Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

If you have a problem with a role the Supreme Court has played over the last two centuries, then by all means, start advocating for it to be stripped of those powers

That’s a false choice argument and only being used because the Court erroenesly ruled in favour of your agenda.

And by “erroneously”, you mean the Supreme Court didn’t rule in your favor. And really, at this point, what do you expect to happen. The majority of Americans, heck a large number of Catholics, have accepted this ruling, so it’s a done deal. And spookily enough, God didn’t reach down and smite anyone.

 

[Rau]

or via referendum like Australia

Australia merely surveyed the population. The government will legislate a change to the meaning of marriage.

 

[Rau]

Ah, so we’re right back to reducto ad absurdum arguments. The sad part is that I could, without even jumping to Google, find examples to show that societies have done just those sorts of things.

Then there is no reduction ad absurdism. Though I agree some events are surely absurd.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Ah, so we’re right back to reducto ad absurdum arguments. The sad part is that I could, without even jumping to Google, find examples to show that societies have done just those sorts of things.

Then there is no reduction ad absurdism. Though I agree some events are surely absurd.

The fallacy comes from your implication that now that gay people can marry, that we’ll be beating babies to death.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And by “erroneously”, you mean the Supreme Court didn’t rule in your favor

No, I mean they violated the 10th Amendment on its face.

The majority of Americans, heck a large number of Catholics, have accepted this ruling, so it’s a done deal. And spookily enough,

Argumentum ad populum

so it’s a done deal.

Oh, is that why many gay “rights” activists are now trying to force others to participate in their weddings? Because it’s all over?

You also might want to look at some of the demographics…

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

And by “erroneously”, you mean the Supreme Court didn’t rule in your favor

No, I mean they violated the 10th Amendment on its face.

And when exactly did you pass the bar and become a noted constitutional scholar?

The majority of Americans, heck a large number of Catholics, have accepted this ruling, so it’s a done deal. And spookily enough,

Argumentum ad populum

And what’s wrong with that, if the underlying notion is that morality is what a society suggests? Why should argumentum ad unpopulum be the metric here?

so it’s a done deal.

Oh, is that why many gay “rights” activists are now trying to force others to participate in their weddings? Because it’s all over?

You also might want to look at some of the demographics…

I’ve already made it clear I dont’ agree with forcing cake bakers to put messages on cakes for gay weddings, and honestly, I doubt most gays want to give their business to someone that hates them.

 

[Rau]

The fallacy comes from your implication that now that gay people can marry, that we’ll be beating babies to death.

One leading to the other was nowhere asserted or implied.

 

[buffalo]

I am asking.

Your system allows slavery to be voted back in.

 

[buffalo]

correction - hates their behavioral choices.

 

[Rau]

Oh, is that why many gay “rights” activists are now trying to force others to participate in their weddings? Because it’s all over?

And we also see others being forced to participate in school programs that teach the new social ethics including the “naturalness”, of same sex sexual relationship, and of SSM and gender theory. Sex education used to be about the “birds and the bees” - now the scope is expanded. And no Johnny, you may not be excused!

 

[niceatheist]

I am asking.

Your system allows slavery to be voted back in.

No, it doesn’t, because the 13th Amendment bans it. And I’m not actually promoting a “system”, merely suggesting to you that morals don’t get delivered from God on stone tablets, but are concocted or adopted by any given society.

 

[buffalo]

[You are OK with all of this as long as the society legalizes it?] was my question.

Yes or no?

Yet the 13th amendment can be overturned.

 

[niceatheist]

[You are OK with all of this as long as the society legalizes it?] was my question.

Yes or no?

No, I wouldn’t be okay with it. In fact, I’d fight any way I could to prevent it. And really, I see no great risk of such things coming about.

Yet the 13th amendment can be overturned.

But the probability is exceedingly low, because the Constitution is designed to be hard to amend.

 

[buffalo]

That is in our system. Not true across the world. I submit atheists enjoy the benefits of a moral society, up to a point… Perfect segway - :grinning:America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists

A few years ago, a debate between atheists and religious believers spilled out from the halls of academia and the pews of America’s churches and into the public spotlight. A crop of atheist manifestos led the charge, surmounting and holding the tops of the nonfiction bestseller lists. This offensive brought on an outpouring of religious rebuttals. As both sides exchanged spirited volleys, accusations were leveled; myths, stereotypes, and strawmen arguments were perpetuated; and bitter hostility filled the air. Today many of these misconceptions and myths linger on, along with the generally acrimonious spirit of the debate.
In America’s Blessings, distinguished researcher Rodney Stark seeks to clear the air of this hostility and debunk many of the debate’s most widely perpetuated misconceptions by drawing from an expansive pool of sociological findings. Looking at the measurable effects of religious faith and practice on American society, Stark rises above the fray and focuses exclusively on facts. His findings may surprise many, atheists and believers alike.
Starting with a historical overview, Stark traces America’s religious roots from the founding of the country up through the present day, showing that religiosity in America has never been consistent, static, or monolithic. Interestingly, he finds that religious practice is now more prevalent than ever in America, despite any claims to the contrary. From here, Stark devotes whole chapters to unpacking the latest research on how religion affects different facets of modern American life, including crime, family life, sexuality, mental and physical health, sophistication, charity, and overall prosperity. The cumulative effect is that when translated into comparisons with western European nations, the United States comes out on top again and again. Thanks in no small part to America’s rich religious culture, the nation has far lower crime rates, much higher levels of charitable giving, better health, stronger marriages, and less suicide, to note only a few of the benefits.
In the final chapter, Stark assesses the financial impact of these religious realities. It turns out that belief benefits the American economy—and all 300 million citizens, believer and nonbeliever alike—by a conservative estimate of $2.6 trillion a year. Despite the atheist outcry against religion, the remarkable conclusion is clear: all Americans, from the most religious among us to our secular neighbors, really ought to count our blessings https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Blessings-Religion-Benefits-Including/dp/159947445X

 

[buffalo]

The founders were very wise and knew for the US to survive it needed a moral compass. We can thank them for this foresight.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.” Continental Congress, 1778

Bottom line - Christianity produces more self governing of its people and obviates the need for big government. As we drift away we will need more enforcement and more laws.

 

[niceatheist]

When exactly did I have cry out against religion? I believe fervently in your right to worship as you choose, and have no desire to convert you or force you to hide your faith. i even disagree with making bakers make cakes with SSM messages on them.

But, by the same token, your right to swing your first (or your Bible) ends at my real (or metaphorical) nose. If I wish to marry someone of my own gender (which I don’t, I’m a married heterosexual), then that should be of no interest to you whatsoever.

 

[niceatheist]

We could also discuss Thomas Jefferson’s considerably less complimentary views of Christianity. Whatever the views of the Founding Fathers on religion, one thing is clear, they felt the state had no place in promoting it.

 

[buffalo]

It is of interest to a moral society. Any two people are free to live together. If they engage in risky behaviors that increases societal costs to taxpayers and/or insurance subscribers then we, the people can regulate it. When they want to redefine terms such as marriage based on their own penchant then we. the people can object.

I assume you were born here and enjoy the benefits that our biblical roots provide. These roots are firmly enshrined but yet you want to change them which will undermine the very foundation you like. Be very careful here.

 

[buffalo]

They promoted it well. At the time of the founding 99% of people were Christian. The majority of the colonies already had a state sponsored Christian denomination. When it came to declaring a federal state religion they could not pick one. They left it to the states. Every state has God in its preamble or constitution. The separation is a recent construct and has no historical basis. The government cannot impose religion on its people, but we, the people can sure impose it on the government, and have, right along.

 

[buffalo]

Yet he thought well enough of it to grab a whole bunch of important verses into his own Bible.