elliotfc said:
The most cursory glance at the history of law shows that the law does IN FACT deal with the existence and non-existence of God, or gods. This is elementary. You may not like that history, or, your ideal may be that law should have nothing to do with God, and I resepct that, but the facts are against you here.
Church and state should be seperate. Christ even agreed with this. Remember, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" ???
Howdy.
Again, I respect your ideal about church/state seperate, but that does not mean that religious ideas can't be codified.
Here is an example. Vigilantism. They were about the stone the adulteress til Jesus laid down the kibosh. Does that mean since Jesus was against vigilantism, we shouldn't legislate against vigilatism?
I didn't mention God or religion when I talked about the universal tradition of laws forbidding homosexual marriages anyway.
Homosexuality has lots of victims, just look at the statistics. See, lower lifespans in homosexuals does not just hurt homosexuals, but hurts other people as well. If I had a homosexual family member I would be hurt if they were hurting themself. If homosexuality leads to a general lessening of morality, that hurts me too. Higher health care costs, etc. There are many effects of homosexuality.
Well, if you follow that line of thinking, smokers shouldn't be allowed to marry, alcoholics and drug users shouldn't be allowed to marry, people who practice tantric sex shouldn't be allowed to marry and so on, all on the premise that their lifestyles result in shorter lifespans or demoralization, based on one's perspective. Your post seems to imply, Elliot, that your theoretic homosexual family member is hurting themselves merely by being homosexual. My apology if I'm misconstruing your meaning, but how exactly are they hurting themselves?...
You took all that I said out of context.
I didn't mention that stuff to argue the fact that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. I mentioned that in response to the (paraphrasing....) idea that homosexual acts only concern homosexuals. I don't buy that. If two people engage in activity that is unquestionably unhealthy, it affects many people.
Pedophilia happens in non-churches too. Since some churches have housed acts of pedophilia, you find it unacceptable to have all churches in your neighborhoods? Just looking for clarification. And since some residential houses have pedophila occur in their walls, are you also against all residential houses in your neighborhood?
Strawman? Are you saying that the sin of the church is lessened since pedophilia occurs elsewhere, too?
No, but you taking my words out of context is a strawperson (let's not be sexist please).
Someone mentioned that since some churches have pedophilia, they should be stricken from the residential record. I responded to that. I was not speaking about the magnitude of the sin, which is gravely sinful of course, but that wasn't the point. I didn't bring it up, the other guy did.
Look, there will always be a faction of society that believes that homosexuality is a choice and that by limiting the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals we will somehow convince gay people to go straight. That isn't going to happen. Ever.
Interesting, honestly I haven't come across that line of thinking before, or, I haven't heard it articulated that way. Let me think about it. Off the cuff, homosexuality isn't a choice, but actions are choices. We choose what we do, not what we are.
Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of man. And, how any modern- thinking, forward moving society can find it acceptable, even preferable, to discriminate against other human beings on the sole (and insignificant) basis of their sexual preference and call themselves a modern-thinking, forward moving society, is beyond me...
All natural tendencies (should I list them?) have existed since the beginning of man. It isn't the tendency that we care about! It's acting on the tendency. And I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't do what they want! The debate is whether governments should grant them marriage licenses. Homosexuals can do what ever they want.
Again, all societies, universally, have rejected same-sex marriage. It is a 30-year period of time where this universal ban has been called into question. No value judgment can inherently be placed on that, but I sure as heck won't admit that the universal history of human legislative practice on this matter is out of order. An ideal has been defended by law. A definition is in place. This ideal and definition has proven to be stabilizing and worthy and successful. I respect the opposite opinion so much that I hope it continues to circulate. It is persuasive and logical, and though I disagree with it, it is not inherently out-of-order. The whole apparatus will not collapse because homosexuals will be allowed to marry in this country.
In most other nations, the ban will continue. Will it be the white man's burden to convince these other nations otherwise?
Ours is a liberal society that allows just about everything, and to be honest, since we allow abortion I am rather shocked that a relatively minor issue like gay marriage is still up in the air. I maintain my respect for the traditional and still culturally universal view. Who knows, maybe in a few centuries the pendulum will return, depending on the cultural environment. Certainly sexual progress is headed in the same direction it's been on since the pill. I wonder how far will be far enough. It's an academically interesting thing that's going on.
-Elliot
