Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

[buffalo]

A myth in practice, perhaps.

Take a look at something, if you will. We call it the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Thomas Jefferson himself said that the First Amendment was to create “a wall of separation between church and State.”

So as ill-enforced as it may be, Separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental policies of United States law. Simply saying that it’s a myth isn’t going to remove its presence from the Constitution.

Thank you for quoting the actual document. This means the state shall not impose a religion on its people, but religion can influence government and the public square.

 

[sans_Delilah]

It also means that a law cannot be written strictly based in religious reasoning, i.e. “respecting an establishment of religion…”

Therefore, same-sex marriage cannot be banned simply because the Bible says it’s immoral.

 

[buffalo]

It also means that a law cannot be written strictly based in religious reasoning, i.e. “respecting an establishment of religion…”

Therefore, same-sex marriage cannot be banned simply because the Bible says it’s immoral.

Then we also have to remove the Declaration of Independence.

Historical Documents

That aside, for the proper order of society it is founded on natural and Divine law whether you believe it or not. America is founded on the understanding absolute truth exists.

 

[Benadam]

It also means that a law cannot be written strictly based in religious reasoning, i.e. “respecting an establishment of religion…”

Therefore, same-sex marriage cannot be banned simply because the Bible says it’s immoral.

The state can adopt any law regardless of it’s source. The seperation of Church and state is to prevent the state from becoming the sole moral compass of the nation.

 

[sarahraegraham]

The state can adopt any law regardless of it’s source. The seperation of Church and state is to prevent the state from becoming the sole moral compass of the nation.

Here, here!

Also, with regard to the comment several posts back about marriage being a legal term… Marriage itself was not created by the state. The state regulates it because of legal necessity. (There are societal concerns as well, such as the propagation of the human race.) Therefore, if the state did not create marriage it has no right to “redefine” it.

I spoke to this a little earlier in the thread (as far as my opinion is concerned), and while I understand that the U.S. government allows civil marriages that are of no religious affiliation, I do not believe that they should. I think it’s another instance of the government interfering in matters it has no business in, i.e. creating “civil marriage” is an ACTUAL violation of the separation of church and state notion… Again, that’s my opinion, and I happen to think it’s a good one.

 

[Lynxdk]

The seperation of Church and state is to prevent the state from becoming the sole moral compass of the nation.

You have that backwards. It was to keep any particular church from becoming the sole moral compass.

 

[Benadam]

You have that backwards. It was to keep any particular church from becoming the sole moral compass.

If the state chooses a system the state becomes the moral compass. Or, if it refuses to allow any religious system to support it, the state becomes the moral compass. By any means, as I said, it is to prevent the state from becoming the moral compass of the nation

George Washington said this in his farewell speech.

.27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

[wanner47]

These documents may help:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

and

firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt

 

[Lynxdk]

If the state chooses a system the state becomes the moral compass. Or, if it refuses to allow any religious system to support it, the state becomes the moral compass. By any means, as I said, it is to prevent the state from becoming the moral compass of the nation

George also said:

“I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

and

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society”

and

“The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.”

How about some John Adams?
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

James Madison?
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

Benjamin Franklin?
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

So I beg do differ that “by any means” it means what you want it to mean.

but back to George:
“As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.”

Religion is undeniably important, and should be protected and supported, but that doesn’t mean just yours. As I said, it was to keep any particular church from becoming the sole moral compass.

We’re getting off topic tho

 

[Benadam]

Religion is undeniably important, and should be protected and supported, but that doesn’t mean just yours. As I said, it was to keep any particular church from becoming the sole moral compass.

We’re getting off topic tho

I don’t debate this subject with religious arguments. If I am accused of imposing my religious beliefs the accusation will display the bias of the accuser. My arguments are mostly biological and anthropological.

That being said;

Since the state is taking upon it’self to reset the boundaries of the matrimonial bond I don’t believe it is off topic.

Doing such a thing has profound impact on communities and the rights of members the state exists to protect. The state is subject to families, families are produced by the matrimonial bond. Civil society is a project of the human family, more precisely the matrimonial bond. The state can’t authentically adjust the boundaries of the matrimonial bond.

This is a case of the state being suckered into being the moral compass the founders didn’t want it to be. A case of the state violating the seperation the founders established.

 

[Lynxdk]

I don’t debate this subject with religious arguments. If I am accused of imposing my religious beliefs the accusation will display the bias of the accuser. My arguments are mostly biological and anthropological.

That can be said for just about any argument, including accusing someone of accusing. I wasn’t arguing about gay marriage, only your interpretation of a single sentence.

Doing such a thing has profound impact on communities and the rights of members the state exists to protect. The state is subject to families, families are produced by the matrimonial bond. Civil society is a project of the human family, more precisely the matrimonial bond. The state can’t authentically adjust the boundaries of the matrimonial bond.

I agree. It most definitely is not the place of the state to redefine marriage.

This is a case of the state being suckered into being the moral compass the founders didn’t want it to be. A case of the state violating the seperation the founders established.

I think you’re oversimplifying it, but I won’t argue overmuch there; there’s only so much you can put into words without writing a paper about it. Sometimes activists do abuse the ideals the US was founded on to their own ends.

 

[Benadam]

That can be said for just about any argument, including accusing someone of accusing. I wasn’t arguing about gay marriage, only your interpretation of a single sentence.

.

I’m sorry Lyn. Your implication may be true. I do tend to generalize posters who describe themselves as former Catholics. Peace of Christ

 

[Lynxdk]

I’m sorry Lyn. Your implication may be true. I do tend to generalize posters who describe themselves as former Catholics. Peace of Christ

No worries =) I do it too, it’s hard sometimes to stick to one small section of an idea amidst a larger issue. That’s why I hate debates