Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Same-sex marriage thoughts
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  07:06:08  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The US government is a secular organization that guarantees the right of any of its citizens to practice religion freely as long as it does not break any of the laws of the country. As a Christian in the U.S. I do not support same sex marriage but do not see any reason other than my moral objections to making it legal in the U.S. U.S. laws should be based on our constitution and I see no restriction on marriage in the document. As a matter of fact, the fourteenth amendment seems to protect same sex marriage.

Section I reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think a fair reading is that denying same sex marriage is depriving citizens of liberty without due process and it seems banning same sex marriage is denying gay people equal protection of laws.

Same sex marriage does not infringe on my rights or liberty as a Christian whatsoever. Some think that it has some affect on marriage between a man and a woman or endangers Christian marriage in some way. What is endangering Christian marriage is Christian divorce not same sex marriage.

Now, I do not think same sex marriage is moral or right. I do think that pro same sex marriage people should show some tolerance toward Christians that have my view on the subject. Really, two things I would expect from the other side. One is that we should not be treated like this only for having a differing view. This is uncalled for and treated as OK by the media. Imagine what would happen of Bill O'Reilly said things like this about pro same sex marriage people. It is an outrage and has no place in debate on the subject.

Second, pro same sex marriage people should respect my religion enough to not go further and say that any church no matter what their belief system has to perform same sex marriages. Most Christians see a slippery slope and are concerned that eventually this could be the outcome of legalizing same sex marriage.

Is this a reasonable position?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  07:33:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Very reasonable Robb, I have heard of no instances in which folks tried to force a church to preform such marriges, other than that I think you are on the ball. Im sure a few zealous individuals do make such demands, but unstable douches come in all shapes and sizes afterall.

Another point Ive noticed which doesnt get any airtime is the fact that some religious orginizations have no qualms about SS marriage yet the ban does not apply to their freedom of religion somehow.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  07:57:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Very reasonable Robb, I have heard of no instances in which folks tried to force a church to preform such marriges, other than that I think you are on the ball. Im sure a few zealous individuals do make such demands, but unstable douches come in all shapes and sizes afterall.

Another point Ive noticed which doesnt get any airtime is the fact that some religious orginizations have no qualms about SS marriage yet the ban does not apply to their freedom of religion somehow.
We are going to talk about it in our next class. Should be interesting.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  08:07:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I agree this is reasonable, Robb, very much so. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment may historically be what grants everyone regardless of gender equal marriage rights. (Or, more properly, the right already exists, it's just not yet enforced.) Certainly the intention of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was to grant equal rights to African-Americans, but it doesn't specify that, and rights have a very fine tendency to proliferate.

What I find most absurd is the notion that denying a right to "others" somehow enhances one's own rights. With America's divorce rate so high already, heterosexual couples are in no superior position to say man-and-woman marriages are somehow superior.

And no church is required to accept gay marriages. Instead, they can perhaps accept declining membership as people avoid bigoted churches in favor of more open ones, or no church at all. Freedom of religion includes freedom for churches to fail. The anti-gay-marriage demographic is now slightly larger than the pro-gay-marriage crowd, by polling. But not so among younger people. This is a clear sign that fairly soon acceptance of gay marriage will be mainstream.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  08:19:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I can't get the video, but the rest seems sensible to me.

What I don't understand is why the church and state are intertwined on this. Why does the government specify ministers as someone who makes something legal?

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  08:35:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Robb,

One, you are much more tolerant in that you can't see a secular reason for banning gay marriage. What's being mocked is the intolerance most of your bretheren display, just by agreeing with the ludicrous idea that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriages. (Or, even worse, Orson Scott Card's completely off-the-wall idea that marriage is somehow a "biological imperative" that gays will somehow interfere with - oh, right, he's afraid that allowing gay marriages will tell his kids that gayness is "okay," and he's calling for violent rebellion against any government that allows gay marriage.)

Two, I've yet to see a single gay-marriage proponent even hint that any church should be forced to perform marriages that the church doesn't agree with. I think that the vocal opponents of gay marriage made that ridiculous notion up in order to scare their followers into "fighting back." It is a fallacious slipper-slope argument, just like the idea that if we allow gays to get married, maybe next we'll allow people to marry their pets. Just nevermind the whole "consent" part of a marriage.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  08:51:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

Now, I do not think same sex marriage is moral or right.


I don't think Christianity is moral or right. Is that a reasonable position?

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

astropin
SFN Regular

USA
970 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  09:17:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send astropin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm with you on this one Robb (wow, you just never know).

No church should be forced to perform a same sex marriage.

And Gorgo your position is entirely reasonable.

I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.

You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.

Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.

Infinitus est numerus stultorum
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  09:22:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Gosh Robb, would you be a little more consistent so it would be easier to pidgin hole you?

Just so you know, while it may be that the attack on Carrie Prejean was not called for, it is also fact that Keith Olbermann was opposed to the semi-nude pictures of her that were posted on the web as somehow related to the issue. Basically he felt that it was an invasion of her privacy and not relevant to the discussion. Also, I think you missed the point of their criticism of her. She set herself up by getting breast implants to win a contest that is an idiotic celebration of shallowness and the objectification of woman, which brings her morality and her intelligence into question. I think the criticism of her had more to do with the context in which she made her statement, and not whether she is entitled to have the opinion she has.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  09:44:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Gorgo

Originally posted by Robb

Now, I do not think same sex marriage is moral or right.


I don't think Christianity is moral or right. Is that a reasonable position?
Sure

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  09:56:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Gosh Robb, would you be a little more consistent so it would be easier to pidgin hole you?

Just so you know, while it may be that the attack on Carrie Prejean was not called for, it is also fact that Keith Olbermann was opposed to the semi-nude pictures of her that were posted on the web as somehow related to the issue. Basically he felt that it was an invasion of her privacy and not relevant to the discussion. Also, I think you missed the point of their criticism of her. She set herself by getting breast implants to win a contest that is an idiotic celebration of shallowness and the objectification of woman, which brings her morality and her intelligence into question. I think the criticism of her had more to do with context in which she made her statement, and not whether she is entitled to have the opinion she has.


I disagree. They would not have attacked her if she said that gay marriage was ok. They attacked her not because she was in the pageant but she had an opinion they disagreed with.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  10:17:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

Originally posted by Kil

Gosh Robb, would you be a little more consistent so it would be easier to pidgin hole you?

Just so you know, while it may be that the attack on Carrie Prejean was not called for, it is also fact that Keith Olbermann was opposed to the semi-nude pictures of her that were posted on the web as somehow related to the issue. Basically he felt that it was an invasion of her privacy and not relevant to the discussion. Also, I think you missed the point of their criticism of her. She set herself by getting breast implants to win a contest that is an idiotic celebration of shallowness and the objectification of woman, which brings her morality and her intelligence into question. I think the criticism of her had more to do with context in which she made her statement, and not whether she is entitled to have the opinion she has.


I disagree. They would not have attacked her if she said that gay marriage was ok. They attacked her not because she was in the pageant but she had an opinion they disagreed with.

I agree that they wouldn't have attacked her if she had said gay marriage is okay. But I don't agree that it wasn't in the context of where she made her statement that brought the ridicule down upon her for the reason that I have already mentioned.

So we will have to disagree.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  10:25:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

I disagree. They would not have attacked her if she said that gay marriage was ok. They attacked her not because she was in the pageant but she had an opinion they disagreed with.
No, they attacked her for being an idiot. She told a gay celebrity judge that gay marriage isn't okay with her, and had the nerve to suggest that she didn't mean to offend anyone with a patently offensive answer (if you don't think so, put the name of any other protected group in her answer instead of gays - for example, what if she'd said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry? Christians?). She thinks that lost her the top spot (and he agreed). She now claims that she thinks God hissownself was testing her faith by having Perez Hilton ask that particular question, so she's gone straight to God for the fabricated rationalization that lets her keep her head held high. She's not very smart.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  13:12:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmph. Why should a beauty queen's opinions count for much of anything? After all, they've spent a large part of their pretty, young lives preparing for what is essentially a series of leg shows. Politics should have nothing to do with it. And I ask; are Miss Prejean's knockers the first to ger a little surgical help? It's all nonsense (except the leg-show part).

She's getting a bad rap because she opened her mouth when she should have kept it shut.

After Sarah Palin, you'd think we'd have done with beauty queens (except for the leg show part, of course).




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  13:21:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Robb

I disagree. They would not have attacked her if she said that gay marriage was ok. They attacked her not because she was in the pageant but she had an opinion they disagreed with.
No, they attacked her for being an idiot. She told a gay celebrity judge that gay marriage isn't okay with her, and had the nerve to suggest that she didn't mean to offend anyone with a patently offensive answer (if you don't think so, put the name of any other protected group in her answer instead of gays - for example, what if she'd said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry? Christians?). She thinks that lost her the top spot (and he agreed). She now claims that she thinks God hissownself was testing her faith by having Perez Hilton ask that particular question, so she's gone straight to God for the fabricated rationalization that lets her keep her head held high. She's not very smart.
So next time she should lie?

Edited to add: Even if you believe she was being dumb or intentionally offensive, why do you think anyone should be treated this way?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Edited by - Robb on 05/07/2009 13:28:16
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2009 :  14:03:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Robb, yes, I think your opinion regarding legal matters is quite reasonable.

One is that we should not be treated like this only for having a differing view.
Given that this country has freedom of speech and the cable news is governed by capitalistic interests, not what is quality news, I'm afraid this sort of crap is going to happen. But I agree that it is distasteful and that they are ripping on her for having fake boobs and being a dumb blond because she has a stance on an issue that they found offensive. That is akin to attacking someone's baldness or age or for being fat because we don't like their opinion. It is childish and I agree that it doesn't belong on a supposedly "serious" news station and program. I just don't know what to do about it other than complain about and make fun of bad media coverage as the "Daily Show" beautifully does.

Imagine what would happen of Bill O'Reilly said things like this about pro same sex marriage people.
Bill O'Reilly has been saying incredibly offensive things about and to all sorts of people just because he disagreed with them for years. All kinds of crap has been said in various media outlets about homosexuals, such as the constant cracks made against openly gay senator Barney Frank. People can react to garbage media with criticism, parody, or just rolling their eyes. While I share your wish for only serious media commentary, I also have to say yay to free speech even if it includes speech I find offensive. It a bummer that what passes for television "news" is much more cheap entertainment than it is serious information, but again, not sure what we can do about it legally which wouldn't involve restricting free speech.

Second, pro same sex marriage people should respect my religion enough to not go further and say that any church no matter what their belief system has to perform same sex marriages. Most Christians see a slippery slope and are concerned that eventually this could be the outcome of legalizing same sex marriage.
That is ridiculous. That wouldn't happen in a million years and it is a total bogeyman to scare people who are morally opposed to homosexuality. For instance, the government mandates freedom of religious and nondiscrimination in the workplace because of someone's religion. But when it comes to deciding what unions to bless, religious institutions have full rights to turn away whatever couples they choose for whatever doctrinal reasons. Example: Catholics turn away couples all the time because of issues such as divorce and one of the persons not being Catholic. I don't know where this absurd idea that the government would force religious institutions to bless certain marriage came from, but it is absurd and nothing anyone should worry about.


"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.47 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000