Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[brianwalden]

Catholics can claim sole ownership of the concept of marriage all they like, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Agreed. You can also claim ownership over the concept of marriage all you want, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Other people have a great stake in marriage as well, and unless Catholicism can prove its moral standpoint indubitably correct nobody else needs to buy into it.

Agreed. And unless you can prove your moral standpoint indubitably correct nobody else needs to buy into it.

And in America’s case specifically, we hold that all people have a right to choose and practice whatever faith or lack of faith they like, and the moral code comes in the package. Nobody else is required to conform to that moral code.

Agreed. Do you require Catholics to abandon their faith, and hence their moral code, in favor for yours?

Why then should the government enforce it, since the removal of such enforcements would not cause infringements on anyone’s inalienable rights?

Laws are based on morals, but laws are not morals. Our current laws about marriage reflect the morals of society, not the morals of Catholics or any other religious group. Catholics and other religious groups, do however participate their voices to these laws. It just so happens that America’s laws concerning marriage are closer to Catholic morals than they are opposed to it. On other issues the laws are different. That’s the way it works. Everyone contributes their voice to society, society makes laws.

Why is governmental recognition of the marriage of two members of the same sex an inalienable right, as you claim? Why is governmental recognition of marriage among three poeple not an inalienable right, as I think you’ve claimed in earlier posts (correct me if I’m wrong)? Who determines that someone has an inalienable right to one thing and not another?

 

[brianwalden]

One true moral code, certainly. But there are many different ideas as to what that one is. Most of those have a whole bunch of riders attached. Jews think it’s immoral to eat pork. Muslims think it’s immoral to draw people. Vaishnavite Hindus think it’s immoral to eat meat, period. Jains think it’s immoral to squash bugs. Shakers think it’s immoral to procreate. Jehovah’s Witnesses think it’s immoral to transfuse blood. Have we a way of determining who’s right? No, beyond everybody converting to one system; and we have an inalienable right not to do that. Then should our laws reflect each moral code in the fullest degree? Impossible.

You’re correct that we don’t have a way of determining who is right. You’re correct that everyone being forced to convert to one moral system is wrong. You’re correct that it’s impossible for our laws to reflect each moral code to the fullest degree. But I’ve never said anything contrary to these statements.

Our laws reflect the overal moral climate of society. No one moral code gets represented. But this only works if everyone can express their beliefs to the fullest. Catholics don’t force everyone to obey Catholic laws; they just contribute their voices to the rest of society and society decides the laws. For the time being (and maybe not much longer) most states agree with Catholics on the issue of homosexual marriage, but I’d say that no states fully believe in Catholic morals concerning marriage. Heck, I doubt most Catholics believe Catholic morals concerning marriage.

So what should we do? Why not find a common ground in all these disparate systems of morality and enforce that, letting people with differing moral codes expand upon that base in their private lives and in their communal faiths (if applicable) as they will? What’s wrong with that?

Umm… We have done that. It’s called our current laws. Our laws reflect the common ground of all our disparate systems of moralities letting people with differing moral codes expand upon that base. I don’t see anything wrong with this. This is the very reason why, as the OP asked, Catholics make such a big deal about homosexual marriage. Our voices contribute to the all the different ideas that make up the laws concerning marriage. If our voices were missing the laws may change, so we do our best to be heard just as everyone else does.

Believe it all you like, but you simply can’t make anybody who doesn’t want to think that way, nor should you. Conversion by force is no conversion at all. And conversion to your moral code is merely a part of the greater; if done by force or by legal mandate, what good is it?

Who said anything about making anyone think like me? Who said anything about conversion by force? Who said anything about conversion by legal mandate? The laws don’t change or legislate morality, they just reflect the prevailing morality. Slavery in America, for example, was morally wrong nomatter what the laws said. Does the current law defining marriage between a man and a woman force you to believe that homosexual marriage is wrong? No. Does it prevent you from voicing your opinion and trying to change the law? No.

And why are you so upset with Catholics for the current laws concerning marriage? Those laws were made mostly by dead, white, Protestants. Catholics just contribute their voices to maintaining those laws in the same way that you contribute your voice to trying to change them.

Why should the law be an instrument of conversion for one faith over another?

I have no idea, who said it should be?

 

[brianwalden]

Not everybody believes it’s aberrant, not everybody believes it’s harmful to society. Prove these two things to the satisfaction of any non-Catholic, and then it is definitely something to be considered for a ban – if the ban will not do even more damage. But that you merely believe it so does not make it that way.

Ok, now you’re just being silly. Not everyone believes marijuana use is aberrant or harmful to society, but marijuana is illegal outside of medical use in just about every state if not all of them. By your logic almost all of our laws are in danger.

Why should anyone have to petition the government in the first place to legalize a free exercise of his or her beliefs? It is an inalienable right! Until that exercise is shown to be harmful to society or to infringe upon the free exercise of others, there is absolutely no reason it should be illegal.

Who has lost the free exercise of their beliefs. If two men want to call themselves married they can. If two men, a woman, a horse, and a toaster want to call themselves married they can. The government just won’t recognize it. I call abortion murder and the government doesn’t recognize it. That doesn’t mean the government is infringing on my rights to excercise my beliefs. The majority of society currently believes homosexual marriage is harmful to society and it is currently not allowed in most states. What’s the problem? Times are changing, just keep up the good work and you may very well have your way soon.

Christians do have the home-team advantage in this country, as a large number of the founders were Christian; but this is not a Christian country, its laws are not to be based on Christian morality, and the fact that some are based on these beliefs and limit the expression of others is a thing un-American at its core, and a thing to be lamented and rapidly remedied.

You’re right, our laws are not based on Christian morality but on the prevailing morality of society. That current prevailing morality is that homosexual marriage is harmful to society and hence it is illegal. You’ve got your voice, what’s the problem? You’re the one trying to limit the expression of others beliefs because they are Christian.

 

[Mirdath]

Ok, lets go through how a Christian mind works.

1. We should do good to others because we would like others to do good to us.
2. What is good from a Christian perspective? That which is objectively good.
3. What is objectively good? That which comes from God.

No, the Golden Rule is explicitly about wanting, not objective good – which is a whole thread, if not a library, unto itself.

If you want to make the case that the Golden Rule means supporting homosexuals who want to get married, you’re arguing that scripture contradicts itself. In order to back up that claim you’ve got a long, uphill battle against biblical scholars much smarter than me.

Scripture contradicting itself? Say it ain’t so! What do you make of Jesus stopping the scribes from stoning the woman caught in adultery? That was, after all, the divinely mandated punishment.

You can also claim ownership over the concept of marriage all you want, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

I am not claiming ownership. I am saying leave it open.

And unless you can prove your moral standpoint indubitably correct nobody else needs to buy into it.

My standpoint here is not one of morals, because as you say, nobody has to follow me. I am going a step above, into ethics, and saying our laws should reflect only the common moral ground, and be focused entirely on protecting society from harm – where ‘harm’ is that which impairs citizens’ free action.

As a side note, I’m sounding more libertarian than I’d really like…

Do you require Catholics to abandon their faith, and hence their moral code, in favor for yours?

No. I merely ask that they remember that other people don’t think they’re right either, and not try to force it on us or campaign to keep such unjust restrictions in place.

Why is governmental recognition of the marriage of two members of the same sex an inalienable right, as you claim? Why is governmental recognition of marriage among three poeple not an inalienable right, as I think you’ve claimed in earlier posts (correct me if I’m wrong)? Who determines that someone has an inalienable right to one thing and not another?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, but it expresses the spirit quite nicely: 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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Obviously I disagree with the ‘Creator’ bit, but that’s a very, very minor quibble.

So, how exactly is my pursuit of happiness via trying to get legal recognition of a relationship between myself and someone of the same sex or even with multiple people infringing upon your life, your liberty, or your pursuit of happiness? Operative word on the last being ‘pursuit’ – being sad that people are sinning is no impediment to your own PoH.

Our laws reflect the overal moral climate of society. No one moral code gets represented. But this only works if everyone can express their beliefs to the fullest.

You haven’t said why it should be this way. Why should everybody be fighting to get more of their moral beliefs legislated? Why is limiting the role of government to a minimalist code unacceptable to you?

And why are you so upset with Catholics for the current laws concerning marriage? Those laws were made mostly by dead, white, Protestants. Catholics just contribute their voices to maintaining those laws in the same way that you contribute your voice to trying to change them.

As Jesus said, he who is not with me is against me, no? I discuss it with Catholics because, firstly, I have a better grip on Catholic teaching on the matter, and that teaching is much more complex and nuanced than that of most Protestant denominations who disapprove; and secondly, because I tend to get along better with conservative Catholics than I do with fundamentalist Protestants (admittedly, that often isn’t saying a whole lot). Sheeze, you guys complain about getting the boot from CARM and the like… I wouldn’t last ten seconds!

 

[Mirdath]

Ok, now you’re just being silly. Not everyone believes marijuana use is aberrant or harmful to society, but marijuana is illegal outside of medical use in just about every state if not all of them. By your logic almost all of our laws are in danger.

And there’s a problem with that? Drug decriminalization (and I’m not even saying free-market legalization, just making possession legal and allowing pharmacies to sell) would do wonders for both the crime rate and the economy, for the record – you have any idea just how much the government could collect on a pot tax? It’d make cigarette taxes look like chump change.

Who has lost the free exercise of their beliefs. If two men want to call themselves married they can. If two men, a woman, a horse, and a toaster want to call themselves married they can. The government just won’t recognize it.

There are certain privileges that go along with legal marriage. They are currently denied to all except opposite-sex couples. Let’s even the playing field, one way or the other.

I call abortion murder and the government doesn’t recognize it. That doesn’t mean the government is infringing on my rights to excercise my beliefs.

Quite so. Note that you’re still free not to have an abortion!

What’s the problem? Times are changing, just keep up the good work and you may very well have your way soon.

What can I say, I’m impatient

You’ve got your voice, what’s the problem? You’re the one trying to limit the expression of others beliefs because they are Christian.

I am not limiting your beliefs. I am trying to limit the ability of people with beliefs to legislate them onto the rest of us, and I think that good and just and proper.

Many people on this forum whine and bellyache about how Muslim immigrants are supposedly trying to change American laws to reflect sharia. Would you support such a thing, if Muslims came into the majority here? How is what you’re doing any better?

 

[brianwalden]

You haven’t said why it should be this way. Why should everybody be fighting to get more of their moral beliefs legislated? Why is limiting the role of government to a minimalist code unacceptable to you?

Mirdath, I like your style. I obviously disagree with you, but I do so happily. I think our opinions on the role of government highlights our biggest difference. Why should laws be merely a minimalist code and how do we know what the minimum is? One man’s minimal regulations are tyranny to another. Laws that reflect the composite morality of society just seem to make more sense to me.

By the way, I think limiting marriage to one man and one woman is the minimum. I believe homosexual marriage is harmful to society just as I believe divorce and remarriage and contraception are harmful to society. If the cultural debate ever returns to those issues I’ll be advocating laws against them as well. So who gets to set the minimum?

I guess the biggest reason why a minimalist code is unacceptable to me is because I’m the son of baby-boomer parents who were indoctrinated with the “Spirit of Vatican II.” I’ve seen what minimalist code has done to the Catholic Church and I see what it’s doing to society. It means that people stop doing what has been made optional and then start attacking the new minumum standard. Anyone who speaks out against this gets stifled. I’m much more comfortable with everyone loudly expressing their absolute, yet often mutually exclusive, beliefs and fighting it out (not literally) in the public square. Disagreements don’t bother me; pretending disagreements don’t exist when they really do bothers me.

 

[Bishopite]

I wasn’t even addressing the effects of the Enlightenment on modern society – I was talking about standards of absolute morality that do not require religious belief, of which Kant’s is a brilliant example.

I do recommend reading Kant, though, or at least gaining a good understanding of his works, especially if you’re going to condemn him offhand like that.

Well, I was hoping that you would answer my questions since I answered yours, oh well.
Believe me I’ve read enough about the enlightenment to know that one doesn’t have to take the cover off to know that the sewer stinks. I’ve also read a bit about Kant and anyone that thinks society through philosophical or epistomological means can exist without any religion is a fool. Where did morality come from?

 

[Nepenthe]

A word to the wise before we continue, though I’m not sure this doesn’t deserve its own thread considering what I have seen of debate and discussion on these fora:

Objective/subjective do not equal absolute/relative. The concepts are distinct. The terms get conflated around here all too often. Mirdath has glancingly alluded to the problem, but apparently it needs pointing out. Please take note.

 

[Nepenthe]

brianwalden:

Laws that reflect the composite morality of society just seem to make more sense to me.

Whoops, I missed that before…but yes, exactly. The ideals this nation was founded upon, which are indeed our greatest strength, were formed precisely in recognition of the composite nature of We the People. We are bound legally to recognize the equality of all human citizens under the law. There are a few exceptions such as children, the mentally unable (note that I do not say ‘disordered’, Catholics…I mean genuinely unable), and convicted felons, though those conditions are very much subject to close scrutiny as well!

Such is the contract.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, I like your style. I obviously disagree with you, but I do so happily. I think our opinions on the role of government highlights our biggest difference. Why should laws be merely a minimalist code and how do we know what the minimum is? One man’s minimal regulations are tyranny to another. Laws that reflect the composite morality of society just seem to make more sense to me.

A minimalist code of law is still a composite – it’s what everybody holds in common, things like ‘don’t murder’, ‘don’t steal’, ‘don’t rape’. What I have a problem with is when the rule of law adds specific parts of a specific moral code to the exclusion of others – which is what has been done in this case.

By the way, I think limiting marriage to one man and one woman is the minimum. I believe homosexual marriage is harmful to society just as I believe divorce and remarriage and contraception are harmful to society. If the cultural debate ever returns to those issues I’ll be advocating laws against them as well. So who gets to set the minimum?

You’re still saying the law should support the minimum you believe is acceptable. That’s not what this country is about. Let the law take care of what everybody thinks is detrimental to society, and let us handle the rest in our own ways. Otherwise our legal system gets caught up in a morass of trying to accommodate whoever has the loudest voice or the most money – and it’s already there.

And even if the law says nothing against divorce, remarriage, or contraception, you are still free to do none of these things. The law doesn’t need to enforce these; take some responsibility for your own morals!

Bishopite:

Well, I was hoping that you would answer my questions since I answered yours, oh well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was your question

 

[brianwalden]

A minimalist code of law is still a composite – it’s what everybody holds in common, things like ‘don’t murder’, ‘don’t steal’, ‘don’t rape’. What I have a problem with is when the rule of law adds specific parts of a specific moral code to the exclusion of others – which is what has been done in this case.

Yes a minimalist code is still a composite, but it’s a composite that doesn’t reflect the values of its people and it doesn’t attempt to reflect the absolute moral law which you agree exists even if we have a hard time figuring out exactly what it is. The point, from my perspective, isn’t to get laws that no one will disagree with; the point is to get laws that reflect the absolute moral law.

What specific parts of moral codes have been added to the exclusion of others with homosexual marriage. Anyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, may marry one person of the opposite sex. That’s the law. It is fair. If we change it to allow same-sex marriage it will also be fair. The government feels heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society and rewards it. No morals are being legislated. No one is prevented from living their life how they want. Is the current law discriminatory against heterosexual couples who live together but don’t believe in the life-long commitment of marriage? Is it discriminatory against those who choose to remain single their whole lives? What about widows and widowers who had their marriage benefits taken away through no fault of their own?

I think a big part of this is our different world views. Christians feel we have a duty to influence society and to change it. Our goal is to try to make our society reflect heaven. Instead of seeing people merely as isolated individuals, we see people as interconnected parts of a larger body which is society. What’s good for the body is good for the parts and what’s good for the parts is good for the body.

You’re still saying the law should support the minimum you believe is acceptable. That’s not what this country is about. Let the law take care of what everybody thinks is detrimental to society, and let us handle the rest in our own ways. Otherwise our legal system gets caught up in a morass of trying to accommodate whoever has the loudest voice or the most money – and it’s already there.

I wasn’t saying the law should support the minimum, I was just giving examples how everyone has different ideas of what the minimum should be. Currently society sees defining marriage as between one man and one woman to be the absolute minimum. You disagree and think that is way too restrictive. What about the people who think limiting marriage to just two people is way too restrictive? How low does the minimum go? Why is your minimum the acceptable minimum?

The law currently does take care of what everybody thinks is detrimental to society. Currently our society believes homosexual marriage is detrimental to society. Marriage isn’t limited to one man and one woman because some people think homosexual acts are sinful, the limitation is there because enough people think heterosexual marriage benefits society and homosexual marriage doesn’t. The marriage laws don’t prevent anyone from performing homosexual acts or living in a homosexual relationship, they just don’t reward it.

When you start talking about how the people with the loudest voices and the most money get their way you start getting into politics. I don’t know much about politics. I think debating the politics behind the way we decide laws would be another thread. But I do think that under your proposal, our legal system would be caught up in the morass of trying to accommodate whoever has the lowest morals. You can choose the frying pan or the fire - lawmaking is a painful, messy process either way.

 

[brianwalden]

And even if the law says nothing against divorce, remarriage, or contraception, you are still free to do none of these things. The law doesn’t need to enforce these; take some responsibility for your own morals!

Non-married people are free to do all the things that married couples do. Additionally the law doesn’t dictate any morals for couples whose marriages it recognizes. When I read your paragraph I hear something like: “And even if the law places no limits on weapons, you are still free not to use any type of weapon you choose. The law doesn’t need to place any restrictions on any type of weapons; take some responsibility for your own morals!” I hope that sounds absurd to you. It’s not about morals, it’s about society using laws to promote that which it deems beneficial to itself and restricting that which it deems harmful. Our society thinks the right to bear weapons is, on the whole, beneficial to all and has made a constitutional amendment to reflect that. Our society also thinks that certain weapons are harmful and restricts them. Same with marriage.

You seem to take greater issue with the the nature of laws and how they’re made than you do specifically with marriage. That topic may be beyond my ability to discuss in depth.

 

[Bishopite]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was your question

I know you’ve had a lost of posts to answer so I just took it as you being to busy. This is what I asked in post #66…

1. Where did morality come from?
2. And who decides what is “moral” and what isn’t?

 

[frnate]

Not everybody believes it’s aberrant, not everybody believes it’s harmful to society. Prove these two things to the satisfaction of any non-Catholic, and then it is definitely something to be considered for a ban – if the ban will not do even more damage. But that you merely believe it so does not make it that way.

So in general, we have two differing points of view.

1. Aberrant and harmful to society
2. Not aberrant or harmful to society
   Those who hold to #1 recognize the satisfactory proof in the natural order. Refusal or inability to recognize the satisfactory proof which exists in the natural order becomes merely a belief and as you said, that doesn’t make it so.

Why should anyone have to petition the government in the first place to legalize a free exercise of his or her beliefs? It is an inalienable right! Until that exercise is shown to be harmful to society or to infringe upon the free exercise of others, there is absolutely no reason it should be illegal.

And thus, the government need not be involved with the issue of “gay” marriage (except perhaps, in limiting it’s harmful effects on society.) You argue against yourself.

Christians do have the home-team advantage in this country, as a large number of the founders were Christian; but this is not a Christian country, its laws are not to be based on Christian morality, and the fact that some are based on these beliefs and limit the expression of others is a thing un-American at its core, and a thing to be lamented and rapidly remedied.

All morality is measured against the Judeo-Christian standard, all legislation is for the sole purpose of moral application, your statement falls flat on it’s face. Merely because you believe it to be otherwise does not make it that way.

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

I know you’ve had a lot of posts to answer so I just took it as you being to busy. This is what I asked in post #66…

1. Where did morality come from?
2. And who decides what is “moral” and what isn’t?

I thought the same thing when he didn’t answer my questions. I figured he’d get around to answering us eventually.

Here’s what I asked:
Who’s morality do we choose? And why?

Our questions are along a similar vein so I thought I’d horn in on your post, hope you don’t mind.

+N

 

[Mirdath]

Yes a minimalist code is still a composite, but it’s a composite that doesn’t reflect the values of its people and it doesn’t attempt to reflect the absolute moral law which you agree exists even if we have a hard time figuring out exactly what it is. The point, from my perspective, isn’t to get laws that no one will disagree with; the point is to get laws that reflect the absolute moral law.

Your absolute moral law or mine? You see the problem, I hope. There is no chance of the law reflecting the One True Absolute Moral Law and remaining fair to others unless they all believe in the same moral truths the legislators do. Since we have free exercise, legislating one particular idea of what is truly moral works against the very foundation of American law.

What specific parts of moral codes have been added to the exclusion of others with homosexual marriage. Anyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, may marry one person of the opposite sex. That’s the law. It is fair.

No, it is distinctly unfair. You’re effectively telling homosexuals to buckle down and turn straight just so you can preserve your idea of marriage. Why should that happen?

Your vision of America has more in common with Animal Farm than it does the founders’ intent. All are equal… but some of us are more equal than others.

Is the current law discriminatory against heterosexual couples who live together but don’t believe in the life-long commitment of marriage? Is it discriminatory against those who choose to remain single their whole lives? What about widows and widowers who had their marriage benefits taken away through no fault of their own?

We are not talking about couples who intend their relationship to be temporary, nor about single people, nor about the widowed. We are talking about couples who wish to have their relationship recognized by the government, and all these cases you introduce are entirely irrelevant to that.

Christians feel we have a duty to influence society and to change it. Our goal is to try to make our society reflect heaven.

And must you do so through laws? Was Jesus planning to stage a coup to enforce Christian morality? He said ‘my kingdom is not of this earth’ when questioned on that very matter! Why do you think you can get away with something Jesus never even considered doing?

What about the people who think limiting marriage to just two people is way too restrictive? How low does the minimum go? Why is your minimum the acceptable minimum?

My minimum is, in fact, two or more consenting, non-consanguineous individuals of legal age from the same species. Going lower than that raises serious questions of consent, and lack of consent should always invalidate marriage.

Marriage isn’t limited to one man and one woman because some people think homosexual acts are sinful, the limitation is there because enough people think heterosexual marriage benefits society and homosexual marriage doesn’t.

Funny, the usual answer given by people against same-sex marriage is ‘God said it’s wrong’. Nothing about a detriment to society, or at least nothing that isn’t a hastily-constructed argument shoehorned in backwards.

When I read your paragraph I hear something like: “And even if the law places no limits on weapons, you are still free not to use any type of weapon you choose. The law doesn’t need to place any restrictions on any type of weapons; take some responsibility for your own morals!” I hope that sounds absurd to you.

It’s absurd, but probably not for the reason you thought: it’s an entirely faulty analogy. The government does have an interest in weapons, as they are generally manufactured for the purpose of killing people – and I’m sure you’d agree that that’s indubitably a detriment to society.

1. Where did morality come from?

1. And who decides what is “moral” and what isn’t?

You’re right, I missed those

1. I don’t believe in an absolute ‘source’ of morality.
2. We do. You decided certain things were moral or immoral when you accepted Catholic teaching; I decided certain things were moral or immoral when I considered their universal application or potential effect on society.

 

[Mirdath]

So in general, we have two differing points of view.

1. Aberrant and harmful to society
2. Not aberrant or harmful to society
   Those who hold to #1 recognize the satisfactory proof in the natural order. Refusal or inability to recognize the satisfactory proof which exists in the natural order becomes merely a belief and as you said, that doesn’t make it so.

And the natural order is against homosexuality? Please, go on. So all that animal homosexuality is just an urban legend?

Natural law is, in essence, the same thing as divine fiat. Somebody who doesn’t hold your view of God has no reason to accept either.

And thus, the government need not be involved with the issue of “gay” marriage (except perhaps, in limiting it’s harmful effects on society.) You argue against yourself.

I argue that it never should have been a problem.

All morality is measured against the Judeo-Christian standard, all legislation is for the sole purpose of moral application, your statement falls flat on it’s face. Merely because you believe it to be otherwise does not make it that way.

Read the Treaty of Tripoli. It was posted earlier in this thread.

And ‘all morality is measured against the Judeo-Christian standard’? Maybe by Judeo-Christians! The rest of us have better things to do with our moral standards than play certain locker room games with them.

Who’s morality do we choose? And why?

Choose your own! I have not been saying ‘you guys shouldn’t think homosexual acts are immoral’. What I have been saying is that you have no right to expect your moral beliefs to be enforced by law, and no right to try to make or keep them enforced.

 

[brianwalden]

I thought the same thing when he didn’t answer my questions. I figured he’d get around to answering us eventually.

My apologies for hogging the discussion, I’ve kept Mirdath busy.

Extending the same courtesy back to Mirdath, if you’d like me to respond to any of your comments which I’ve skipped over just ask and I’ll do so.

 

[Mirdath]

My apologies for hogging the discussion, I’ve kept Mirdath busy.

Extending the same courtesy back to Mirdath, if you’d like me to respond to any of your comments which I’ve skipped over just ask and I’ll do so.

I think we’re doing fine

 

[Penny_Plain]

And ‘all morality is measured against the Judeo-Christian standard’? Maybe by Judeo-Christians! The rest of us have better things to do with our moral standards than play certain locker room games with them.

I have a question. I hear Americans talk about Judeo-Christians all the time.

What’s a Judeo-Christian? I’ve met Jews. I’ve met Christians. But I’ve never met a Judeo-Christian that I know of.