K
D
Dan123
Guest
No he’s like the person driving around his personal property removing stop signs because they don’t affect the public.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Let’s say a brother and sister in their 60s live together for financial benefit. Should they be allowed to marry so they can also benefit from insurance coverage?
If a senior mother living with her son who is working, can they marry so the mother can have insurance coverage? Or if that mother lived with her daughter, can they be married?
I see how same sex couples want to get married to have those benefits. Why exclude them, right?
Then there’s the couples who are male and female, who won’t get married. Too Christian and patriarchal, or whatever. They are not citing insurance benefits.
The consistent thread in both seems to be a rejection of the Christian roots that the country is built on. OK. Nothing is in law to prevent them from going about what they want.
It’s funny you mention Sharia Law. I’ve said before that if Christian principles have gotten too repressive for their country just wait a few years when Sharia Law gets imposed. You are so on your way there but you’re distracted with the Christians. Good luck with that.
K
K9Buck
Guest
The U.S. was created under the concept of freedom, particularly, freedom from others. In any event, if you want laws based on tradition, then we would need to revert to the system wherein only white males can vote and slavery is legal again.
K
K9Buck
Guest
Which is why I REJECT the concept of basing governance and law on religious beliefs.
It seems that you have no problem imposing religious beliefs on complete strangers, as long as they’re YOUR beliefs.
D
Dan123
Guest
It’s an interdenominational seminary, do all the denominations teach it’s wrong?
Why did the school signup to accept money that came with federal anti-discrimination rules if they needed to enforce these rules? That seems dishonest.
H
halogirl
Guest
Well it is our duty to share our faith/evangelise but then it’s up to them
K
K9Buck
Guest
Just as Jesus did. Thanks.
T
Thom18
Guest
Concerning the title question, “Do you support imposing your belief system on non-believers?”, I do concerning morality- and anyone who engages in the civic process believes so as well. The question remains, which beliefs? and what does this look like? I wouldn’t support a law curtailing religious freedom by mandating Mass attendance on Sundays for non-Catholics, but I would support anything which limits or bans abortion. I wouldn’t promote jail time for those of the same sex who choose to get “married”, but I would support protections for those individuals who do not wish to be involved in any ceremonies concerning them.
This imposition, then, would be moral in nature, concerning actions towards others. And as TisBearself put it earlier in the thread (and which I briefly addressed in the beginning), this is the case for any law which is passed- that it is some person or group’s will being imposed on everyone, and so we are obliged to accept that a Catholic can feel the same as the rest of society, or that no one has the right to do so (but we would see that forbidding the “imposition of morality” in law would foster the imposition of morality outside of law)
This imposition, then, would be moral in nature, concerning actions towards others. And as TisBearself put it earlier in the thread (and which I briefly addressed in the beginning), this is the case for any law which is passed- that it is some person or group’s will being imposed on everyone, and so we are obliged to accept that a Catholic can feel the same as the rest of society, or that no one has the right to do so (but we would see that forbidding the “imposition of morality” in law would foster the imposition of morality outside of law)
po18guy
Well-known member
Still a libertarian attitude, and such is not a stable governmental form, but a transitional one. From what into what?
We do not live in a vacuum. No man or woman is an island. Whatever they engage in - no matter what - immediately affects them and eventually affects others. If it is outside of the law, then their disobedient attitude carries over into other aspects of their lives. There is nothing hidden that will not be brought to light.
What happens to those they love when all is brought to light? What happens to society in general? The tiniest tear in the fabric will eventually lead to an unraveling.
We do not live in a vacuum. No man or woman is an island. Whatever they engage in - no matter what - immediately affects them and eventually affects others. If it is outside of the law, then their disobedient attitude carries over into other aspects of their lives. There is nothing hidden that will not be brought to light.
What happens to those they love when all is brought to light? What happens to society in general? The tiniest tear in the fabric will eventually lead to an unraveling.
K
K9Buck
Guest
So you would have no problem practicing Sharia Law if 200 million Americans suddenly converted to Islam and demanded Sharia Law, right?
P
PetraG
Guest
What part of Islamic morals are you talking about, exactly? Do morals become irrelevant because a religious person holds them? That’s the question, isn’t it?
As for same-sex marriage, I think that when a binding commitment for the sake of a stable family life for children was foresaken in favor of a flexible living arrangement that mainly served the personal interests of sexual partners, the new actual definition of what marriage is all about just about guaranteed that same-sex couples would expect to get in on the advantages. It is time that we admitted that what the government calls marriage is actually a blanket arrangement establishing a relationship of mutual care, something that really doesn’t have to have a thing to do with sex in order to benefit society.
We do decide as a society what sorts of behaviors we want to encourage, what we want to discourage and what we want to just leave alone. The question is where the boundaries ought to be and how they ought to be encouraged or enforced. People who have religious reasons for their boundaries shouldn’t be excluded any more than people who have “merely personal” reasons for theirs ought to be.
Last edited:
K
K9Buck
Guest
Should laws be based on a religious belief system or should laws be secular in nature?
P
PetraG
Guest
Laws in a pluralistic society should be a reflection of an agreed-upon common standard of conduct. That can be moral, that can be economic, that can be altruistic, that can be a lot of things. It really shouldn’t matter whether your personal morals or economic world view or whatever came from a religious or non-religious world view. If I want to curb sex outside of marriage for religious reasons and you want to do it for sociological reasons and someone else wants to do it for epidemiological reasons, what of it? The question is where we ought to put boundaries, what sorts of sticks and carrots we think are appropriate to move towards the goal, and what sort of respect is deserved by those who want different ones than we do.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
Same sex couples can get married.
So why are you here? It feels like you are a missionary going out to find the hostiles and trying to convert them.
Christianity is not your enemy.
So why are you here? It feels like you are a missionary going out to find the hostiles and trying to convert them.
Christianity is not your enemy.
K
K9Buck
Guest
On the contrary, it is the religious right that is “excluding” gay people from being able to exercise the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy.
Would you continue to support the concept of government and laws being based on Sharia Law if Muslims suddenly became the majority?
P
PetraG
Guest
It is fair to say that the laws established to encourage biological parents to establish a stable home for their children have been changed so that they don’t do that any more. The laws now just give privileges to people who are willing to share…I don’t know, finances, I guess? I mean, honestly, it is easier to get out of a marriage than a business contract. Civil government is not in the fidelity or commitment business any more.
I have to wonder, though, why marriage under the “mutual care” definition ought to have anything whatsoever to do with whether those in the contract have a sexual relationship at all. It isn’t as if “alienation of affection” is a thing any more. Society isn’t really protecting sexual fidelity with its marriage laws. It isn’t expecting couples to be open to children. Society may as well admit that secular marriage has evolved into a convenient way for adults to establish a legal relationship of mutual care and extend the institution to people who don’t even have a sexual relationship at all.
Last edited:
K
K9Buck
Guest
I can go along with that. For me, the litmus is whether or not free people should be free to engage in behavior that affects no one else. Should they?
P
PetraG
Guest
This is the sticking point, because “behavior that affects no one else” tends to be defined a lot more broadly by those taking the risk.
Take helmet laws, for instance. Motorcycle riders often complain that they ought to be able to choose whether or not to risk their brain cases while they’re riding. The problem is that if they crack their heads really badly on the pavement, there is no way most could ever afford to cover the cost of their care and disability. We aren’t going to let them just live with the consequences of their actions alone. That is what gives society the right to interfere, I’d say.
Last edited: