What religious-based disapproval is enshrined in state law?
See above.
You keep attempting to assert that anything anyone holds as true is a belief akin to a religious belief. I refuted this by pointing out that someone can hold something as true by looking to history and saying that every time we do a we get b so let’s not do a anymore. I then gave you the example of how the founding father’s did this. You keep asking me to support this. I have sufficiently supported my claim until you dig into the relevant history and tell me where my premise is flawed.
Jewish and Muslim religions hold the same views on homosexuality and homosexual marriage as Christians – try again.
No, I said that anything held as true without justification, i.e., by faith.
All of that rests on various unstated and unsubstantiated beliefs. I pointed out several of these to you.
#1, they are insignificant in terms of voters, and #2, most Jews are not observant of OT prohibitions of homosexuality.
I did not do that. I said that historically every time a society has exterminated large portions of its population this society has failed. Therefore we can ascertain that any society which condones and promotes the extermination of a large portion of its population is not a stable governmental policy. We can also ascertain that this society will fall, either by force or withering, in fairly short order. The Nazi’s fell by force because they attempted to spread the views to an unwilling world through invasion. Communist Russia fell by withering because they killed to many of their own leaders to continue functioning properly.
Why do you keep telling me to do your research for you, but insist that I cannot say the same thing to you?
But, I wasn’t using Darwinian logic – you simply asserted that I was so you could make another public proclamation of your biases.
I never said that. I said that it is possible to hold something as true and not base that on a religious view. I sufficiently proved this so you accused my argument of being Darwinian when it had nothing to do with Darwinism.
Step 1) (for the fifth time) Study the history of totalitarian societies which did not provide rights to their citizens.
As for this argument it is too ridiculous to even bother defending against. We’ll be slaves to our descendant!? C’mon – that’s just a ridiculous statement.
I said “I cannot think on one law off the top of my head that is based on purely Christian ideals.” This means that is any group besides Christians also holds that ideal the law is not based on a purely Christian ideal. The immorality of homosexuality is not exclusive to Christians. Are you seriously incapable of reading the words in front of you and determining their meaning?
Sorry, but your methodology is extremely unscientific. I don’t know if you rally expect me to take that argument seriously or not.
It’s not a matter of researching the matieral, it’s a matter of constructing a logical argument.
It is classical Darwinianism.
You have yet to put foward an argument for the criteria you put forward.
That is not a valid methodology. First of all, you are confusing correlation with causation. Second of all, you are not conducting a complete sampling by considering only “totalitarian” socieites. And, thirdly, you have yet to explain your criteria in any useful way. Was Rome a failure?
Here you are leaping from future outcome to current functioning to ordering of rights. You just make one logical leap after another.
It’s exactly what you are proposing.
You’re statements are so completely incorrect that I’m not even going to bother refuting them. I think this conversation has gone on long enough for everyone to draw their own conclusions about the premises being put forth.
No, arguments should be based in reason. That may include both religious and non religious arguments, but that is not what this is about.
The reason does not matter?
The reasons the religion support a certain proscription matter.
I’m sorry if I’ve shown any disrespect to your Darwinian religion.
I acknowledge you do not know of any instance where religious-based disapproval is enshrined in law. Therefore, Boise’ statement that religious-based disapproval cannot be enshrined in law is not a change to current understanding of 1a.
Believe what you wish. If you have nothing new to add to the discussion, we’re done here.
Eye fourgiv ewe.
You mean it depends on who is currently interpreting the document. Despite the hype things get changed, invented, reversed, reinterpreted and people keep saying that religion plays no role. Kinda like saying judges are unbiased.