Gay Marriage
mill ThaddeusFil-każ li kont qed jgħixu fi grotta fuq il-qamar għall-aħħar ftit snin, hawnhekk hija aġġornament aħbarijiet: avukati gay drittijiet u Konservattivi soċjali dan l-aħħar ġew sparring fuq il-kwistjoni tal-istess sess żwieġ fl-Amerika. Huwa wkoll l-ebda sigriet li Mormons aktar appoġġ tradizzjonali (eterosesswali) definizzjoni ta 'żwieġ.
Huwa kien f'pożizzjoni politiku diffiċli li tieħu. Stajt CROWLEY ruħi kif jittrattaw mal-ħlasijiet ta 'bigotry stabbiliti kontra us, u kif jiġu adegwatament jiddefendi pożizzjoni tiegħi.
Il-komunità gay drittijiet waqqfet-dibattitu bħala kwistjoni ta 'drittijiet ċivili. Dan huwa qarrieqa, partikolarment fil-Proposition 8 California kampanja. Id-drittijiet kollha legali ġew mogħtija l-istess sess koppji għas-snin. Kieku kien biss kwistjoni li tiżgura drittijiet ta żjara fl-isptar jew preżentazzjoni extra taxxa eżenzjoni għal sħubija domestika, inkun favur li jiddisponi dawn id-drittijiet ċivili, iżda huma diġà disponibbli. Il-battalja reali hija fuq il-liċenzja taż-żwieġ;-dritt li jitolbu lil xulxin "raġel" jew "mara."
Iż-żwieġ huwa le, u fih innifsu, dritt ċivili. Gvern għandha storja twila li jirrestrinġu żwiġijiet li jinvolvu aħwa, kuġini, minuri, u bigamists minbarra l-omosesswali. Hemm raġuni tajba għal gvern biex jingħata appoġġ biss żwiġijiet eterosesswali.
Dak li huwa ġġieldu għal mhux drittijiet ċivili, iżda leġittimità. Soċjetà hija mitluba jirratifikaw imġiba omosesswali, u Mormons ma tistax sanzjoni l-imġieba fil-kuxjenza tajba. Mormons ħsieb imġiba omosesswali bħala għaqli u sinful . Hija ħaġa waħda li jittolleraw dnub fil-komunità, u ieħor għas-soċjetà li japprova l-dnub uffiċjalment.
Mormons ma tipprova li l-omosesswalità jillegalizza. Aħna mhux bit-tama li xi ħadd jiċħad drittijiet legali tagħhom. U aħna ċertament ma jsostnux il-vjolenza jew diskriminazzjoni lejn omosesswali jew lesbjani. L-għan tagħna huwa sempliċiment li tappoġġja d-definizzjoni tradizzjonali ta 'żwieġ bħala l-mod ideali biex torganizza soċjetà familji , u jżommha bħala kwistjoni ta 'ordni pubbliku prudenti.
I jirrikonoxxu li dan l-artikolu x'aktarx se tpaċi xi kegs trab ta 'emozzjoni. Ejja jiddiskutu l-kwistjoni, iżda qabel ma tikkummenta, nixtieq li tieħu nifsijiet fil-fond ftit, aqra tagħna politika kumment , u jżommu ton tiegħek kif edukat kemm tista '. I mhux ser jirrispondu għal isem-sejħa jew insulti (kontra tiegħi jew Knisja tiegħi).
Artikolu kbir. I simili kif inti rrilevat li l-gvern (aka.-poplu ta 'nazzjon) dejjem kellhom il-poter li jirristrinġi u jirregolaw għaqdiet taż-żwieġ.
Nixtieq ukoll li jiġi rrilevat li fil-maġġoranza kbira tal-każijiet, il-votanti kienu kważi kompletament f'dijossidu ivvota biex iżommu żwieġ bejn raġel u mara. ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/index.html ). Minkejja dak li l-midja jgħid, inti fil-fatt fil-minoranza jekk tahseb żwieġ omosesswali huwa ok.
Nemmen li meta l-familja jonqos, il-nazzjon jonqos. Nemmen li l-omosesswalità hija sin, u I ma jistax japprova bħala parti mill-komunità tiegħi. I jistgħu jittolleraw, iżda qatt ma tapprovahx.
I se jikkummenta aktar tard, iżda I biss d nixtieq ngħid li hemm fidila ħafna, kmandament-jobdu, tempju għaddejjin Mormons li jappoġġjaw żwieġ omosesswali. Aħna definittivament grupp ta 'minoranza fi ħdan il-Knisja LDS imma aħna ma jeżistux. Membri oħra jistgħu jkunu ta 'appoġġ tad-drittijiet omosesswali iżda jħossu li huma obbligati li "isegwu l-profeta" f'termini ta' l-azzjonijiet tagħhom. Peress li dan is-sit huwa intitolat "What Do Mormons Believe?" I kien apprezzat dikjarazzjoni ta 'ċaħda ta' tipi li din hija kwistjoni kontroversjali kemm ġewwa u barra tal-Knisja.
Hemm dikjarazzjoni ta 'ċaħda fil-qiegħ tal-paġna. Filwaqt li membri tal-Knisja tista 'ssib dawn ma jaqblux ma' prinċipju dottrinali, Thaddeus ma link għall din l-intervista knisja uffiċjali li jkopri s-suġġett f'xi fond.
Darrell, grazzi għall-kummenti tiegħek. Naħseb li inti qed dritt; ebda stat li legalizzat żwieġ omosesswali jagħmel hekk b'vot tal-poplu. Niżlet bħala deċiżjoni ta 'mħallef.
Sunlize, grazzi għall tipponta li l-. Inti dritt li membri tal-Knisja ma jkunux obbligati li jieħdu l-pożizzjoni politika istess mexxejja tal-Knisja. Hemm firxa wiesgħa ta 'opinjoni fil-Knisja, u anke mal-pożizzjoni tiegħi għadni nifhem mal-komunità omosesswali; Ma rridx li xi ħadd disenfranchise tad-drittijiet bażiċi tal-bniedem.
Huwa Prinċipju tal-Knisja li l-azzjonijiet omosesswali huma biss dwar kif sinful u spiritwalment ħsara bħala sess premarital u l-affarijiet barra miż-żwieġ, sabiex mill-inqas il-membri kollha għandu jkollhom dan il-punt in komuni. Jekk dan jissarraf trażżin relazzjonijiet barra l-Knisja hija, I think, kwistjoni ta 'kuxjenza personali.
Well, I kieku ma jaqblux ma 'Darrell kemmxejn.
Omosesswalità mhux dnub. Sess omosesswali huwa dnub. I persuna tista 'tkun bijoloġikament predisposti għal ħafna affarijiet li huma sinful. Sakemm inti ma jipparteċipawx fil li, kollox huwa multa.
Aħna lkoll għandna trans tagħna biex iġorru. Dak hu li aħna qed hawn biex jingħelbu.
Opinjoni tiegħi biss ... kilometraġġ jistgħu jvarjaw.
Apologies minn qabel għal tweġiba eċċessivament twal.
Jidher argument tiegħek għall-esklużjoni tal-istess sess koppji minn żwieġ hija bbażata fuq żewġ argumenti. L-ewwel, il-gvern għandu interess konvinċenti fil-propagazzjoni tas-soċjetà u għalhekk, żwieġ, li tkun affari finanzjarjament piż għall-istat, għandu jkun limitat għal sħubijiet li jkollhom il-kapaċità li tipproduċi t-tfal (sabiex dawk it-tfal jista 'jikber biex ikunu produttivi, taxxa ħlas membri tas-soċjetà). It-tieni, is-soċjetà m'għandhiex tkun mitluba li jirratifikaw imġiba li, fl-opinjoni miżmuma mill-knisja LDS (u oħrajn), huwa sinful.
Ejja stabbiliti argument reliġjużi apparti għal paragrafi ftit. Sabiex l-argument esklużjoni toqgħod fuq l-affermazzjoni li l-gvern tista 'u għandha tillimita żwieġ għal koppji tfal li jipproduċu, għandu jiġi aċċettat mill aderenti l-argument li ma jistax u ma jeżistix ebda raġuni OĦRA għaż-żwieġ li jeżistu. Għalhekk, fin-nuqqas tat-tfal, huwa fl-aħjar interess tas-soċjetà li jiċħdu żwieġ fuq il-bażi li l-"sussidju żwieġ" huwa maħsub biex jappoġġjaw il-ġbir tat-tfal. Barra minn hekk, persuni li jaderrixu ma 'dan ir-raġunament ma jistax razzjonali jiġġustifikaw appoġġ tagħhom għal "separati iżda ugwali" unjonijiet ċivili, sħubiji domestiċi, jew kwalunkwe unjoni stat ieħor rikonoxxut, kif dawn l-arranġamenti joħolqu piż finanzjarju fuq l-istat. Din il-filosofija forzi l-aderenti għal pożizzjoni kollox jew xejn.
Filwaqt li dan huwa argument popolari fost exclusionists maritali, dan l-argument iwassalna għall-konklużjonijiet li huma mhux faċli għad-dritt reliġjużi biex tibla '. Jekk l-istat jirrikonoxxi u jipprovdi inċentivi finanzjarji għaż-żwieġ bbażati fuq l-interess tal-istat fil-żwiġijiet li jipproduċu tfal, kwalunkwe rikonoxximent istat ta 'żwieġ fin-nuqqas tat-tfal inġustament għalja għall-istat. Żwiġijiet m'għandhomx jingħataw sakemm tifel jkun ġie maħsub. Dan se jiżgura li l-benefiċċji pprovduti mill-istat bħala inċentivi għall trobbija tat-tfal huma ma tingħatax qabel ma ċ-ċirkostanza li jikkwalifikaw ġiet realizzata.
Biex tieni argument tiegħek, huwa antikostituzzjonali għall-gvern li tilleġiżla fir slant reliġjużi. Għalhekk, ebda argument kontra fuq prinċipji reliġjużi (ssejjaħ azzjoni sinful, per eżempju), huwa argument mejta. Barra minn hekk, ma naħsibx kwalunkwe persuna razzjonali jargumentaw li minħabba liġi tippermetti, jew tipprovdi, għall-prattika ta 'attivitajiet li jmorru kontra l-fehmiet ta' reliġjon, jew grupp ta 'reliġjonijiet, li l-kwoti bħal dawn huma ekwivalenti għall-approvazzjoni tas-soċjetà ta' tali prattiċi. Mar-raġunament tiegħek, japprova soċjetà alkoħoliżmu, it-tabakk, il-pornografija, logħob, divorzju, eċċ.
Fil-qosor, 1) filwaqt li r-reliġjon għandu u ma jkollu kull dritt li jippridkaw kontra prattiki omosesswali, l-argumenti favur jew kontra l-politika pubblika li sejħa fuq reliġjon jew twemmin reliġjuż m'għandhomx post qafas legali tagħna u, 2) taż-żwieġ ma u ma jistax ikun definit li jiġi limitat għal persuni li għandhom l-possibilità li tfal. WIEĦED mill-għanijiet ta 'żwieġ huwa li toħloq qafas għall-produzzjoni u trobbija tat-tfal, imma sakemm dibattitu żwieġ istess sess daħlu fil-kuxjenza pubblika, is-soċjetà fl żwieġ qatt ma tarah kbir bħala l-mezz l-aħħar singular ta' produzzjoni tfal. Żwieġ jista 'u ma jservu skopijiet oħra sinifikanti u ta' benefiċċju li ma jistgħux jiġu definiti biss b'mod mentalità reliġjuża, jew limitat għal wieħed sess jew ieħor.
Steven, nirringrazzjak għall-risposta tiegħek. Ninsab kuntenta li inti inżommu l-kalma u rispons tajjeb motivata. Nittama wkoll ma tarax kliem tiegħi bħala attakki. Nipprova jkun rispettuż possibbli.
Meta I kiteb dan, I kien kompletament konxju tad-diskrepanza bejn joffru għaqdiet ċivili mal-benefiċċji legali u sussidjati trobbija tat-tfal bħala r-raġuni għaż-żwieġ gvern adozzjoni.
Naqbel miegħek li trobbija tat-tfal mhuwiex l-unika raġuni għaż-żwieġ, iżda I inkludew il-link li jenfasizza li huwa komponent kbir mir-raġuni. Jekk żwieġ omosesswali għandu jiġi ratifikat, benefiċċji għall-pubbliku għandhom jiġu nnumerati, speċjalment jekk l-ispejjeż jitqiesu.
I ma avukat li jiffurmaw politika pubblika bbażata biss fuq prinċipji reliġjużi. Gvern tagħna jikseb l-awtorità tagħha mill-poplu, u l-politika pubbliċi jkollhom jiġu strettament marbuta ma 'rieda pubblika. Aħna li jivvutaw kuxjenzi tagħna. Dan huwa jien qal.
Mar-raġunament tiegħek, japprova soċjetà alkoħoliżmu, it-tabakk, il-pornografija, logħob, divorzju, eċċ.
Soċjetà jittollera dawn indulgences. Gvern responsabbli qatt ma għandhom attivament jippromwovu lilhom jew jagħtuhom status iffavorit. Imġiba omosesswali ikun legali, iżda ma għandhomx ikunu enthroned.
Żwieġ jista 'u ma jservu skopijiet oħra sinifikanti u ta' benefiċċju li ma jistgħux jiġu definiti biss b'mod mentalità reliġjuża, jew limitat għal wieħed sess jew ieħor.
Dan huwa verament il-qofol tal-kwistjoni, I think. X'inhu l-iskop iservu żwieġ ma? Xi tarah bħala timbru ta 'approvazzjoni minn soċjetà fuq l-imħabba ftit koppji. Oħrajn ara t-timbru ġejjin minn Alla. Oħrajn jħallu imħabba minnha u ara aktar ta 'relazzjoni ekonomika. Xi biss jixtiequ ċ-ċittadinanza. Biex aktar Mormons huwa l-bażi u pedament għal kuntenti, b'saħħithom familja.
Steven, liema għan ma żwieġ iservu għalik?
Thaddeus,
Ma narax kliem tiegħek bħala attakki - I qatt. Dibattitu b'saħħithom u l-argument huma essenzjali għal ċivilizzazzjoni b'saħħithom. I ħafna ħafna rigward inti u l-opinjoni tiegħek.
Imxejna ma kellhomx konverżazzjoni biżżejjed fil-fond li tifhem li biss minħabba I jargumentaw punt ma jfissirx Jiena naqbel mal-pożizzjoni I am argument għal. Dan huwa parzjalment minħabba xi ħaġa ġewwa lili mhux se let argument forum miftuħ tmur mhux kontestati, u parzjalment minħabba nixtieq li jaslu għal konklużjoni onest, wara li navigati-nirien ta 'dibattitu. I jistgħu onestament, tassew, ngħid li ma tkunx għadha kompletament iddeċieda fejn I stand fuq din il-kwistjoni.
Soċjetà jittollera dawn indulgences. Gvern responsabbli qatt ma għandhom attivament jippromwovu lilhom jew jagħtuhom status iffavorit.
Ma 'dan naqbel. I kien li juru li l-argument tiegħek ma tantx mibnija. L-argument u l-implikazzjonijiet tagħha ma tistax tarah u aċċettati (jew miċħuda) individwalment. Jekk verament nemmnu li legalizzazzjoni żwieġ omosesswali huwa l-ekwivalenti ta 'tendorsja żwieġ omosesswali, milli għandek verament nemmnu li legalizzazzjoni alkoħol huwa l-ekwivalenti ta' tendorsja alkoħoliżmu. Int onestament lest li jaċċetta li?
Ma nemminx fehma ta 'individwu ta' l-iskop ta 'żwieġ hija l-qofol tal-kwistjoni. Il-fatti huma dawn: żwieġ jeżisti bħala kunċett legali. Bħala kunċett legali, l-applikazzjoni tagħha hija suġġetta għall-limiti, il-limiti u linji gwida tal-kostituzzjoni tal-Istati Uniti. Peress li l-kostituzzjoni ma jiddefinixxix żwieġ, l-applikazzjoni ta 'żwieġ għandhom jiġu toħroġ minn disposizzjonijiet oħra minn ġewwa l-kostituzzjoni. F'dan il-qafas, hemm argumenti qawwija immens għall-għoti żwieġ li istess sess koppji. I mhux se lista lilhom hawnhekk - inti tista 'tonfoq 30 sekonda fuq Google.
Jien ser shamelessly jipprovaw jevitaw il-kwistjoni ta 'jekk jew le s-soċjetà benefiċċji omosesswali żwieġ (anki jekk naħseb I jistgħu jintramaw difiża deċenti f'dan il-qasam). Naħseb li l-kwistjoni hija irrilevanti meta wieħed jaraha fid-dawl tal-liġi kostituzzjonali. Waħda mill-konsegwenzi kbar u horrible ta 'li jkollhom gvern imperfetta (għax inti taf li f'din id-dinja, m'hemmx tip ieħor), huwa li dak li għandu u m'għandux ikun legali bis-saħħa ta' dak li huwa "morali" mhux dejjem jikkoinċidu ma ' dak li għandu u m'għandux ikun legali bis-saħħa tal-kunċett legali li fih noperaw. Huwa biss hekk jiġri (thankfully) li ħafna mill-ħin, il-liġi u dak li huwa ġeneralment meqjus bħala "morali" huma l-istess ħaġa. Wieħed jista 'jargumenta li sabiex tinżamm soċjetà ordnat, it-twemmin tagħna fil-istat tad-dritt għandu jieħdu post it-twemmin tagħna fil dak li huwa moralment tajba. Mormons jemmnu fil-"obeying, jonora, u jsostnu l-liġi," iżda rari jifhmu dak li verament teħtieġ minna philosophically.
Dan, naħseb, huwa għaliex l-istess sess żwiġijiet tendenza li jiġu promulgati permezz ta 'azzjoni tal-qorti. Jien nammetti li jien mentalment ċowk fuq dawn il-kliem kif I tip tagħhom, iżda madankollu: il-popolazzjoni ġenerali hija blinded mill "morali" tagħhom individwali twemmin. Dan iwassalni lura lill-affermazzjoni li dak li huwa legali, u għalhekk għandhom ikunu protetti mil-liġi, ma għandhomx neċessarjament ikunu dak li l-maġġoranza jaħseb li "morali".
Nixtieq infakkarkom li l-qrati ta 'spiss definiti jew iffurmat politika pubblika kontra l-"morali" permanenti tal-popolazzjoni ġenerali fil-ħin (ara id-Drittijiet Ċivili ", matul l-1900s). Dawn id-deċiżjonijiet kienu bil-għaqal bbażata fuq l-istat tad-dritt, u blind għall-kundanni morali tal-maġġoranza.
Mill-mod, mhux kollha istati ma 'legali tal-istess sess żwiġijiet għamlu hekk permezz ta' azzjoni tal-qorti. Vermont kienet l-ewwel li jippromulgaw protezzjonijiet dawn minn liġi, u dalwaqt se jiġi segwit minn New Hampshire u New York.
Steven,
I ħafna rispett opinjonijiet tiegħek, wisq. Huwa interessanti li ssir diskussjoni online ma 'xi ħadd I attwalment know. Iżżid dimensjoni u l-fond.
Jekk verament nemmnu li legalizzazzjoni żwieġ omosesswali huwa l-ekwivalenti ta 'tendorsja żwieġ omosesswali, milli għandek verament nemmnu li legalizzazzjoni alkoħol huwa l-ekwivalenti ta' tendorsja alkoħoliżmu. Int onestament lest li jaċċetta li?
Naħseb int nieqes punt tiegħi. Legalizing żwieġ omosesswali tilleġittima sess omosesswali. Huwa d jkun aktar bħall-gvern tagħti bogħod shots whisky ħielsa jew tnaqqis taxxi fuq birreriji. Alkoħol huwa legali, iżda minħabba l-ambigwità morali huwa m'għandux jingħata status speċjali.
Jekk il-kwistjoni għandha tiġi deċiża mil-liġi Kostituzzjonali, allura jifforma opinjoni dwar il-kwistjoni hija irrilevanti. Il-legalità ta 'għażla kwalunkwe konjuġi li tixtieq tkun deċiża minkejja dak Aħna-Poplu jgħidu. I jista 'ċertament ara l-punt tiegħek, madankollu, li l-maġġoranza ma għandu jkollhom setgħa li jrażżnu d-drittijiet tal-minoranzi. Jien mhux konvint li dan japplika f'dan ix-xenarju, imma jien ma scholar Kostituzzjonali. I għadhom jemmnu li l-gvern kellu, u se jibqa 'jkollhom, il-poter responsabbli biex jillimitaw l-għażla miżżewġin.
U lest I jiksru politika tiegħi kumment stess, I jridu jirritornaw lejn l-għan tiegħi. Jien ma tipprova li jipprova li jien dritt. I kiteb dan l-artikolu li juru dak li nemmen (u nispera li jirrappreżenta aktar opinjonijiet oħra Mormons "- jekk le, ejja tismagħha). Billi jiddefendu pożizzjoni tiegħi, I biss jridu juru li tiġi difiża, u li xbieha tad-dinja żwieġ pro-tradizzjonali mhux neċessarjament motivati mill-mibegħda.
Bħal kollox aħna jgħallmu dan is-sit, nistiednu lill-qarrejja tagħna biex jinvestigaw l-naħat tal-kwistjoni u l-avukat mal-Mulej fit-talb biex tgħinhom jafu għalihom infushom dak li hu dritt.
Din hija kwistjoni li jien ħsibt dwar ħafna, kif ħafna nies ikollhom. Qrajt il-kummenti u dibattitu b'interess kbir. Hemm ftit affarijiet li nixtieq ngħid u nispera li oħrajn, speċjalment membri ta 'Knisja tagħna, se jieħdu lill-qalb u verament jaħseb dwar. Nixtieq eku dak Thaddeus intqal waqt din tmiem ta 'l-aħħar kumment tiegħu, nixtieq nistedinkom biex tinvestiga l-kwistjoni u mbagħad nitolbu li tkun taf dak li hu dritt.
Darba fis-sena fil-Konferenza Ġenerali u mbagħad darba kull sentejn meta I jiltaqgħu mal-mexxej ekkleżjastiċi tiegħi biex niddikjara li jien denja biex tmur fil-tempju, għandi l-opportunità li jirrikonoxxu pubblikament li nemmen li l-profeta attwali, Thomas S. Monson f'dan il-każ, huwa profeta ta 'Alla fuq l-earth u li nemmen li Ġesù Kristu twassal u jidderiġi knisja tiegħu permezz ta' dan profeta. I wkoll isostnu l-Presidenza Ewwel u Kworum ta 'l-Appostli Tnax bħala profeti, l seers, u revelators. Billi tagħti din affermazzjoni pubblika, Nemmen bis-sħiħ li mingħajr każ tal-kwistjoni, jiena ngħid li se jgħinhom fl kwalunkwe u d-deċiżjonijiet kollha, minħabba li huma jwasslu rieda ta 'Alla għall-Knisja kollha kemm hi (ara D & C 01:38; D & C 21 :1-6). Mhux dan li I għandha tagħmel, jekk nemmen li huma profeti, l seers, u revelators? Dan ma jfissirx li minn żmien għal żmien I ma għandhom opinjonijiet differenti inizjalment, iżda dak li ma jfissirx li meta dawn id-differenzi jinqalgħu, għandi l-obbligu li persuna tfittex, ponder, u nitolbu sakemm nifhem għaliex il-profeta jew appostli qed jgħallmu dak li qed jgħallmu u mbagħad jikkonformaw rieda tiegħi u opinjonijiet lill-rieda ta 'Alla.
A kumment minn Steven s'issa lura:
"Huwa antikostituzzjonali għall-gvern li tilleġiżla fir slant reliġjużi. Għalhekk, ebda argument kontra fuq prinċipji reliġjużi (ssejjaħ azzjoni sinful, per eżempju), huwa argument mejta. "
Din hija waħda dikjarazzjoni li nsib komunement overemphasized. Il-kostituzzjoni tgħid xejn dwar leġiżlar "ma slant reliġjużi", u l-unika konnessjoni involuti fil-kostituzzjoni hija fl-emenda 1, u inħoss obbligati li jiġi rrilevat li biss jgħid "Kungress għandhom jagħmlu l-ebda liġi tirrispetta stabbiliment ta 'reliġjon, jew jipprojbixxu l-eżerċizzju liberu tiegħu ". Huwa jieħu pjuttost l-medda li jieħdu dik id-dikjarazzjoni u jgħidu li ħadd ma jista 'jilleġiżla ma slant reliġjużi. Fil-fatt, interpretazzjoni inqas astratta tal-emenda 1 attwalment japprova juża prinċipji reliġjużi wieħed li jiggwidaw il-politika razzjonali li jagħmlu kif huwa inkludiet bħala parti mill-eżerċizzju ħieles ta 'reliġjon. Jekk jew le inti think nies għandhom tilleġiżla fir slant reliġjużi, li tiddikjara din l-azzjoni antikostituzzjonali huwa ferm aktar ta '"l-argument mejjet" minn "ssejjaħ fuq prinċipji reliġjużi".
Steve:
I raden I għandu jkollhom blasted "reliġjużi motivati 'liġijiet bħala antikostituzzjonali, minflok tintuża l-frażi" slant reliġjużi ". Ddejjaqni biex tissellef direttament mill Wikipedija , iżda naħseb li huwa tajjeb miktuba.
"Il-klawsola istabbiliment ġeneralment ġiet interpretata li jipprojbixxu 1) l-istabbiliment ta 'reliġjon nazzjonali mill-Kungress, jew 2) il-preferenza ta' wieħed reliġjon minflok ieħor, jew l-appoġġ ta 'idea reliġjuża bl-ebda skop sekulari identifikabbli." (Enfasi miżjuda).
Din l-interpretazzjoni fejn jien ġej minn: xi liġi li hija msejsa fuq idejat reliġjużi bl-ebda skop sekulari hija antikostituzzjonali. Ma nsibx dan konklużjoni astratt fl-iċken - fil-fatt nemmen li l-interpretazzjoni li jkunu pjuttost pur u litterali. Għaldaqstant, il-liġi ma jkunx uqija ta 'għarfien ta' dak "dnub" hija. "Sin" huwa kunċett reliġjuż. Il-liġi ma jqisx qtil, per eżempju, "dnub". Produzzjoni politika pubblika bbażata purament fuq dak li huwa maħsub li jkun "sinful" hija antikostituzzjonali. Dan huwa qasam fejn nemmen bosta membri tal-knisja huma f'kunflitt, iż-żamma fehmiet irrazzjonali. Jekk inti taqbel ma 'l-interpretazzjoni ta' l-ewwel emenda, inti trid ukoll tifhem għaliex l-argumenti bbażati fuq prinċipji reliġjużi jew ideali m'għandhomx post fid-dibattitu tal-politika pubblika.
Safejn il-liġi huwa kkonċernat, żwieġ hija kunċett legali u mhux ta 'unjoni definit mill-ideali reliġjużi. Safejn ideali reliġjużi u l-iskop sekulari jallinjaw, bil-mezzi kollha, jirregolaw kif xieraq. Imma meta ideali reliġjużi mingħajr skop sekulari suffiċjenti huma ppreżentati, ma jkollhomx post fid-dibattitu. Hija l-opinjoni tiegħi li l-esklużjoni omosesswali minn żwieġ istat rikonoxxut hija idea purament reliġjużi mingħajr ġustifikazzjoni sekulari suffiċjenti (jew għall-inqas mingħajr ġustifikazzjoni sekulari biżżejjed biex jgħaddi l-argumenti pro żwieġ omosesswali). Jekk qorti tista 'tkun konvinta li dan huwa l-każ (nassumu li hemm ebda dispożizzjoni speċifika l-Istati Uniti kostituzzjonali li tipprojbixxi żwieġ omosesswali), il-qorti hija ġġustifikata, kwalunkwe każ, obbligati u marbuta, sabiex toħroġ deċiżjoni li qed ngħid. Peress żwieġ huwa definit mil-liġi, jeħtieġ li stand up għall-istandards kostituzzjonali istess liġi.
I ma imħallef jew blast kull persuna għal "vot kuxjenza tagħhom". Il citizenry jista 'jkun bħala reliġjuża kif jekk jogħġbok fil-kabina tal-vot. Jekk emenda xieraq mgħoddi lill-kostituzzjoni l-Istati Uniti pprojbiti żwieġ omosesswali, I d jkun diżappuntat, iżda jsostni li peress li l-liġi ta 'l-art debitament u bla dubju emendat, l-istat tad-dritt meħtieġa projbizzjoni żwieġ omosesswali. Peress li tali dispożizzjoni ma teżistix fil-kostituzzjoni l-Istati Uniti, jien jippruvaw juru għaliex in-nies m'għandhomx cry mniġġsa meta ftit qorti tiddeċiedi favur żwiġijiet gay, u għaliex deċiżjonijiet bħal dawn mhumiex ġustifikati biss, iżda inevitabbli.
Thaddeus:
Sess Gay huwa diġà leġittimu. Koppji gay diġà jgħixu ħajja kuntenta flimkien, u ħafna tas-soċjetà (jiddependi fuq fejn inti tgħix) huwa okay ma 'dak. I think I jifhem dak li qed nipprova ngħid, għalkemm: minħabba żwieġ inċentiv, legalizzazzjoni żwieġ omosesswali tisforza-gvern sabiex jipprovdi inċentivi għall-koppji omosesswali biex jiżżewġu, fil-fatt "tagħti bogħod shots whiskey" li kieku għandhom ikunu riżervati għall- produzzjoni tat-tfal, folk dritta. This new mhix jew argument separati li għandhom jiġu kkunsidrati nnifisha - din hija ippakkjar mill-ġdid ta 'l-argument tiegħek eżistenti li għandu jkollok guessed, minn issa, jien ma kollox jaqblu ma'
.
Jiddispjaċini ngħid I jista 'jkollhom eċċediex limiti tiegħi, għalkemm. Stajt ħsibt dwar dak li stajt qal, u filwaqt li naħseb jien xorta naqbel ma 'dak li stajt bil-miktub, stajt induna li dan il-forum partikolari ma seta' kien il-post għall dibattitu bħal, speċjalment peress li l-iskop ta 'dan il-blog mhux neċessarjament biex jiddiskutu l-kwistjonijiet, iżda li tiddikjara u jiddiskutu l-pożizzjoni u t-twemmin ta 'Il-Knisja ta' Ġesù Kristu Latter ta 'kuljum Qaddisin. Fuq dan is-suġġett, il-knisja hija ċara ħafna. Għall-finijiet ta 'dan is-sit, hemm verament għandu jkun ftit biex jiddiskutu. Jekk tħoss stajt hijacked-suġġett jew eċċediex konfini, I sincerely ruhna.
Stephen,
Stajt jgawdu qari kummenti tiegħek. Stajt ċertament apprezzat l-intelliġenza u r-rispett li magħhom inti ħadthom avviċinat is-suġġett. I m'għandhomx ħafna li żżid mal-diskussjoni, ħlief bi tweġiba għall-aħħar punt tiegħek dwar dnub:
Għaldaqstant, il-liġi ma jkunx uqija ta 'għarfien ta' dak "dnub" hija. "Sin" huwa kunċett reliġjuż. Il-liġi ma jqisx qtil, per eżempju, "dnub". Produzzjoni politika pubblika bbażata purament fuq dak li huwa maħsub li jkun "sinful" hija antikostituzzjonali.
Jiena naħseb li ssir distinzjoni bejn ssejjaħ xi ħaġa "moralment ħażin" (ok biex tilleġiżla) u ssejjaħ xi ħaġa "sinful" (mhux ok biex tilleġiżla) huwa tqassim ta 'xagħar partikolarment irqiq. Huwa kważi tidher qisha kwistjoni ta 'preferenza biss semantika bejn in-nies li jemmnu f'Alla u nies li m'għandhomx.
Ukoll, fil-kultura li l-morali huma informati minn twemmin fil-qawwa ogħla, li għaddej biex tkun estremament diffiċli biex jikkonvinċu lin-nies li l-morali tagħhom għandhom "ebda skop sekulari identifikabbli."
Ser nibda kumment tiegħi billi qal I am Stephen, bl-ortografija eterna u vera tal-isem, ma Steven ma 'l-(hmph) * ortografija * oħra. So, Dave, thank you for the complement, but I think your comments should be directed elsewhere.
I agree with what Dave said, and continue by saying that the very existence of law is based off of a fundamental assumption of what is good and what is not good. Our nation is founded on this concept. Discussion of any policy centers around basic concepts of right and wrong. Even by arguing that you think religion shouldn't be part of the equation, you admit morality. The whole idea of “should” necessitates the belief on the part of the arguer that something is somehow “good”, never mind how it became so. You must realize that by arguing that religion has no place in politics you are arguing that expressing personal beliefs of basic right and wrong is inappropriate in certain situations, which I find very hard to defend. You are also arguing that religious definitions of right and wrong are inferior politically to secular definitions of right and wrong, and I challenge you to devise a good meaning for that last idea.
Steven,
Your argument depends on the assumption that marriage is a basic human civil right. Why do you believe that?
Having been around longer than the rest of you, what I find interesting is that in the early 80′s when gays started coming “out of the closet” there was a major debate about whether gayness was a natural or a learned condition. Although no conclusion was ever scientifically reached, suddenly the accepted truth was that all gay people are naturally disposed to their appetites and desires. That makes the argument equating their struggle comparable to the civil rights movement more tenable….but I'm still struggling with the basic tenet of the argument. If it is a learned behavior then it's a choice which makes the argument closer to that of an alcoholic or kleptomaniac.
“In order for the exclusion argument to stand on the assertion that government can and should limit marriage to child producing couples, it must be accepted by the argument's adherents that there cannot and does not exist any OTHER reason for marriage to exist.”
Sometimes OTHER reasons exist, certainly, but these reasons alone don't always sufficiently add up to actually justifying the cost of marriage.
“If the state recognizes and provides financial incentives for marriage based on the state's interest in marriages producing children, any state recognition of marriage in the absence of children is unjustifiably costly to the state. Marriages should not be granted UNTIL a child has been conceived.”
The problem here is the difference between principle and just a particular circumstance. A heterosexual couple can, in principle, procreate. A homosexual couple, in every circumstance, cannot procreate. We create laws in our society based on principles of our reality and less on particulars. I hope this makes sense.
Dave,
I don't believe at all that separating morality from the notion of sin is splitting a thin hair. One of philosophy's purposes is to reach an understanding of morality, and much, if not most, of defensible philosophical thinking defines morality without the concept of God. I think, also, our lives are filled with such distinctions. What the LDS Church considers sinful is not necessarily what the Catholic Church considers sinful (wine, anyone?). The concept of sin is by no means universal. And while “secular morality” is not universal either, it is infinitely more so than “sin”. I maintain that sin and righteousness, and morality, are two, distinct concepts that happen to share the same space a lot of the time.
I agree that my position is a hard sell in this crowd. I don't think I can sway the opinion of anyone here, but I believe one comes to better conclusions if he is forced to publicly defend his. I hope that you, and others here as well, feel that this discussion serves that purpose. If I have not convinced you to take my side, than I hope you've at least understood it.
Bus,
Learned behavior presupposes the existence of a teacher, or some mechanism for teaching that behavior. I think it is fairly well accepted that straight, religious, “good” families still produce gay children, and gay couples raising children still produce straight kids.
M'hemm l-ebda raġuni għaliex aħna m'għandekx jemmnu persuni omosesswali kienu parti tar-razza umana mill-"bidu" - xi wħud mill-Kristjaneżmu fuq (l-Ġudaiżmu) letteratura eqdem titkellem dwar l-eżistenza ta 'folk omosesswali, għall-inqas indirettament. Fejn, meta, u kif għamlet il-tagħlim allegat ta 'l-omosesswalità sseħħ, u kif huwa joktru?
Wara li talbet lil din, jien bil-mod ħafna biex jikkomparaw il-moviment gay-drittijiet għad-drittijiet ċivili ġlidiet-komunità African American imġarrab. Naħseb fuq il-wiċċ insibu xi affarijiet komuni interessanti, imma jien inklinat li jemmnu li l-paraguni jieqafx hemm.
Thad,
Ma naħsibx stajt magħmula l-argument li ż-żwieġ hija dritt bażiku ċivili tal-bniedem. Argumenti tiegħi kienu bbażati fuq il-kunċett legali ta 'żwieġ. Minħabba li jeżisti (tibni tal-liġi sekulari), nemmen li ma jistax ikun limitat skond is-sess. Żwieġ u fih innifsu mhuwiex dritt tal-bniedem. Safejn żwieġ huwa istituzzjoni sekulari, dan huwa dritt ġeneruż (iżda pre; udizzjali) mogħtija mill-gvern.
Ceejay,
Safejn żwieġ għotjiet tal-gvern mingħajr tfal, hija tirrikonoxxi dawn ir-raġunijiet bħala suffiċjenti biex testendi l-sussidju żwieġ. Argument tiegħi huwa li jekk il-gvern jirrikonoxxi li dawn ir-raġunijiet l-oħra teżisti, u volontarjament jagħti benefiċċji minħabba dawn ir-raġunijiet, ma tista 'tagħżel li jagħti jew li jiċħad dawn il-benefiċċji bbażati fuq is-sess.
Soċjetà b'mod ġenerali jirrikonoxxi wkoll li ma jeżistux raġunijiet oħrajn. Il-prinċipju ta dik il-kwistjoni hija li l-liġi ma verament kura jew le koppja tipproduċi tfal. I argumentat li fin-nuqqas ta 'tfal, il-gvern m'għandux jagħti żwieġ biex juru l-futilità ta' jibbaża ruħu fuq il-possibbiltà prokreazzjoni bħala l-pedament għall-kunċett legali attwali taż-żwieġ. Jekk il-liġi tajt prokreazzjoni, ikollha bżonn li jmorru fl-estrem li tillimita ż-żwieġ għal koppji ma 'tfal (jekk isir dan ikun ferm inqas spiża għall-gvern). Jekk il-liġi ma 'kura dwar jekk jew le koppja tista tipprokrea, ma setax jillimita żwieġ lill-koppji sessi opposti. Naħseb fid-dinja tal-liġi, dawn ikunu iż-żewġ pożizzjonijiet aktar razzjonali.
Fid-dinja tar-reliġjon, madankollu, I am a avukat ditta għad-drittijiet ta 'knejjes biex jiċħdu l-istituzzjoni tagħhom ta' żwieġ lil kull min waħħal jekk jogħġbok. Il-knisja LDS ma għandhomx ikunu sfurzati li jirrikonoxxu, twettaq jew b'xi mod jittollera koppji istess sess.
Fl-aħħar, żwieġ dejjem kienet istituzzjoni reliġjuża. Jekk huwa mressaq fl-isfera tal-politika pubblika u l-liġi, dan id-dibattitu huwa inevitabbli, u naħseb fl-aħħar, il-partitarji pro-omosesswali se jirbaħ.
Mistoqsijiet tiegħi għalik (Ceejay) huma:
Liema huma dawn "Oħrajn" raġunijiet għaż-żwieġ li taħseb jeżistu? Huma dawn ir-raġunijiet inkorporati fl-identità sesswali? Jiġifieri, huma dawn "Oħrajn" raġunijiet għaż-żwieġ dipendenti fuq is-sħubija li qed isiru ta 'raġel u mara esklussivament?
I rikonoxxuti Stajt spammed dan is-suġġett ma ', issa, 5 postijiet konsekuttivi. I sku u nirringrazzjak għall-sabar, imma kien hemm diversi karigi li jirrispondu għal, u jagħmlu dan fi proċess wieħed, post fit-tul deher ineffiċjenti.
StePHe (misspelling deliberat, peress li "steve" ma tirriflettix il-"vera" ortografija - kif se jiġi pronounded Steef?
).
I raden porzjon tajba ta 'rispons tiegħi lilek jistgħu jinstabu fl-tweġiba tiegħi għall Dave (Ġunju pm 15 1:48). Just ftit noti aktar:
Naħseb pożizzjoni tiegħi hija ħafna jargumenta bis-serjetà. Naħseb istorja (u ġrajjiet kurrenti) wriet li gvern bbażata fuq reliġjon hija instabbli, mhux sikuri, u insostenibbli.
X'inhu tajjeb u dak li mhux tajjeb ma jiġix dak li huwa sinful u dak li huwa twajbin. Qafas tal-gvern tagħna għal dak li huwa "tajjeb" huwa iktar jew inqas stabbilit mill-kostituzzjoni Istati Uniti. I helhjärtat jemmnu li dan il-qafas huwa superjuri għal kull kunċett reliġjuż ta 'dritt u l-ħażin. Li kieku ma kienx hekk, istat tad-dritt ma jkunx jeżisti, mayhem se jinqalgħu, u nazzjon tagħna tkun totalment ungovernable.
Inti liberu li jivvota kuxjenza reliġjuża tiegħek. Jagħmlu hekk! Iżda jifhmu li sakemm il-liġijiet inti jippromulgaw huma razzjonali u jargumenta barra mill-isfera ta 'reliġjon, u ġewwa l-isfera ta' liġi kostituzzjonali, is-sistema eventwalment se tikkoreġi innifsu u strajk them down.
Id-dibattitu għażla / ġenetika toħloq dikotomija falza. Hemm aktar minn tip wieħed ta 'deċiżjoni u aktar minn rispons bijoloġiku.
Għażla:
1) L-għażla diretta: Mary jagħżel li vaganza fil-Messiku.
2) L-għażla indiretta: Garth jagħżel li Rob maħżen konvenjenza, li impels lilu biex jaħarbu lejn il-Messiku biex jevitaw arrest.
Ġenetika:
1) bijoloġija fatalista: Hugh huwa twelid Down Syndrome.
2) bijoloġija adattabbli: Wayne titwieled bi predispożizzjoni wiret l-pressjoni għolja, li jista 'jitnaqqas bil-eżerċizzju u dieta bir-reqqa.
Jekk attrazzjoni omosesswali hija għażla, allura huwa probabbli għażla indirett li fiha l-attrazzjoni hija konsegwenza jew ir-riżultat ta 'deċiżjonijiet oħra, inkluż konsiderazzjoni ta' fatturi ambjentali esterni. A "għalliem" ma tkunx meħtieġa, peress li l-attrazzjoni jista 'jkun riżultat naturali ta' conglomeration ta 'għażliet.
Jekk huwa fil-ġeni, I jarawha bħala ferm adattabbli. Bħala Steven osservat, attrazzjoni omosesswali tkun x'aktarx kien madwar għal dejjem u eluf, jekk mhux miljuni, rnexxielna integrati fis-soċjetà eterosesswali. Dan ma jargumentaw li l-omosesswali għandhom jiġu sfurzati li jibqgħu fil-xawer tagħhom, imma li kull wieħed għandu l-kapaċità li jadattaw u l-bidla.
Inċidentalment, il-Knisja ma care dak imressaq fuq. Tal-istess sess attrazzjoni mhux sinful. Hu l-kopulazzjoni sesswali nnifisha li huwa għaqli. U huwa dejjem għażla jekk jagħtux fil Lust jew li jastjeni.
Uħud jistgħu jilqgħu li sesswalità 1 jiċħad huwa simili għal "jgħixu jimteddu," iżda l-Evanġelju ta 'Ġesù Kristu hija dwar jiċħad il- bniedem naturali ; jingħelbu provi mortalità tal permezz tal-fidi , u ssir qaddis. Kulħadd għandu trans tbati . Dan wieħed jista 'jidher wisq tqil għall-lift, iżda li hija biss il-każ meta inti lift waħdu. Ġesù Kristu titneħħa 1 ħafna itqal, u Hu wiegħed li jagħmlu stess piżijiet tagħna dawl jekk ngħaddu lilu.
I, għal wieħed, ma nemminx li sesswalità 1 jiċħad fil f'isem ir-reliġjon hija "tgħix jimteddu." I jammiraw dawk li huma eżempji ta 'devozzjoni bħal dawn. Omosesswali mhumiex l-uniku grupp ta 'nies li jkun mitlub li jagħmel hekk. Il-Knisja Kattolika ilha staqsa saċerdozju tiegħu li jgħixu ħajja ta 'celibacy. Jekk id-deċiżjoni li jgħixu ħajja li jmur kontra x-xewqat tiegħu jew tagħha għall-kumpanija kompatibbli verament toffri ferħ il-persuna aktar u kuntentizza, imbagħad I am ferħan għall-għażla tagħhom u jappoġġjawhom helhjärtat.
Steven,
I still disagree with your position that our collective morality is nonreligious (whether or not it ever could be is debatable, but I don't think it is ). Our system of laws is built upon the constitution, which was written by men whose morality was very informed by belief in God, or based on a system of English common laws which are likewise informed by religion. The basic idea that all men are created equal, for instance, which underlies many of our most moral laws, is a very religious idea. It's very unscientific and not at all universal. In any case, I don't see any inherent advantage of philosophy without a God over philosophy with a God. In fact, maybe the worst atrocities of the twentieth century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) suggest the opposite.
It is important for the government and science and everything else that requires objectivity to remain neutral in regard to the existence and nature of God. I agree that there needs to be a separation of church and state. But I don't think the government is required to operate in the world under the assumption that there is no God.
An atheist government oppresses the religious.
Government policies and scientific theories must officially leave the answer to the questions of God's existence and nature “unknown.”
And while Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion , I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a government entirely uninformed by religion. In a republic, representatives are to make decisions informed by the desires of their constituents along with their own personal convictions. Popular desires and personal convictions are usually inseparably and heavily influenced by religious faith (or, as the case may be, irreligious atheism).
I admit that it introduces some bias, but it is inevitable. Representatives are human, and the right to govern comes from the people (also humans). No one ever claimed the Republic would be perfect.
Maybe someday we will have the calm, dispassionate leadership of neutral robots , guided only by logical analysis.
Dave,
Interesting that you would bring up the atrocities of the twentieth century as evidence that philosophy absent of God is a recipe for mass murder, genocide, oppression and dictatorship. I think history has shown over and over again, and will continue to show, that mass murder, genocide, oppression and dictatorship happen more often in the name of God and religion (or at least use these ideas as justification) than for any other reason.
It's true that many of the men who had a hand in the creation of the constitution had a belief in a higher power. The wording of the constitution does not necessarily reflect these beliefs. The statement that “all men are created equal” is from the Declaration of Independence. Also, the word “God” or “god” does not appear in the constitution. In fact, virtually all “official” references in our government to God were put in place very much after the fact (the vast majority taking place in the 1900s).
Further, I think you'd have an interesting challenge indeed to show English common law was formed around the basis of religion. It would be much easier to show that the formation of the British Parliament, and its governing rules, to be decidedly ANTI established religion, being a departure from rule under God's chosen king.
“All men created equal” is not an exclusively religious idea by any means. Again, I think you'll find the opposite to be true. Judaism and Christianity are no strangers to the idea of racial entitlement and racial inferiority. Until recent history, religion, specifically Christianity, has been used as much as a justification for racial repression as it was a device for “salvation”. Many religions still operate in such a way. Unfortunately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not free from this history, but that topic is not a matter for discussion here (and probably is not one I'd ever touch anyway).
The origins of the idea of all men being created equal might be attributed to Thomas Hobbes (refer to the opening paragraph of Chapter 13 of The Leviathan ). Interestingly enough, religion was absent in the formation and construction of Hobbes's framework of morality and political governance.
Hobbes spends a good deal of space in the The Leviathan discussing Christianity, but it's amusingly unclear if he was trying to illustrate how his philosophical framework is compatible with Christianity, or if he was just trying undermine the religious belief of his readers [“Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy”, Feb. 2002, ed. Sharon A. Lloyd and Susanne Sreedhar, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ .
In any case, Hobbes argued that members of a sovereign nation were obligated to submit to the established government, and the establishment was, more or less, superior to God and religion.
Contrary to popular belief among many religious circles, the Constitution was formed much more around the political and social framework of Hobbes and philosophers who expanded on his works (most notably John Locke) than it was around religion.
The funny thing is, I think you would find much of Hobbes's work unpalatable for many reasons, not the least of which he advocated that the state have the power and authority to govern in matters of religion, effectively placing the state above God.
history has shown over and over again…that mass murder, genocide, oppression and dictatorship happen more often in the name of God and religion…than for any other reason
I don't know if we want to open this can of worms, but we've dealt with that assertion here .
Steven,
The purpose of my bringing up the atrocities of the twentieth century was to illustrate my belief that atheistic moral philosophy doesn't have any inherent advantage over morality that is informed by a belief in God.
Also, regardless of where the term “all men are created equal” came from, by the time the Declaration of Independence was penned, the idea seems pretty religious:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
I don't want to join the debate over whether our country is explicitly Christian or not. I only provide it as an illustration of an apparently religious belief informing the political and moral ideals of this country. And I still hold that while it's clear that our society is explicitly opposed to a state-sponsored religion, it would be hard to try to take our society's morality and try to extract and discard the parts that are informed by any kind of belief in God. And, as I mentioned before, even if you could, I doubt that it would be any more moral than before.
Dave,
I misread your post regarding the atrocities of the 20th century. My understanding wasn't that you were trying to show that there is no advantage to one philosophy over another. I believed you were stating that a philosophy uninformed by a belief in a higher power was a morally inferior philosophy. I was wrong in my understanding, and I apologize.
I stand by my other remarks, however, particularly regarding your skewed view of the historical statement in question. I believe that your conclusions, based on the sentence in question, are the result of a logical fallacy. This “truth” appears in a list of “truths”, albeit a list of only two truths, the other “truth” being that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Assuming A and B are true, A being a statement of philosophy that may or may not be a religious idea, B being a religious idea, it does not follow that A must be a religious idea, simply because B is. Your argument would have been better served by focusing on the second truth in this list of truths, rather than dragging us through this lengthy tangent discussion. (I accept blame for continuing the lengthy tangent discussion).
In the end, for the purposes of this discussion, the general populace's philosophy can be as informed by religion as much as we may please. This does not change the foundation of this government (the constitution), which is decidedly NOT informed by the belief in a higher power (at the very least, you have failed to provide defendable evidence supporting your position that it is so informed). Precedent has, and will continue to be (if we want to maintain the stability of the state), that laws that lack secular purpose or justification are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Therefore, we really have gone off on a useless tangent and I apologize for taking us there. If there are secular reasons why same-sex couples should not be granted state recognized marriages, there is where the debate lies. If there aren't secular reasons why same-sex couples should not be married, there really is no debate. Having placed this issue firmly in the realm of secular discussion and reasoning (being a matter of constitutional law and public policy), I do not feel there really is any reason for me to continue the debate in a religious thread. If you or anyone else wants to discuss the secular reasoning for or against gay marriage, we can move the discussion elsewhere. Thaddeus knows my e-mail address.
I do, however, want to correct two faulty assumptions (or implications) of yours:
1) While I am advocating that we strip legislation that is based purely on religious thinking and lack justifiable secular purposes, I recognize that some laws exist that may have been religiously motivated originally but still have justifiable secular purposes. I support these laws.
2) I stand with Thaddeus in that government need not (and truly should not) be atheistic. I also take slight offense that you imply that my moral philosophy, as laid out in this thread, is atheistic in nature. Just because I'm trying to separate morality as is legislated by the state from morality as is taught by religion doesn't mean that I, or the philosophy that I am advocating, deny the existence of God. A moral philosophy uninformed by a belief in God is not a philosophy that denies the existence of God, even if that philosophy does not match your particular understanding or belief of who God is or what He teaches.
Why do you care so much about other peoples' lives? Gay people don't try and tell you who you can or can't marry, they don't even care. Why do you care if someone wants to marry and start a family with the person they love? Times are changing, you and your church needs to realize that, and get over the fact that things don't always happen the way you want them to.
Nina, please read the opening post carefully to understand our position on this issue.
I do agree with you on that last thing: Things don't always happen the way you want them to. They weren't meant to. It's the purpose of life .
Grazzi għal żjarat!
You bring up an important point regarding Christian theology. Christ told his apostles to go unto all the world and preach to every nation, tongue, and kindred. When people find the true gospel their first instinct is to tell their family and friends about what they know. It generally isn't done in an attempt to screw with other people's lives it resembles more the passing on of a treasured gift. People who have discovered happiness want others to be happy as well, just as misery loves company.
When it comes to public policy, the church feels responsible, much like the prophets of old, to warn people against sin. The church generally stays out of political events unless they deal with moral issues. They will get involved to try and steer the public policy to a position as close to gospel principles as possible.
I would like to point out, that even though you say “marriage in and of itself is not a right” and that is is “a battle of legitimacy”, the mormon belief system isn't the oldest religion out there, and cannot claim to be anything more than just another interpretation on the subject of marriage. The main reason I say that, is because the concept of “marriage” has long been in existence before ANY religions were invented, including yours, so it is arrogant to say that because of what you believe, others should be dictated to follow an idea of marriage which you did not invent in the first place.
Quick example: Someone long ago invents the car. People can travel in any direction they want, and everyone is good, until one day a person comes along and says “These cars are very special, and should only be used to travel in this direction” when you want to go a different way. Why should I feel inclined to listen to that person, someone who had nothing to do with the inception of the car in the first place? Would you listen to that person? Is your name really Thaddeus?
Chuck,
It sounds like you're arguing that marriage as a social, religious, or political institution has (since time immemorial) been a thing that applied to any two people, whether gay or straight, and that only recently have some people wanted to restrict it (make it smaller) to apply to only straight people. Is that what you're saying?
Because don't get me wrong, I like your point about who has the right to change things and historical precedent and all that. I just think it supports the exact opposite opinion as the one you're getting at.
I am glad to hear someone who doesn't believe it is an abomination. However, why are they not aloud to have they're rights just like everyone else? The bible shuns adultery more than homosexuality, so you are saying that they should not prevented from being legally married, (really just a handy piece of paper that has been proven to keep couples together, so you are also encouraging remarriage, which the bible shuns as well i think…) and therefor promoting adultery. I do not understand your logic, I'm sorry. Especially if you are saying you don't think gays are evil.
This is a semantics issue. We can seek to change the definition of a word but then what does the word really mean? In this world of “google”, “wikipedia” and dozens of other creative terms added to the dictionary each year I wonder why a new word hasn't been created to respectfully describe the union between same gender couples. All “rights” rest on the power of the definition of one word?
I disagree with anyone. Men are not equal to the eyes of God. I am not equal to you or anyone here on earth. I am different than you. We are not the same culture, customs, ideas, level, class, and race. That's it. I am not like anyone here on earth.