Of course, you still have the nasty little problem of Christian denominations not agreeing completely on what constitutes "the Scriptures," so how would one tell whether any particular compilation is the "right" one?

1. Funny, I distinctly see a 'free study materials' section listed right along with a 'contact us' section on the left of the screen.

2. So in your world, everyone else is worthy to get paid for their expertise, but not a Pastor? Bible clearly states that 'the workman is worthy of his hire.'
You think that producing materials someone might want to order from this site is free to produce? I don't think that there is a high profit margin on the stuff they do charge for because they are sending it to you.

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother? You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it. This is why I gave this site as a source. These articles (many are free) do this and are more in-depth than anything you have heard.

4. You don't get saved through your intellect. Matter of fact, Bible teaches us that man is composed of 3 parts: 1. Body 2. Soul (seat of intellect, emotions and conciousness) 3. Spirit (this is what the Bible refers to as your 'heart', your spiritual heart.) Those who sincerly seek God will be lead to Him (seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) those who just want to play endless mind-games will never find the answers, cause God Himself allows false anwers in the relm of the intellect (That they should believe a lie and be damned) Revelation

My dog farted out a thought:

Because you don't have any good answers?

Bah. Whichever one you happen to be using, silly. ;)
-------------------------

Seriously, if you're not reading it in Hebrew, Attic Greek and Aramaic, you're not reading the Scriptures -- you're reading Reader's Digest.

-------------------------

Edit for clarification: This really isn't a thorny problem in religious or theological circles these days. The Scriptures have been stable for several hundred years, and the only differences are really between the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant versions. My understanding is that the various Apocryphal books that are included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles that are not included in the Protestant one are largely considered useful, but not authoritative.

Now, if you're talking farther back in history, back to say, the Council at Hippo in 393 or Carthage in 397, then yes, it was a nasty issue for believers to resolve. These issues are not, however, troublesome to most Christians. If one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe that God is able to get His words in the right form for people to understand them. If one doesn't believe that, then the discussion isn't worth having in the first place.

Everybody has faith in something. Just because others don't believe it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Then again, just because I believe it doesn't mean that it's true, either. That's why they call it "faith" as opposed to "fact". :)

But I praise God regardless, even for my critics, because some reading this may actually be sparked to investigate Biblical things further, and that is always good.

Drake, the Apostle Paul claimed he was himself without sin? What Bible are YOU refering to. Paul identified himself as "Chief among sinners" before his conversion. Be carefull what you put out there as teaching, you are responsible for it. "None is blameless, no not one." Romans

And if you hadn't actually have said that, you might have had a witness there, but instead, you're going to go to your wife or your pastor or your church and say, "Man, you ought to see how I'm getting persecuted on that Internet Bulletin Board, but I think God will work some good out of it, maybe reach a few of those sinners who have never heard the Gospel message before"...and then it all becomes about what you're trying to do for God rather than about what God might be trying to work through you in the lives of others.

Internet is just a time-killer for me, I wouldn't brag at all about anything on it (although through persistance God did allow me to site that website as a source for anyone really wanting to learn more.)

Also, glad you are such a mind-reader on motives, no wonder you no longer need to attend church except to grace it with your presence. ;)

Yes.

Philippians 3:5-6 (excerpted): "...circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless..."

Paul's whole point was that even though he had perfectly observed the Law, he was still a sinner, and that Man is only justified by Grace through faith. I'll admit that I left out that particular point as it wasn't cogent to the argument I was making.

dola--

for instance, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God. However, I beleive that Jesus was a human being and that the Lamb thing was just a metaphor. It was not meant to be taken literally. If you consider yourself to be a pure literalist or a pure textualist, please let me know how you reconcile the fact that Jesus is a lamb, but that he was born of a human woman and was able to talk and use his hands. Or you can admit that some aspects of the Bible are metaphor.

So some things in the Bible are a metaphor; some things in the Bible are meant as literal instructions. The majority of Christain Biblical textual argument is nothing more than a matter of where people choose to draw the line.

An outstanding reply - thanks. I agree with this statement, and it's the point I'm trying to make with Bubba.

I may not agree with other people's religious beliefs, and I certainly object to those that try to force their beliefs on me. That said, I have no problem with the idea that Christianity and the bible provide guidelines for how to live your life, but that ultimately it will be up to God (or whatever divine spirit you may believe in) to cast final judgement. I may not agree with all of those guidelines, and I may not believe in God (at least not in the Christian sense), but this way of thinking is consistent with Christian concepts.

Funny, all I found there were a few selected articles, none of which seemed to be a direct or even semi-direct answer to the question I asked.


Please point out to me where I criticized the fact this minister is trying to earn money from his expertise?

What I did was point out this was a commercial website for a particular pastor, as opposed to a website that had any kind of specific replies or FAQ's directly related to the question I asked.


How presumptuous of you to assume that I have a closed mind and would be unwilling to accept and valid response to my question. I believe in the scientific method - postulated theories based on the evidence at hand, be willing to adjust or completely rescind those theories in the face of conflicting evidence, or reinforce those theories with corroborating evidence. Don't be stuck on the theories, but rather the process and the underlying premise of seek the truth. If you are able to provide a cogent argument to support your positions, one that answers my question in a satisfactory manner, and I'm willing to adjust my opinions on the matter.

The articles you refer to don't appear to have anything to do with my question. I'm not interested enough in the matter to read them all to try and find relavence; if you find something that is a direct or even semi-direct response to my question, I'd be happy to review it.

The fact you still haven't addressed my questions directly leads me to believe that you'd really rather not face the sticky possibility that you literal and rigid belief system might not hold up to this kind of scrutiny. I challenge you to defend your position.


Problem is, my intellect lead me to strongly question much of these ideas. Like I said earlier, don't put yourself out worrying about my salvation - that's my business and none of yours.

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

{Sticks nose in against better judgement to make small point}

Well, if one believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, then it seems that Christ's words would carry no more or no less weight than the rest of the Scripture.

That being said, Christ's words in Matthew 7:6 have come mind quite often in reading this thread...

It doesn't seem that way to me. I would think if God sent Jesus to Earth as the savior of humankind, you might want to pay particular attention to his teachings.

I understand where you're coming from there. This is where and why this discussion is really at an impasse overall though--and lots of people seem to fail to see where any ability to discuss this breaks down right here. Some people believe that the entirety of the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God--making it therefore the final and supreme authority on all matters of faith and practice. Therefore, all parts of this discussion are seen through that filter. On the other hand, others vary somewhere on a continuum from "book of lies" to "almost the Word of God, but Jesus' words are most important." For some reason (and I really can't fathom why), a lot of folks on both sides of that fence seem to have no clue where the other side is coming from, and no understanding of why the other side thinks and reacts the way they do.

Maybe it is because I'm a Bible-believin', fire-baptized, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-Lamb guy (;)) who spends the majority of his time with those who openly say that they want nothing to do with Christ that this seems like such a bizarre discussion to me...

Can y'all really not see the other side's perspective???

(I'm talking to both sides with that question, by the way.)

I though that breakdown was sort of implicit, SD. Maybe I've been spending too much time around Bible-thumpers. :)

But, of course, I will point out that I did say:


That's also why I've found in-your-face evangelism to never be very successful in practice. It's like trying to argue String theory with committed Einsteinian physicists (which, I swear, is a discussion for another thread).

Drake:

I missed that. Good insight.

Ben, it seems that the hard sayings of our Savior are the ones that trip up a lot of folks, believers and unbelievers. One of my favorites is Matt. 10:34, "Don't believe that I came to bring peace on earth. No! but rather a sword." It is the division of those accepting that He is the way, the truth and the life, and those not accepting that.

Jews in the old testament were commanded of God to sacrafice an unblemished (free of sin) lamb in the temple to account for their sin "without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin." Jesus became the ultimate sacrafice for sin, He who was without sin, hence the term "Lamb of God."

Get the big picture, see the context, its really easier than you think.

I can see both sides of the perspective. I am an atheist married to a woman who was raised Southern Baptist (but is more of a spiritual "free agent" at this point, if you will... she finds that particular church too strict, she holds more liberal beliefs than most... but she won't hesitate to tell me that if I don't accept the Lord as Savior, then I'm going to hell).

It's an odd situation for us both, especially with our children. My brother is also a born-again Christian, and my parents are both atheist. So I have had hours upon hours of discussion about all aspects of religion, and the Christian God, and Jesus, and so on and so forth.

And I just think it's extremely presumptuous of Bubba Wheels to come on here and tell everybody what the Bible means. It means different things to different religions. I'm sick of people whining about religious persecution in this country. If you want to see religious persecution, let's all time warp back to the good old 1600's when you could be burned at the stake for heresy.

So, I can SEE both sides of the discussion, and I can understand why people believe what they believe, and how difficult it is to question one's beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good old-fashioned argument every once in a while.

I know that this discussion has deteriorated into "Xion vs the world" but let me ask this:

How many people reading this have gone to the article about "purity day" and then gone on to check out the website and promotional material that these kids are being given to pass around to other peoples children?

*edited out a large, very angry rant at the arrogance of the religious right in this country*

The original point of this thread (I'm assuming at least) was to point out the very anti-gay/lesbian cant put on this very well intentioned abstinance day thing. I have to agree that while the premise for the "purity day" was a good one: Try to get kids to wait until they are older to have sex, a christian group chose to support this with an over the top Xion commentary. I'm betting they'll lose more kids than they'll gain because of the dogmatic statements within their information.

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus

Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." Jesus

Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability. :)

Except I don't believe in your god so I don't care what he thinks.

Don't be a dick, Chubby. He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to Yabanci.

These issues are contentious and emotional enough without having intentional bullshit inserted into the argument.

Once again, proving my point that so far the only real argument against this is religious.

So, let me get this straight. People are free to go off about how they worship their god and spout scripture but ONLY if they are Christian? Anyone else isn't allowed to speak their view? I don't follow Judeo-Christian beliefs, I have just as much right to say so as Bubba does in spouting of scripture every chance he gets.

Chubby,

He was responding to a question by Yabanci about what Jesus has said. Give it a rest, dude. He wasn't spouting Scripture, he was trying to answer a legitimate question.

He also felt compelled to add this line:

"Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability."

He's certainly within his rights to express this view, just as Chubby is to express his views.

Can I get the Cliff Notes on this thread?

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

Chubby just got himself off the "soon to be wignored" list.

Kudos, sir.

:)

The 'abstinence' point-of-view concerning sex-education in the public schools is almost always promoted by Christians. The Secularists want to deny the 'faith' aspect of anything, and always seem to feel that they have more answers than the parents do (because they are graduates of Universities specializing in education and those 'backwater religious folks need to join the real world?)

I have done nothing more than address the topic of this thread from the Judeo/Christian point of view. I am not 'forcing my religion' on anyone. But as long as public schools are the tax-funded vehicles of choice to educate our kids then those with personal relationships with their living God will not allow themselves to be marginalized and condenscended to by liberal social engineers who 'know what's good for your kids weather you like it or not." Trust me, I speak for many, and we are not going away (until the rapture) :D

PS In case of Rapture, have at it, do it all your way and have fun!

I didn't know I was on that list, but thanks :)

It just gets a little thick in here at times, it's no wonder you don't see any other religions brought up in here. They'd be pounced on for being "wrong" in not time.

You are trying to force your views on others whether you will admit that or not. Like I said, I for one am sick of the bible thumping around here and will certainly speak my mind whether you agree with me or not.

I don't care if you speak for many, I speak for MANY MORE people on this earth who DON'T believe in the same religous system that you do. I don't give two fucks about the rapture, I don't give two fucks how many bible verses you quote, and I don't give a fuck how you try to weave your "god" into every moral/ethical debate there is. If people want to spout off about their "god" then be prepared to hear the other side of the coin too, yet many people don't want to (not you Bubba in this case, you just choose to bury your head in the sand).

People are free to believe whatever they want, we as a country can NOT make laws based on one religions point of view. The truth is, christianity is the "most vocal" religion in this country. They feel that they are in a position of power and need to use that power to influence things to be how they want. You can quote all the selective bible verses you want, you aren't going to convince anyone that you are "right" and that things should be how your church says they should be.

You're right, but laws will be made and sometimes they'll agree with one religion's point of view and not another. It doesn't necessarily make it a religious law.

Once again, feel free to show me an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't based in religous beliefs. The only one even semi-offered up was that it would lead to incest/child abuse/etc... and that argument is silly because it has nothing to do with those things.

:rolleyes: How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

How many times do I have to tell you to POST THOSE REASONS. Stop trying to cop out by "well I'm not going to tell you". When I asked John Galt that earlier the best I got was the "incest/child abuse" argument which is foolish.

So do tell, so you can "enlighten" the lurkers even tho you know me so well that I will "obviously" connect them to religion.

This is why I hate these arguments and regret it everytime I get into one. Inevitably, there is at least one person who needs everything recapped for them. In all actuality, they really don't need it recapped, they just like to pretend that they do in order to marginalize and diminish the other viewpoint. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Well said Chubby

I too would like someone to point out these "legitimate objections" that are not rooted in religion or bigotry.

Funny, I hate these discussions because when religous people are pressed for their so-called "non religous reasons" they can't seem to find any. They don't want to SAY the only reason they are against something is for religous reasons so they try and find some why to keep ducking the question.

You still haven't posted those reasons now have you? Nope, not yet.

Chubby, would it upset you terribly if I suggested in your worldview "Christian" and "Conservative" mean the same thing, and that maybe that's the source of your confusion here?

No it wouldn't upset me.

I have found, that many vocal christians are conservative tho not always the case. Me being a liberal tend to clash with those people, me also being spirtual and not religous tend to clash with those same people more :D

To me, what 2 adults do in the provacy of their own home sexually is none of my friggin buisness. It shouldn't be any of your business, and it certainly shouldn't be the buisness of the government IMO.

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

No, they are asking the government to force a group of people (that they already are on record as not liking, feel are going to hell, think are beneath them) to not use a word that tthey feel is theirs.

The issue is Christians want the word "marriage" for their own. They don't want gay people to be able to use it because they don't like gay people. THAT'S the issue.

And my argument is government shoudln't be writing laws (stupid laws at that, over a WORD) JUST because one religion wants something a something way.

Funny, I STILL haven't seen these phantom non-religous reasons for not allowing same-sex marriages. But that's prob because they don't exist. Same-sex marriage does NOT lead to incest, or child abuse, or killing puppies, or driving over grandmothers...

I have. About 30 times. Why haven't you? I didn't even read the whole thread and I've read the reasons that are non-religious.

EDIT: Welcome to my ignore list.

Oh no, don't hurt me in that way :rolleyes:

Funny that there are others who still haven't seen any non-religious reasons given.

On a side note: just a few months ago private, consensual sex between gay people *was* illlegal in many states, and many people were outraged when the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that those laws were unconstitutional. If you look at the positions of most of the organizations that strongly oppose gay marriage, you will see that they do in fact want the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people and are very angry that the Supreme Court ruled it can't.

remove the scales from your eyes, Chubby.

Uh-oh. Sorry for the religious reference.

Seriously, I said this this morning, and I'm still waiting for YOUR response.
Can you tell me a reason why other types of marriage wouldn't be allowed by redefining marriage?

I wonder if people said it would be a slippery slope to polygamy and incest if we let blacks marry whites?

Perhaps Chubby should have restated that he doesn't see any LEGITIMATE non-religious reasons.

Doh, I missed that in trying to catch up on my reading after getting home from work. Sorry, let's see...

Is that slippery slope not already there currently? Can the argument not be made that "Well, man and woman marriages already exist so why should we place a limit on which men and women should be able to get married?"

Can you not already make the argument "Well if I can be married to one woman why can't I be married to more than one? I can have more than one girlfriend can't I?"

By allowing same-sex marriage, you are reinforcing that marriage is between two, non-blood related persons. It doesn't not bring up the slippery slope anymore than we already are with our current "definition".

I agree.

Yes, I see looking back that if I had said that it would have been much more clearer what I was thinking, oops.

As outlined above, I don't see multiple wives or incest being legitimate reasons behind disallowing same-sex marriages.

i have been following this site for years (thanks to brother buc) but never really feeled the need to chim in (except on movies) but this is just so rich, plus i had a meeting pushed back.
i'm getting a master in theology and one of the things we always talk about is how un-christ-like christians are. those people that chubby claims control the US and thump bibles don't seem very christian, at least not my version. moreover "those" people are so diffrent from me that i cringe when people dismiss "my" religion because of "them". in most cases i don't believe in that god either.

however, to say religious reasons to answers are not as legitimate as other reasons is absurd. if i say i'm against homosexual activity because it can lead to the extinction of our species i would not be more correct than some xtain response. the means one comes to their opinion should not critized as much as the opinion itself. i too would like to see a moral humanist response, on anything (PETA excluded) that is totally without religious influence or experience. seems to me the experiences of xtainity by chubby precludes him from ever have said response for himself.

while I'm glad I got you into the discussion let me clarify a few things.

- I didn't say christians "control" the US. I said they are in a position of power since they are the "most influential" religious group in this country.
- I'm not dismissing religious reasons just because they are religious, I am dismissing them in that they shouldn't be the sole factor in determining law in this country.

and your last sentence went totally over my head, so I have no idea how to respond :confused: (not putting you down, just saying I don't get what you said)

Cub, I don't think that even a non-religious moral person in this country can be without some sort of religious influence. getting away from the (my words) crude morality of doing-good-for-heaven, i think there lies a greater reasoning in religious morality. ie cain and abel shows us that it is up to us to take care of one another, and that "care" is relational and responsible, two words that should always be synonymous with religion. again, it isn't so bad that xtains are in charge (someone has to) and that they are making the decisions (the majority rules in this crazy system), but it's that these xtains are not focusing on either relations or their responsibility to prove that love is our greatest means to change.

I don't know if the other guy can, but I can. Both incest and polygamy are illegal, which means there is no equal protection issue because it is permissible for the government to treat those groups differently (by not allowing them to marry). If you want to argue that allowing gay marriage might allow persons from those groups to also marry, you first have to make a realistic argument that incest and polygamy are legal or might be legalized (either by repealing the laws -- which won't happen -- or by arguing that they are unconstitutional -- which already has been tested and failed). Until you can make an argument that the incest and polygamy laws are invalid, you have no slippery slope with regard to these groups. At most you have fearmongering.

A woman in France recently married a dead man. And she got Chirac's permission first. Let me repeat that: A DEAD MAN.

much better than I could have ever said, thank you.

AE - I agree that most people's morals have some basis in religion. However, the distinction I am trying to make is that decsions should be made for the morality of the issue and not the religious background of it. I have yet to see one person from another religion chime in that their religion says it's evil therefor we can't have it. As I see it, the religious zealots pushing for thi so hard right now are only doing so because it furthers their beliefs that "they are right" not because "it is right for everyone". I'll use murder as an example, murder is decried againt extensively in christianity to my knowledge but you'll never hear me say "why should it be done away with, it's just for religous reasons" because in my eyes it's not. By outlawing murder, you are doing a greater good which happens to follow relegious belies. In trying to outlaw same-sex marriage people are trying to push "their" religion on al, there is no "greater good" in that. (if that makes sense)

Just curious. Was homosexuality once illegal? How many times was the constitutionality of laws banning homosexual sex challenged before a good many of them were overturned? Sorry, don't mean to fearmonger. :rolleyes:

And since I'm on your ignore I can gleefully say YOUR A BIG STUPID HEAD!!!

I'll have to go back over my history books to see all the times we have followed France's lead :rolleyes: France has nothing to do with this, sheesh, way to try and threadjack.

I think the rolling eyes is one of the best emoticons. Okay, back to your regular arguing. :)

Well shit, the murder laws might be overturned if we don't allow same-sex marriage so by that token we HAVE to allow them with no other thought put into the matter!

Oh but you're putting so much thought in already, Chubbs... :D

No, homosexuality was not illegal. Sodomy was illegal in some states, though it was only enforced in a discriminatory manner. The sodomy laws were overturned recently for good reason. If you think the same might happen to the incest and polygamy laws, please let me hear your legal argument. Once you make that argument, we can then discuss whether the equal protection clause might entitled those groups to marry.

So now if we disagree with homosexual marriage in a message board debate, we have to continually repeat our reasonings, explain them despite the fact that the opposition will never agree with them anyway, and then argue every possible resulting court case to prove our point? Whew! Just trying to get a handle on this...

{smartass tone since I agree with yabanci}And by sodomy you mean anal sex, which would mean it was illegal for male/female anal sex as well as homosexual means, no?{/smartass tone...}

It takes two to tango, nice try tho.

For the last time, I won't dance with you. :p

Just a factual point - the recent case of the Texas law applied only to homosexual sodomy.

The difference, Chubby, is that for the first time in our nation's history who is eligible for marriage will be redefined. Who's to say where that new definition should stop, and who's to say the debate won't be opened again.

Cub, I argree with you on much of this. But what i have a problem with was your negative image of christianity in general. i like that you have now called the problem people "religious zealots". and you are right about this notion that this need for laws seems to be a need to legitimize their beliefs (manifest destinty anyone?).
but i am still not sure about your argument on the lack of other religions. if there were others would you be more inclined to agree? also, not sure what "decsions should be made for the morality of the issue and not the religious background of it." means. are you saying that religious background is the threat of heaven/hell? or that its something rooted in story or myth? again i think if an xtain is doing something moral for any reason other than out of a response to give love back to god and another then the reasoning is at best flawed, and at worst hearsey. but if one is coming love then i do not think it should matter what or where their influence came from.
btw, i too do not see how the need to discriminate is at all from love. i think there is a giant disconnect between those xtains who think their religion is only a means to an ultimate end, and those who see it as relevant and urgent opportunity. who cares about the promise of heaven if we are wasting the gift of life.

So therefor we must not open debate or ever change that definition? I disagree with that. Did we use that logic when allowing women to vote?

"Well, who's to say where the new definition of who can vote will stop? Who's to say the debate won't be opened again? How do we know that in the future someone won't start pushing for animals to have the right to vote?"

Come on... Who said our current definition is just or correct?

Actually this is not true. At one point or another, 42 states had laws that made blacks ineligible to marry whites. Thankfully marriage has been "redefined" to allow interracial marriage.

I guess I base my negative view on christianity on the "non christian christians" as you put it earlier. I base it on people who try and force their views on others. If someone of another religion tried to force their views on me I'd reject them just the same, but in this country (and on this board in particular) I find that religion is christianity because as I said; it IS the most dominant religion in this country. Those in a position of power (not IN power) tend to exercise said power to try to influence all.

I think what I say that most people's moral's have a root in religion, is that it comes from story/myth.

like you said (i think), i have no problem with things being based in religion as long as that isn't the sole purpose behind. to go to war because it is for the good of all (let's say WWII) is fine, to go to that war SIMPLY because it is a religous issue is wrong IMO.

nobody's arguing debate shouldn't be opened. As to whether or not the definition should ever be changed, I'll just refer you back to how women got the right to vote. It wasn't via judicial activism or renegade politicians. It was via a constitutional amendment. Again, it was the will of the people deciding.

What's so wrong with trying to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage?

{sarcasm}GASP! We've already started sliding down the slippery slope!!! {/sarcasm}

Is gay marriage currently illegal? What are we amending exactly? I don't see anything in the constitution saying that they can't marry.

The right to vote can arise only from the constitution, so therefore an amendment was needed to give women the right to vote. The right to equal protection under the law is already in the constitution (as amended).

Did you bother to read the entire article about this event, or just the sensationalized headline?

If you had read the whole article, you'd know that what this is all about is a law in France that allows widowers to petition for the legal benefits of marriage in cases where it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple had intended to marry prior to the death of one of the pair.

Does it have to be consummated? ;)

That may or may not be true, but keep in mind that I said people here weren't asking for this.

I guess I don't follow your argument. You seem to be saying that polygamy wouldn't be legalized, because it's... illegal. Why couldn't they just change the laws, especially after someone with a good lawyer tries to use gay marriage as a precedent?

Beyond that, there's the bigger picture moral argument. If we're not supposed to be able to tell people who they can and can't marry, don't we at least have to apply that to everyone?

No, it has to do with equal protection analysis under constitutional law. The government may classify groups and treat them differently -- it does so all the time. However, such classifications are scrutinized differently under the equal protection clause depending on the type of classificaton. For example, if the classification is based on something like race, sex, or nationality, "strict scrutiny" applies and the classification must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose, a very high standard to meet. There is also "intermediate scrutiny" in certain gender cases and what's often referred to as "rational basis" scrutiny for almost everything else. Under rational basis scrutiny, the government need only prove that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Discouraging illegal activity (incest and polygamy) is a legitimate government purpose, and prohibiting such groups to marry is a rational way to discourage that activity, so it's basically an open and shut case. In order to argue that incestuous couples and polygamists should be able to marry, therefore, you first have to make incest and polygamy legal (so the government cannot argue that its legitimate government purpose is discouraging illegal activity). The only way to make incest and polygamy legal is for the legislatures to repeal the laws (which will never happen) or for those laws to be found unconstitutional. That is why I say give me a realistic legal argument that the incest and polygamy laws are unconsititional and then I will listen to your slippery slope arguments.

Maple - Your argument thus far is... reasons for not allowing:
same sex marriage - may lead to something worse like incest or polyagmy

however

reasons for not allowing:
incest - birth defects, #1 answer
polygamy - wayyyyy too complicated, if wife #2 gives birth to a kid then gets divorced does wife #1 get visitation rights? It's way too messy legally to allow this


so we have actual reasons to keeo incest and polyagmy illegal which eliminates your flimsy "reason" to do away with same sex marriage.

Yes I read the whole story. I know what it's about. Doesn't change that she married a DEAD MAN.

it doesn't change the fact that it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to me. It's very relevant. It shows how far this marriage idea can be distorted from its traditional definition. That seems pretty relevant to me.

I meant relevant under state or federal law, not relevant in your own mind.

Ah well I wasn't concerned with law when I posted that. Just in making a point that is certainly relevant to this discussion.

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

oh, wrong novel.

So Marilyn Monroe is now officially a 'free agent?" :cool:

Well, while the 'new' definition of marriage may open up the phenomena of marrying dead people, let's remember that dead people have been voting as democrats for years.

I like how whenever Cam is beaten in an argument, he just sort of slinks away and never posts in that thread again.

Good job, yabanci!

But that seems to open a can of worms, since what's to stop a state from simply declaring gay marriage illegal and then using "discouraging illegal activity" as a reason for not recognizing them?

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the logic seems to be circular. You have to recognize gay marriage because it's not illegal, and you can't make it illegal because you have to recognize it. And you don't recognize polygamy because it's illegal, and you don't have to make it legal because ... why, exactly? Other than that society says it should be?

I guess the counter-argument is that banning gay marriage would be unconstitutional, and banning polygamy is not? Is that where the split happens?

Just to clarify, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I think I've said this several times.

I just don't see it as the black and white issues that so many others seems to. I think the slippery slope argument may be valid and is worth exploring. However, I'm not convinced that it would be a good reason not to allow gay marriage even if it could be shown to be true.

There is room for thought and argument somewhere between the knee-jerk bible-thumping and knee-jerk bible-bashing, you know.

I will say that the chance that marriage could be redefined to allow polygamy is certainly a reasonable thought when discussing redefining marriage. But the only problem I really have with polygamy is when it is done with multiple spouses who are unaware of the polygamy.

Government would sure have a headache when trying to split up assets between a man, an ex-spouse, and that man's other 2 spouses, though.

Yeah, I really think that once you allow gay marriage, legal polygamy becomes inevitable. It won't be right away, but eventually it will happen.

Incest is less likely since there's the ability to prove harm there. Same with all the other extreme examples (horse-lovers!) that people like to throw out there in an effort to subtlely lump gays into the "sexual pervert" category.

But here's another direction it could go... what happens when some middle-aged brother/sister combo decide they want to be married. Not because they're in a relationship -- but they don't expect to get married to anyone else, they live together, and they want some of the benefits that married couples get. What happens when they challenge the law? Or any long-term roommates, for that matter?

It sounds like an obvious non-starter -- you can't get married if you're not in a romantic/sexual relationship. That's part of the definition of marriage, right? But so was man/woman. The brother and sister would tell you that they're being discriminated against, just because they aren't doing it (and couldn't legally even if they wanted to). We took the traditional man/woman part out of marriage, what about the "in love" part too? A "couple" that's not really a couple still isn't hurting anyone.

Would that fly in a court? Maybe, maybe not. But there are some parallels, which is why I find the slippery slope argument to be compelling. Once you take a step towards tinkering with the definition of marriage, even a small and good step, someone will want to take one more. And another. How do you draw the line without resorting to arguments like "it's tradition" and "that's not what society wants" (since we've agreed that those shouldn't apply to the gay marriage debate)?

I don't see any easy answers. I do think we're on a slippery slope to making the concept of marriage meaningless, beyond it's various legal/financial implications. And I'm not really sure how you stop that.

And yes, I realize we were on that slope long before the gay marriage debate, with abusive families and quicky divorces. That doesn't make it any easier to like.

Hehe. That's brilliant.

(I live close enough to Chicago to have that tickle my funnybone.)