly, you might need pictures. And short words.

[Ulala]

I think that one of the problems with gay marriage that is often overlooked is that if the US government starts to allow it, eventually laws get passed, "civil rights" movements (even though they already have the same right as everyone else), then what happens when the Mormons want to marry more than one person (polygamy)? Or when the crazy lady down the street wants to marry all 58 of her cats? Or when some rich guy feels like marrying his possessions just because he should have the "right" to? I think the gay marriage issue needs to be handled very carefully, otherwise floodgates could open and people will want the right to marry anyone and anything any amount of times. Could get messy.

[Flipside]

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you compare a Gay human being to a Cat? I personally feel there is some difference.

I agree that it needs to be handled carefully, partly because there will always be those who are resentful of the fact that Gay couples will have the same rights and entitlements as straight couples. This annoys people, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why, and partly because there will always be those who abuse the system, just like there are in heterosexual marraiges

The Mormons are another matter in a lot of ways, since the number of people involved in the matrimony changes, which is a much larger difference, at least to me, than the gender of the people getting married.

But I don't see this as an invitation to a flood of the type you described, I must admit.

[ionia23]

I did a writeup on this same subject awhile back, defining 'marriage'.

Okay, so privacy states that conjugal relations cannot be used in the marriage definition because:

1. In marriages where the was no 'pokey' going on, they could be annulled immediately (and I think there are some states where this CAN happen).  I'm talking about an annulment at the Federal level.  More to the point, how could one prove that there is or is not sexual relations going on between the partners?

2. That being said, sexual activity is off the table.  What do you have left?  Cohabitation?  Fine.  I live in a house with another guy.  Whether or not I'm 'waxing his dolphin', as it were, cannot be included in the argument.  Privacy.

(and I'm not, by the by).

3. Maybe it's a procreation thing?  Okay, so a man can still not get another man pregnant, same for women and women (lets keep the cloning issue out for now).  But there are plenty of infertile mixed-gender couples that adopt.  Soooo...

4. 'The Bible Says...'.  We can kill that argument immediately.  Church and State Separation.  Period.

What really defines a 'marriage'?

[Flipside]

According to most dictionaries it is a 'close or compatible union'. Strangely, that definition often appears after the 'wedding' type definition and yet is actually the broadest definition, so should be first :/ When you plug your IDE cable into your Hard drive, bells should start ringing to be honest, cos they are married.

I'll admit, I've seen things go silly, like wanting to ban 'Male and Female' plugs on computers because they suggested gender stereotyping, which just shows the pendulum can swing both ways (you can't help but make puns in this topic)

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Flipside
According to most dictionaries it is a 'close or compatible union'. Strangely, that definition often appears after the 'wedding' type definition and yet is actually the broadest definition, so should be first :/ When you plug your IDE cable into your Hard drive, bells should start ringing to be honest, cos they are married.

I'll admit, I've seen things go silly, like wanting to ban 'Male and Female' plugs on computers because they suggested gender stereotyping, which just shows the pendulum can swing both ways (you can't help but make puns in this topic)

or that stupid argument over "master" and "slave" for hardware designations....sometimes we're too PC for our own good.

[Ghostavo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[Flipside]

Yes, but you can marry Art with Literature, you can Marry Verbs with Nouns, the Wikipedia is sort of right, possibly the word came from the name of the union, possibly the name of the union came from the word, theres no really reliable way of telling, so we tend to believe what is most convenient at the time

Edit : Oh and...

http://www.iht.com/articles/520661.html

[Rictor]

If all the fuss is merely over the word, just call gay marriage something else. Call is Jsifsodfisd, and give them the same benefits. Problem solved.

But somehow I don't think thats the real problem certain people have with it. Its just another diversion and stall tactic.

[Kazan]

Rictor: "Seperate but Equal" is anything but, and therefore the courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional

Ulala: slippery slope arguments are invalid


Flipside (pointing out for other people)

I agree that it needs to be handled carefully, partly because there will always be those who are resentful of the fact that mixed race couples will have the same rights and entitlements as same race couples. This annoys people, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why, and partly because there will always be those who abuse the system, just like there are in same race marraiges

Same old argument, different subject

[Ulala]

I'm just saying that people that aren't even against the issue are gonna piss and moan like crazy because they'll want their "rights" too. But I guess lots of people are pissing and moaning already...

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by ionia23


I've been wondering that myself.  As I understood it (probably wrong), only Congress can make the determination for what defines "marriage", the principle being that a marriage legal in one state would be legal in all states.

Which brings up the other side.  If a state, say, Massachussetts (sp?) makes same-sex marriages legal, the couple could get a state tax credit assuming such a thing exists.  But what about at the federal level?

You missed my point entirely.  If the Federal Government says something is something... the state government cannot not say differently it would be going against the laws of the land.  A state government MUST abide by the federal government.

So the point is... the federal government has said marriage is between a man and a woman.  What MA is doing is ILLEGAL.  They cannot legally make a law that is in total disagreement with the federal law.

[Bobboau]

well... eh... they just did...
unless you are sudgesting sending in the troops to enforce federal 'law' I don't see how theres a damned thing thats going to be done about it.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well... eh... they just did...
unless you are sudgesting sending in the troops to enforce federal 'law' I don't see how theres a damned thing thats going to be done about it.

It should be overturned by a court.  Unless of course states are allowed to violate federal law...

[Rictor]

disobeying laws which you (and a significant portion of the nation) feel are unjust is just civil disobedience. thats like if I chose to disregard segregation laws back in the day. I'de like to see them start arresting gays and the priests who wed them.

[Kazan]

Just like when National troups enforce antisegregation laws in Little Rock, Arkansas

however - that was in enforcement of supreme court decision - the supreme court would probably side with the mayor who is being civil disobediant