legal, because it is a person's right to choose what to do with their life.
13%22 Votes
illegal, because gay marriage (and homosexuality) is morally wrong.
4%7 Votes
illegal, because if it is allowed, nothing will stop polygamy and bestiality from becoming legal.
15%26 Votes
illegal, because of both reasons against it listed above.
67%114 Votes
legal, because it is a person's right to choose what to do with their life.
13%22 Votes
illegal, because gay marriage (and homosexuality) is morally wrong.
4%7 Votes
illegal, because if it is allowed, nothing will stop polygamy and bestiality from becoming legal.
15%26 Votes
illegal, because of both reasons against it listed above.
Male
Female
67%69 Votes
legal, because it is a person's right to choose what to do with their life.
16%16 Votes
illegal, because gay marriage (and homosexuality) is morally wrong.
3%3 Votes
illegal, because if it is allowed, nothing will stop polygamy and bestiality from becoming legal.
15%15 Votes
illegal, because of both reasons against it listed above.
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
There are several ways that I could approach a rebuttal to this argument. In the end I have decided to use your own biblical argument against you. You cite several times the books Genesis, Ephesians, etc. However, there is one major flaw with your reasoning that these examples prove Christians should be against gay marriage. In Matthew 18:18 Jesus tells his disciples "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This was Jesus's way to give the disciples authority to change the practices of the Church. In the early years of Christianity, many Greek Gentiles worried about having to be circumcised or keep kosher if they converted. There the early leaders of Christianity (Including Peter) made the decision that Christians were not to be obligated to follow Jewish law. Included in this is the ban of homosexuality. So until you and all the other fanatics start eating no pork and seafood (etc.), don't go around cherry-picking the old testament.
Second, the psychologists who claim that one needs both a father and mother to function are the ones with clear ties to anti-gay rights groups. Thus I find it hard to base a conclusion off of their findings.
Third, if one were to use the argument that something should be banned simply because it is "unnatural", what would we do with cars, cigarettes, modern medicine, and even electricity. I could claim all I want "People weren't meant to fly! Ban all airplanes!"
I would then, of course, be branded a madman.
Your fourth argument is by far the most ridiculous. Claiming that because the gay community is angry when they are denied rights means they are wrong is completely ridiculous. Wouldn't this mean the fundamentalist Christians who show up at funerals and buildings named after gays to yell at passerby even more in the wrong?
In conclusion, all of your arguments, though long-winded and well-worded, are flimsy at best and ridiculous at worst. The very book you seek to justify your argument with disproves you, your scientific evidence is extremely biased, and your attempt to label gays as "ruthless" seems nothing more than a childish denial of logic and fact. Thus I am forced to disagree with you on this topic.
It is fine that you believe gay marriage to be immoral. But to force your religious ideals into public policy is an action usually taken by men like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hitler. So please, keep it to yourself.
Dear Nickerzz. I appreciate your well written reply. It is because you seam sensible that I approach you with this question: Would a reasonable solution not be to grant same sex couples the right to a civil union, with the exact same legislated benefits and responsibilities as a traditional marriage. That would allow Christians to feel like the biblical definition of marriage is preserved and the same sex couples to feel like their constitutional rights are preserved? Thank you. Dave
If you want to adhere to your religious definitions and believes then that is fine with me, just don't force your religion onto others! How would you feel if same sex marriage was made compulsory? (I know I would be just as upset upset as I am with making same sex marriage illegal)
...performed by the state, and any churches who wish to perform them.
The way I see it, the issue of the state not allowing same sex union is discrimination, given the separation of church and state and the fact that homosexuals meet the criteria of the constitution for equal rights, as they are citizens and people. I don't care if some churches don't want to perform them for religious reasons. Fine, they shouldn't be required to. However, any rights or benefits we get from marriage are not granted by the church, but by the state (such as tax benefits, inheritance rights, etc). Therefore, the state cannot refuse to marry people based on their sexual preference.
What I take from the link is that marriage has been and will be redefined as human societies progress. Also, as some gay couples raise children that were artificially inseminated using donor sperm or eggs from siblings of their lovers, the consolidation of wealth within bloodlines still applies.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
translate - That statement is exactly why the separation of church and state was put into the constitution. People like you can not legally prevent the practice of our religion for any reason whatsoever. That "fix the doctrine" statement is why Atheists are dangerous.
Sorry to go all postal on you translate, but you guys get freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion mixed up all the time. If you want freedom from religion, go to a country where religion is illegal or go through the the process of changing the constitution. But in the USA, you are not free from religion and you have no right to be.
[-1 points]3 years ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 3 years ago by JWBrothers
If you think I set up a straw man, check out Doreen's or that other Atheist (I refuse to use her name.) They get furious when anyone even suggests that we have a right to practice our religion. Even you start talking about ritual murder. I haven't seen anyone practicing Mayan lately B^)
The last time the supreme court addressed religious practices, it was to stop certain native American rites involving Peyote in a sweat lodge. (and I think they got that one wrong.) At least ask001 recognizes fair play. ("I have a major problem. Just like you would have a problem if I forced my beliefs onto you.")
Here's the problem, translate. The longer a government operates, the more it attempts to regulate everything in everyone's lives. 100 years ago, the government did not regulate drugs, food, how to take care of our children, education, guns, and transportation. They did heavily regulate personal behavior. Speaking in general terms now, the US government started repealing or ignoring laws that required people to do certain thing and adopted laws to regulate institutions. This was widely acceptable because it was seen as a way to prevent the super rich from taking over the country. (a very real possibility at one time.) The government started with steel and railroads, then moved to other transportation systems and heavy manufacturing. The great depression brought on government regulation of banks and financial systems. When you bring it up to today, religion is the ONLY lightly regulated institution in the USA.
My opinion is that Progressives feel that anything not government regulated is dangerous to the US. That's why there is such a struggle over health care. Up until 20 or so years ago, health care decisions were made by Doctors and patients. Then secondary payers (insurance companies and HMO's) started making medical decisions and often got it wrong. Instead of fixing the secondary payer problem, most politicians are talking about the government becoming the secondary payer. This means that the healers and the healed will no longer have any financial stake in the system. Though some Conservatives believe that the medical system will collapse, I believe that we will end up like England, with a single payer system. Access will, of necessity, be capped and will be provided only as the government sees fit. Even with the best intentions, it will discourage innovation and stop unconventional research in it's tracks. Government regulation has already driven the clothing, shoe, fuel, energy, consumer electronics and many other industries off shore.
It has not yet heavily regulated religion. And I'm afraid for America if it starts to.
[0 points]3 years ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 3 years ago by JWBrothers
Following criminal law has never been a real problem for us. It's the regulatory law that frightens me. (I already explained why.) US law has regulated marriage to mostly Christian values. Our mistake is allowing the regulation without much concern as long as the regulation is on "our side".
I've really thought long and hard about this. Ask001 and I had a long discussion about this and I discovered that I really didn't have any desire to regulate homosexuality. From a society's point of view, I believe that normalizing gay behavior can have bad side effects, but they are only made much worse by government regulation. It dawned on me that the main problem with homosexual marriage is that the law doesn't protect them as the law protects heterosexual marriage.
Then I had to ask if marriage needs protected? Well, contract law should protect the marriage itself. And we need to specify when and how to get out of the contract and settle damages. Laws about children are largely devoid of references to marriage. That only leaves inheritance and "next of kin" designations. Those are comparatively easy to solve without resorting to laws regulating marriage.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I don't see what you find offensive? The government has regulated homosexuality and heterosexuality. What's offensive about recent history? Twenty years ago, homosexual behavior was almost universally considered perverted. Now, nearly 1/2 of the adult population consider it to be normal sexual behavior. What is so disgusting about this? You can't find it disgusting that society and governments change. If anyone has a reason to be disgusted about the changes, it's me. And I have never said such a thing.
I'm not prepared to permit equal treatment? I was proposing one way that equal treatment could be accomplished. That is the exact opposite of what you accused me of. I was ranting against over regulation and stating my opinion that less regulation of marriage all the way around would allow all sides to claim victory.
The only other thing I can think of is that you are more interested in cramming your beliefs down my throat than solving the problem. I really think you've way off here.
Perhaps this is a case of lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Jesus made it clear that his followers are to honor, respect and obey their authorities. However, their are different realms or jurisdictions (e.g. The family, the church, the civil authorities and the workplace) and their are different levels (e.g. God vs. the rest). This is the biblical view on authority. God clearly states that his followers should submit to their authorities but not where they are asked to disobey God. A classic example is child discipline through spanking. God advocates this, so what is a law-abiding Christian to do if it is illegal on a civil authority level? He or she must submit to God, but be wise and above reproach as far as possible. This would mean doing it privately, and making absolutely certain to avoid abuse. It would further mean respectfully accepting any repercussions coming from the civil authorities. I hope this helps your understanding of the biblical world view. Blessings. Dave
Freedom OF religion is The freedom to choose a certain religion or not any religion and not being controlled by one particular religion. You tell Translate that "people like you" can not prevent your religion so quit trying to control and get rid of ours or the lack of ours and force us to obey yours.
The minute you try to force your religion onto me through legislation and therefor law enforcement), I have a major problem. Just like you would have a problem if I forced my believes onto you.
There are only two real choices here. The "illegal because of polygamy/bestiality" is a non starter, which eliminates one of the other choices as well.
Why is it a non-starter? Obviously no Bible believing Christian can say polygamy is morally wrong, unless they are willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. under the bus.
The bestiality is ridiculous on its face, because animals can't give consent.
Again - there's no giving them logic. If you GIVE them a logical argument, they resort to irrationality. It's one group who wants to think of themselves as "God's anointed" and therefore reserve the right to judge all others. They feel they have the right to pick and choose deserves legal rights. If you point out that's against the law - then they quote GOD'S law. When you point out GOD'S law, they point at MAN'S law. There's no winning. It's simply come down to America having to rescue the US Constitution from those who wish to tear it apart. And right now we have to rescue it from the Christians.
One good thing may come out of this, however. With a growing population of Muslims who believe in changing laws to suit their religion, we're beginning to strengthen the US Constitution against the Christians - and it will be that much stronger when the Muslims follow behind and try the same thing.
[2 points]3 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 3 years ago by sillynilly
Why is it a non-starter? Obviously no Bible believing Christian can say polygamy is morally wrong, unless they are willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. under the bus.
The bestiality (in the sense of people wanting to marry animals) is ridiculous on its face, because animals can't give consent.
[2 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
So you're willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob and David under the bus?
Not everyone is Jewish or Christian. While certain religions may view it so, there is nothing inherently morally wrong with polygyny or polyandry, like there is with rape or murder.
From the Judeo-Christian point of view, while God allowed, blessed, and even arranged polygamist families in ancient Judea, Paul, in the New Testament, promoted 1 man, 1 woman marriages. It is debatable who actually knows the will of God. The Old and New testaments both repeatedly condemned homosexuality. I think you will find less problems promoting polygamy among the religious than you did homosexuality as a human rights issue.
The christians are telling people that they have the right to control EVERYBODY with THEIR gods law whether others believe in THEIR god or not. They whine and complain that others are trying to control them then they turn immediately around and say that EVERYBODY should bow down to THEIR god. The next thing you know they will be repeating history and slaughtering those who do not believe in THEIR god and refuse to obey THEIR and THEIR gods law. I have asked Christians many times if they believe that THEIR religion should rule and control the US and the world they always go to another subject or quote me THEIR religion. THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER!!!!!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replysuck-ass
+1
There are several ways that I could approach a rebuttal to this argument. In the end I have decided to use your own biblical argument against you. You cite several times the books Genesis, Ephesians, etc. However, there is one major flaw with your reasoning that these examples prove Christians should be against gay marriage. In Matthew 18:18 Jesus tells his disciples "Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This was Jesus's way to give the disciples authority to change the practices of the Church. In the early years of Christianity, many Greek Gentiles worried about having to be circumcised or keep kosher if they converted. There the early leaders of Christianity (Including Peter) made the decision that Christians were not to be obligated to follow Jewish law. Included in this is the ban of homosexuality. So until you and all the other fanatics start eating no pork and seafood (etc.), don't go around cherry-picking the old testament.
Second, the psychologists who claim that one needs both a father and mother to function are the ones with clear ties to anti-gay rights groups. Thus I find it hard to base a conclusion off of their findings.
Third, if one were to use the argument that something should be banned simply because it is "unnatural", what would we do with cars, cigarettes, modern medicine, and even electricity. I could claim all I want "People weren't meant to fly! Ban all airplanes!"
I would then, of course, be branded a madman.
Your fourth argument is by far the most ridiculous. Claiming that because the gay community is angry when they are denied rights means they are wrong is completely ridiculous. Wouldn't this mean the fundamentalist Christians who show up at funerals and buildings named after gays to yell at passerby even more in the wrong?
In conclusion, all of your arguments, though long-winded and well-worded, are flimsy at best and ridiculous at worst. The very book you seek to justify your argument with disproves you, your scientific evidence is extremely biased, and your attempt to label gays as "ruthless" seems nothing more than a childish denial of logic and fact. Thus I am forced to disagree with you on this topic.
It is fine that you believe gay marriage to be immoral. But to force your religious ideals into public policy is an action usually taken by men like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hitler. So please, keep it to yourself.
Dear Nickerzz. I appreciate your well written reply. It is because you seam sensible that I approach you with this question: Would a reasonable solution not be to grant same sex couples the right to a civil union, with the exact same legislated benefits and responsibilities as a traditional marriage. That would allow Christians to feel like the biblical definition of marriage is preserved and the same sex couples to feel like their constitutional rights are preserved? Thank you. Dave
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIf you want to adhere to your religious definitions and believes then that is fine with me, just don't force your religion onto others! How would you feel if same sex marriage was made compulsory? (I know I would be just as upset upset as I am with making same sex marriage illegal)
I will be so glad when we don't have to talk about this anymore. When it is as good as any other marriage.
It'll be their new Roe v. Wade battle. They'll be split into two sects.
...performed by the state, and any churches who wish to perform them.
The way I see it, the issue of the state not allowing same sex union is discrimination, given the separation of church and state and the fact that homosexuals meet the criteria of the constitution for equal rights, as they are citizens and people. I don't care if some churches don't want to perform them for religious reasons. Fine, they shouldn't be required to. However, any rights or benefits we get from marriage are not granted by the church, but by the state (such as tax benefits, inheritance rights, etc). Therefore, the state cannot refuse to marry people based on their sexual preference.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user Replyhttp://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
In a nutshell, marriage was developed as a way to consolidate wealth within certain bloodlines. The idea of marrying "for love" is fairly modern.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhat I take from the link is that marriage has been and will be redefined as human societies progress. Also, as some gay couples raise children that were artificially inseminated using donor sperm or eggs from siblings of their lovers, the consolidation of wealth within bloodlines still applies.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
translate - That statement is exactly why the separation of church and state was put into the constitution. People like you can not legally prevent the practice of our religion for any reason whatsoever. That "fix the doctrine" statement is why Atheists are dangerous.
Sorry to go all postal on you translate, but you guys get freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion mixed up all the time. If you want freedom from religion, go to a country where religion is illegal or go through the the process of changing the constitution. But in the USA, you are not free from religion and you have no right to be.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyHear, hear.
If you think I set up a straw man, check out Doreen's or that other Atheist (I refuse to use her name.) They get furious when anyone even suggests that we have a right to practice our religion. Even you start talking about ritual murder. I haven't seen anyone practicing Mayan lately B^)
The last time the supreme court addressed religious practices, it was to stop certain native American rites involving Peyote in a sweat lodge. (and I think they got that one wrong.) At least ask001 recognizes fair play. ("I have a major problem. Just like you would have a problem if I forced my beliefs onto you.")
Here's the problem, translate. The longer a government operates, the more it attempts to regulate everything in everyone's lives. 100 years ago, the government did not regulate drugs, food, how to take care of our children, education, guns, and transportation. They did heavily regulate personal behavior. Speaking in general terms now, the US government started repealing or ignoring laws that required people to do certain thing and adopted laws to regulate institutions. This was widely acceptable because it was seen as a way to prevent the super rich from taking over the country. (a very real possibility at one time.) The government started with steel and railroads, then moved to other transportation systems and heavy manufacturing. The great depression brought on government regulation of banks and financial systems. When you bring it up to today, religion is the ONLY lightly regulated institution in the USA.
My opinion is that Progressives feel that anything not government regulated is dangerous to the US. That's why there is such a struggle over health care. Up until 20 or so years ago, health care decisions were made by Doctors and patients. Then secondary payers (insurance companies and HMO's) started making medical decisions and often got it wrong. Instead of fixing the secondary payer problem, most politicians are talking about the government becoming the secondary payer. This means that the healers and the healed will no longer have any financial stake in the system. Though some Conservatives believe that the medical system will collapse, I believe that we will end up like England, with a single payer system. Access will, of necessity, be capped and will be provided only as the government sees fit. Even with the best intentions, it will discourage innovation and stop unconventional research in it's tracks. Government regulation has already driven the clothing, shoe, fuel, energy, consumer electronics and many other industries off shore.
It has not yet heavily regulated religion. And I'm afraid for America if it starts to.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyFollowing criminal law has never been a real problem for us. It's the regulatory law that frightens me. (I already explained why.) US law has regulated marriage to mostly Christian values. Our mistake is allowing the regulation without much concern as long as the regulation is on "our side".
I've really thought long and hard about this. Ask001 and I had a long discussion about this and I discovered that I really didn't have any desire to regulate homosexuality. From a society's point of view, I believe that normalizing gay behavior can have bad side effects, but they are only made much worse by government regulation. It dawned on me that the main problem with homosexual marriage is that the law doesn't protect them as the law protects heterosexual marriage.
Then I had to ask if marriage needs protected? Well, contract law should protect the marriage itself. And we need to specify when and how to get out of the contract and settle damages. Laws about children are largely devoid of references to marriage. That only leaves inheritance and "next of kin" designations. Those are comparatively easy to solve without resorting to laws regulating marriage.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I don't see what you find offensive? The government has regulated homosexuality and heterosexuality. What's offensive about recent history? Twenty years ago, homosexual behavior was almost universally considered perverted. Now, nearly 1/2 of the adult population consider it to be normal sexual behavior. What is so disgusting about this? You can't find it disgusting that society and governments change. If anyone has a reason to be disgusted about the changes, it's me. And I have never said such a thing.
I'm not prepared to permit equal treatment? I was proposing one way that equal treatment could be accomplished. That is the exact opposite of what you accused me of. I was ranting against over regulation and stating my opinion that less regulation of marriage all the way around would allow all sides to claim victory.
The only other thing I can think of is that you are more interested in cramming your beliefs down my throat than solving the problem. I really think you've way off here.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe problem here is not religion. The problem is an age old struggle. Man against man. He uses God as a weapon.
"Refuse to name her"?
That does not sound very Christian.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Sure it is. It's done so as not to pick a fight.
Then you should not say "refuse to name her." You should make no reference at all. Do not be childish.
Perhaps this is a case of lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Jesus made it clear that his followers are to honor, respect and obey their authorities. However, their are different realms or jurisdictions (e.g. The family, the church, the civil authorities and the workplace) and their are different levels (e.g. God vs. the rest). This is the biblical view on authority. God clearly states that his followers should submit to their authorities but not where they are asked to disobey God. A classic example is child discipline through spanking. God advocates this, so what is a law-abiding Christian to do if it is illegal on a civil authority level? He or she must submit to God, but be wise and above reproach as far as possible. This would mean doing it privately, and making absolutely certain to avoid abuse. It would further mean respectfully accepting any repercussions coming from the civil authorities. I hope this helps your understanding of the biblical world view. Blessings. Dave
Freedom OF religion is The freedom to choose a certain religion or not any religion and not being controlled by one particular religion. You tell Translate that "people like you" can not prevent your religion so quit trying to control and get rid of ours or the lack of ours and force us to obey yours.
The minute you try to force your religion onto me through legislation and therefor law enforcement), I have a major problem. Just like you would have a problem if I forced my believes onto you.
There are only two real choices here. The "illegal because of polygamy/bestiality" is a non starter, which eliminates one of the other choices as well.
Why is it a non-starter? Obviously no Bible believing Christian can say polygamy is morally wrong, unless they are willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. under the bus.
The bestiality is ridiculous on its face, because animals can't give consent.
Again - there's no giving them logic. If you GIVE them a logical argument, they resort to irrationality. It's one group who wants to think of themselves as "God's anointed" and therefore reserve the right to judge all others. They feel they have the right to pick and choose deserves legal rights. If you point out that's against the law - then they quote GOD'S law. When you point out GOD'S law, they point at MAN'S law. There's no winning. It's simply come down to America having to rescue the US Constitution from those who wish to tear it apart. And right now we have to rescue it from the Christians.
One good thing may come out of this, however. With a growing population of Muslims who believe in changing laws to suit their religion, we're beginning to strengthen the US Constitution against the Christians - and it will be that much stronger when the Muslims follow behind and try the same thing.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Plawler-
Why is "illegal because of polygamy/bestiality" a non starter? The arguments for and against look identical.
(Edit)Jewish and Christian men are to have one wife according to all accepted theological/church sources.
Why is it a non-starter? Obviously no Bible believing Christian can say polygamy is morally wrong, unless they are willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. under the bus.
The bestiality (in the sense of people wanting to marry animals) is ridiculous on its face, because animals can't give consent.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Sorry, you were faster to answer than I was to edit. BTW/agree about the bestiality.
So you're willing to throw Moses, Abraham, Jacob and David under the bus?
Not everyone is Jewish or Christian. While certain religions may view it so, there is nothing inherently morally wrong with polygyny or polyandry, like there is with rape or murder.
From the Judeo-Christian point of view, while God allowed, blessed, and even arranged polygamist families in ancient Judea, Paul, in the New Testament, promoted 1 man, 1 woman marriages. It is debatable who actually knows the will of God. The Old and New testaments both repeatedly condemned homosexuality. I think you will find less problems promoting polygamy among the religious than you did homosexuality as a human rights issue.
That was sort of my point. ;o)
In that case, glad to help you make it B^)
This comment was deleted by Doreen .
[-1 points] 3 years ago byThe christians are telling people that they have the right to control EVERYBODY with THEIR gods law whether others believe in THEIR god or not. They whine and complain that others are trying to control them then they turn immediately around and say that EVERYBODY should bow down to THEIR god. The next thing you know they will be repeating history and slaughtering those who do not believe in THEIR god and refuse to obey THEIR and THEIR gods law. I have asked Christians many times if they believe that THEIR religion should rule and control the US and the world they always go to another subject or quote me THEIR religion. THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER!!!!!
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAmen.
bestiality IS legal in some states. as the famous rapper Eminem said..."Sometimes, I wanna get on TV and just let loose, but can't
but it's cool for Tom Green to hump a dead moose
"My bum is on your lips, my bum is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is
Of course they gonna know what intercourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Discovery Channel don't they?
"We ain't nothing but mammals.." Well, some of us cannibals
who cut other people open like cantaloupes
But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes
then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Women wave your pantyhose, sing the chorus and it goes"
I don't know of any states where you can marry an animal. The animal cannot give consent.