M
mo3
Guest
Yes we must respect their decisions but we must not agree with or support immoral anti-Christian values. Also it is our US constitutional right to speak the truth in love.
God bless.
Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights
- Status
God bless.
M
mo3
Guest
If this is your logic and belief system, then I cannot argue with such anti-USA values.
God bless.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I am not arguing against USA values, i am arguing against the idea that the principles on which the legal system is based does not logically and intrinsically imply a secular state (a split between state and religion). I think the onus is on you to prove that there is not a split between state and religion in America.
M
mo3
Guest
You want me to prove a negative for which you should know cannot be done.
Please quote the US Constitution which says there is a separation between church and state.
God bless.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Any reasonable person can see the rational implications of not living in a theocracy. The state is not compelled by any religion to enact laws based on religous sensibility or be particularly pejudice against other cultural beliefs in favor of religious dogma. Simply saying that the word “split between church and state” is not present, does not mean that it is not the correct conclusion. That you live in a secular state and have done so for some time is the only reasonable conclusion; and that is the case regardless of the fact that many Christians want to believe that they have a Christian legal system in their country.
M
mo3
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MindOverMatter
**That you live in a secular state and have done so for some time is the only reasonable conclusion; and that is the case regardless of the fact that many Christians want to believe that they have a Christian legal system in their country. **
Christians have the same right to fight for a legal system reflecting their moral values that atheists have to fight for a system reflecting their moral values. Let the better party prevail. As a Catholic, which party do you think that is or ought to be?
**That you live in a secular state and have done so for some time is the only reasonable conclusion; and that is the case regardless of the fact that many Christians want to believe that they have a Christian legal system in their country. **
Christians have the same right to fight for a legal system reflecting their moral values that atheists have to fight for a system reflecting their moral values. Let the better party prevail. As a Catholic, which party do you think that is or ought to be?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The legal system cannot say that gay marriage is wrong because Christianity or culture said so. Its not about what I think “ought to be”.MindOverMatter
**That you live in a secular state and have done so for some time is the only reasonable conclusion; and that is the case regardless of the fact that many Christians want to believe that they have a Christian legal system in their country. **
Christians have the same right to fight for a legal system reflecting their moral values that atheists have to fight for a system reflecting their moral values. Let the better party prevail. As a Catholic, which party do you think that is or ought to be?
You would be foolish to think that if enough people voted for the right to steal, that such a right would be incorporated. For example, you cannot vote for the exclusion of black people from the voting booth; why? Because there is no proven rational reason to exclude black people from the voting booth. It just doesn’t work like that. There is no proven reason to exclude gays from state marriage.
If it is not evident to the legal system that homosexual marriage is a detriment to human society, it will not matter how many people talk about voting rights and start wailing about it. Homosexual marriage will be allowed everywhere eventually and will be considered a human right; a right you cannot vote against. Unless you can prove that same sex attraction is a mental health disorder, there is no rational reason to reject same sex marriage.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I am not being prejudice. I am just saying that your vote will be ultimately meaningless if its based on dogma and speculation rather proven facts. Once Gay rights become human rights everywhere; you won’t be able to vote against it any-more than you can vote against human rights in general. Its not a matter of voting; but rather its a matter of proving your case to the legal system in front of a court. This is a human rights battle not a voting rights battle.
M
mtbender
Guest
Depends on how you define the purpose of secular marriage…
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
If you are only looking at the constitution you will only find the establishment clause.
USA Constitution:
If you consider other USA documents the “Treaty of Tripoli” may be of interest.
Treaty of Tripoli:
I’m not quite sure if that means the same as “secular government.” Especially considering the history that the USA government has tap dancing around or into religious territory. The statement in the treaty doesn’t reconcile well against the blu laws (thankfully most of which are gone from the area of the USA in which I live).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MindOverMatter
**
Unless you can prove that same sex attraction is a mental health disorder, there is no rational reason to reject same sex marriage.**
It is not necessary to prove that it is a mental disorder. It is only necessary to point out that it goes against the common sense of the human race. Never in the history of the human race has the world been so much without common sense as it is right now. We see it certainly in this instance. There is no obligation of the majority to surrender morality to uncommon nonsense, nor is there an obligation for the legislatures or the courts to enact into law the most non-sensical of civil rights demands. Same-sex marriage as a civil right is about as absurd as the demand of NAMBLA that sex with children should be codified as legitimate.
**
You would be foolish to think that if enough people voted for the right to steal, that such a right would be incorporated.**
You are making my case. Anything foolish should not be incorporated into the law, no matter how many people might vote for it.
**
Unless you can prove that same sex attraction is a mental health disorder, there is no rational reason to reject same sex marriage.**
It is not necessary to prove that it is a mental disorder. It is only necessary to point out that it goes against the common sense of the human race. Never in the history of the human race has the world been so much without common sense as it is right now. We see it certainly in this instance. There is no obligation of the majority to surrender morality to uncommon nonsense, nor is there an obligation for the legislatures or the courts to enact into law the most non-sensical of civil rights demands. Same-sex marriage as a civil right is about as absurd as the demand of NAMBLA that sex with children should be codified as legitimate.
**
You would be foolish to think that if enough people voted for the right to steal, that such a right would be incorporated.**
You are making my case. Anything foolish should not be incorporated into the law, no matter how many people might vote for it.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
If you had any common-sense at all, you would realise there is a legitimate moral difference between sex with children and sex between two consenting adults of the same gender. The legal system does not and will never reject same sex marriage with that ridiculous argument. If I was running an organisation against same sex marriage I would never allow you to be a vocal representative of that group for saying such a ridiculous thing.
The problem exists because of one fact. The major health organisations say that its not a mental illness, in other-words, there is nothing abnormal about same sex attraction; and there is nothing self evidently immoral about that behaviour. You would have to be a fool not to realise that there is not but one step from that fact to gay marriage.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MIndOverMatter
**The problem exists because of one fact. The major health organisations say that its not a mental illness, in other-words, there is nothing abnormal about same sex attraction; and there is nothing self evidently immoral about that behaviour. You would have to be a fool not to realise that there is not but one step from that fact to gay marriage. **
We are not talking about same-sex attraction. We are talking about same-sex sodomy and the legalization of it by the law. Simply absurd. Society has no obligation to defend the absurd, no matter what “health groups” may say about it. Many psychologists are loopy in the extreme, but not all psychologists think sodomy is perfectly healthy. If you want to cite a group, why not cite your own Church? Are you entirely without common sense?
If you are a Catholic you need to see your priest about your very anti-Catholic views.
**The problem exists because of one fact. The major health organisations say that its not a mental illness, in other-words, there is nothing abnormal about same sex attraction; and there is nothing self evidently immoral about that behaviour. You would have to be a fool not to realise that there is not but one step from that fact to gay marriage. **
We are not talking about same-sex attraction. We are talking about same-sex sodomy and the legalization of it by the law. Simply absurd. Society has no obligation to defend the absurd, no matter what “health groups” may say about it. Many psychologists are loopy in the extreme, but not all psychologists think sodomy is perfectly healthy. If you want to cite a group, why not cite your own Church? Are you entirely without common sense?
If you are a Catholic you need to see your priest about your very anti-Catholic views.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Asserting that something is absurd does not really work for me and I doubt very much that it would work in any reasonable court of law.
I can’t go into a court of law and say that they should reject Gay marriage simply because the Catholic church says so. What do I look like to you, an idiot!!!? You can go and do that if you want, but don’t expect me to follow you.
You need to stop taking this thread out of context and creating ad hominem attacks to hide you inability to properly defend your position. You have no idea what my position is on this matter. Just because I reject your ridiculous arguments does not mean that I support gay marriage.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
MindOverMatter
I can’t go into a court of law and say that they should reject Gay marriage simply because the Catholic church says so. What do I look like to you, an idiot!!!? You can go and do that if you want, but don’t expect me to follow you.
Dude, get your brain in gear!
You don’t go into a court of law and cite the authority of the Catholic Church. You go into court and cite the authority of common sense … if you have any. You cite the common sense of Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson and the hundreds of millions of souls throughout the world who regard sodomy as an evil and see no reason why such an evil should be given the imprimatur of the State.
I can’t go into a court of law and say that they should reject Gay marriage simply because the Catholic church says so. What do I look like to you, an idiot!!!? You can go and do that if you want, but don’t expect me to follow you.
Dude, get your brain in gear!
You don’t go into a court of law and cite the authority of the Catholic Church. You go into court and cite the authority of common sense … if you have any. You cite the common sense of Plato and Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson and the hundreds of millions of souls throughout the world who regard sodomy as an evil and see no reason why such an evil should be given the imprimatur of the State.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The question is, why should a secular state recognise it as “evil”. I think your brain is still in bed sleeping; go get it.
- Status