Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Mr Spinkles]

Is murder wrong because of popular belief, or because of common morals?

No, murder would be wrong even if it wasn't popular belief, because it violates the rights of the person being murdered (i.e. the right to live). It is also popular belief that claiming "Christ is not the Son of God" is wrong, however, people have a right to free speech, and that free speech does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

So now we must ask....how does a legal contract--equal to the ones granted to heterosexual couples--between two women who are in love infringe on anyone's rights? How does that hurt me, or chris, or pah, or Melody?

 

[Druidus]

Why, Spinks, surely you must know that homosexuality permeates society and destroys our culture! Don't you realize that they are soulless savages!

 

[Fluffy]

So now we must ask....how does a legal contract--equal to the ones granted to heterosexual couples--between two women who are in love infringe on anyone's rights? How does that hurt me, or chris, or pah, or Melody?

It doesn't so therefore the question would be, why on earth would God tell us that something like homosexuality was immoral? There is either a good reason, which noone has come across yet (although some people have had a good shot at one) or there isn't in which case God has an irrational fear of homosexuality and is homophobic. Unless someone put those passages into the Bible whilst they translated it or those passages were mistranslated/interpreted.

I will defend anyones rights to belive that homosexuality is wrong, no matter how much I may disagree with them nor how much I feel that their belief is irrational. What I do disagree with is the exerting of these beliefs, through messages such as using a vote, onto other people since this is different from merely expressing one's beliefs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

why on earth would God tell us that something like homosexuality was immoral?

Perhaps just as importantly, how does not allowing two women who are in love with each other form a legal contract change the fact that they are homosexual? It doesn't...it just makes them feel miserable and it makes an unfortunate number of heterosexuals in our country feel pious.

This really isn't about homosexuality, or morality, or even the definition of marriage: it's about discrimination, whether that discrimination is based on prejudice or religious intolerance. I look forward to the day that I can tell my kids about when gays were forbidden to marry, and how far we've come since then.

 

[chris9178]

No, murder would be wrong even if it wasn't popular belief, because it violates the rights of the person being murdered (i.e. the right to live). It is also popular belief that claiming "Christ is not the Son of God" is wrong, however, people have a right to free speech, and that free speech does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Where does "right to live" come from? Who gives us that right? Well, if your an atheist, then that would be nobody/being. Then you can only assume that you have that right. But in that instance saying right to live, would be no different than my right to kill you. Your rights are based on what you believe and mine are based on what I feel to be my rights. Whose right is greater? How do you measure that? If I kill you, doesn't that mean you've lost all right to live? Isn't abortion taking away ones "right to live", yet that's legal.
If you believe that these beliefs come from no higher being, then you can only believe they come from yourself. And therefore, nobodies rights can be greater than anothers.
In this instance how would you retain order in the world? Only through popular belief/vote, or through dictates of the government. Whatever most people believe is right, or the government dictates to be right, will be considered right. Your free speech example is the perfect defense for this! In Communist countries they aren't afforded the "right" to free speech. That must mean our rights, and their rights are different. How is this possible if we're all human beings? If free speech were an actual "right", could a government power take it away? No. So, one must have to accept that we are GIVEN rights, not born with them. Given the right to live. Given the right to free-speech. Given the right to bear arms.. etc. etc.
And in relation to the subject at hand....
Marriage isn't a right unless government gives it to us, just as free speech isn't a right unless it gives it as well.
Well, our government is a republic, which practises democracy on occasion, and one of those democratic votes was whether marriage should be for man-and-woman? Well, popular vote (in the states that held it) decided that marriage would be for opposite sexes.
Now, will this remain? I doubt it. Because it's popular vote, it can always change. Theoretically killing could become ok, if popular opinion were to say it should be. That in itself proves that without any higher force, "morality" is only what the greater population wants it to be.

Now, if you believe there is a higher power (God, Allah, Brahman, Vishnu....), then you could bring the argument of morality to an entirely different degree. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this, and it's relatively unimportant considering the topic, and the forum its in. I'm sure you know the better part of it anyways.

I realise that a lot of that could probably use a lot of clarification, but I've gotta get to a professors office during his hours, so I have to leave shortly. Also, if I left out entire sentences (which I often do when I don't proofread...) then some things probably weren't articulated well, and you'll have to pardon me.

One more thing...... This message was directed mostly towards Spinkles. I find that when I direct an arguement towards one person, then many times somebody else jumps in and starts taking things completely out of context because they don't know what we're actually talking about. I'm getting tired of defending my statements against people who, either by lack of knowledge of the discourse, or by lack of understanding, decide to put in their "2 cents". I know I'm not the only one this happens to, and forgive me if I do it to you.
With that being said, if you aren't capable of deep thought, or thinking out of the box, then you should stay away from a philosophical debate like this. Not to sound arrogant, or to make others sound stupid, but if we want to intellectually argue these points, then you have to know what's being said, and dig a little deeper than what high school taught you.

Hopefully I'll have time to edit this later in the day, but I have to jet for now.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks chris, good post. I can tell that you're open to honest intellectual discourse.

So, one must have to accept that we are GIVEN rights, not born with them. Given the right to live. Given the right to free-speech. Given the right to bear arms.. etc. etc.

This is the exact antithesis of American government. The founding fathers believed that these rights are not given, but that people are born with these rights. They believed that freedom is our natural state and that we form a contract amongst ourselves to form a government that will protect this freedom. If the government does not protect our freedoms, the contract is broken and we no longer have to obey the government.

See, for example, the writings on Social Contract theory of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and our own Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Isn't abortion taking away ones "right to live", yet that's legal.

Well that's a very difficult issue, but for the record I am pro life for this reason.

 

[Bastet]

Not to sound arrogant...

Too late...

 

[Fluffy]

No apologies necessary. You must have been containing yourself pretty well because I didn't know you were answering in a heated way.

I understand people answering passionately. I draw the line at rude and nasty. You were neither.

Thanks for the link btw. I'll take a look at it later.

Thanks Melody I just wanted to make sure that no offence was caused and Im glad none was . I strongly recommend that link. The site has a wealth of information a variety of interesting topics as well as its own forum (not sure if it is still up though)

Quote:
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

So yes, homophobia could be taken to mean an irrational dislike (aversion/discrimination imply that you dislike something).

I have trouble with describing someone who discriminates against gay people as homophobic. Discrimination CAN be caused by fear or aversion but not necessarily. You wouldn't call someone who went around squashing spiders arachnophobic would you?

Perhaps just as importantly, how does not allowing two women who are in love with each other form a legal contract change the fact that they are homosexual? It doesn't...it just makes them feel miserable and it makes an unfortunate number of heterosexuals in our country feel pious.

This is true but there is a difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of a marriage between something other than a man and a woman. You could be pro homosexuality but still believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman since it states this in seperate passages of the Bible.

One more thing...... This message was directed mostly towards Spinkles. I find that when I direct an arguement towards one person, then many times somebody else jumps in and starts taking things completely out of context because they don't know what we're actually talking about. I'm getting tired of defending my statements against people who, either by lack of knowledge of the discourse, or by lack of understanding, decide to put in their "2 cents". I know I'm not the only one this happens to, and forgive me if I do it to you.

If you want a one on one debate then there is a forum for that. Don't assume that someone commenting on your post doesn't know what they are talking about merely because your post was not directed towards them. If someone obviously doesn't know what they are talking about then simply ignore them if you choose do to so.

 

[Green Gaia]

Isn't denying same sex couples legal marrriage rights based on your religious beliefs forcing your religion upon those people, and aren't we supposed to be protected from being forced to accept any one religion in this country? Why are we letting certain religious groups write our secular laws? I have no problem with what someone believes for their life, but at point did we start allowing them to force their worldview on everyone? If someone doesn't think homosexuality or same sex marriage is right, then don't do it! But by allowing the BGLT community equal rights, this will not impact the lives of those opposed to them.

The question that started this thread was "Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?" Not, "Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by religious groups?" There is a huge difference there. Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government? Our secular government that protects us from being forced to follow one religion and allows us the right to practice any religion we want. Surely if certain religious groups are opposed to marriage rights for some individuals based on their sexual orientation, those same religious groups must be furious about our religious freedom in this country, as it goes against their teachings. If not, they are hypocrits. Every week when I go to my church, I am thankful that I can go there freely, the place of my choosing. I am even more thankful as I think about that in the near future that freedom may not be there if the current culture in country continues down the path it's on. Perhaps I'm being a bit overdramatic, but it is to make a point: We allow different religions and beliefs in this country to thrive, why can't we accept different kinds of people to live equally?

 

[chris9178]

Thanks chris, good post. I can tell that you're open to honest intellectual discourse.

Thank you. I feel the same for you.

This is the exact antithesis of American government. The founding fathers believed that these rights are not given, but that people are born with these rights. They believed that freedom is our natural state and that we form a contract amongst ourselves to form a government that will protect this freedom.............

Ah! And that's because our government isn't formed from the athist viewpoint. It was formed on the theist viewpoint! I left that out for lack of time, but you were able to pick it up.
For the sake of brevity (and because my next class starts in 10 minutes), I'll give a short explanation, and the new arguement.

Under the assumption that we with "endowed by our creator with certain inaliable rights", as the Declaration of Independence states, then those rights come for the higher being - God, in America's case. Well, our rights come from our creator, and if we want to keep consistent, then our morals do as well. Then for one to mix politics with religion is not only a common American practice dating back to our forefathers, but also, is necessary for a moral being.
A person voting aganist gay-marriage because its immoral is no different than a person voting against murder.
Now this goes in context with everything else we've posted before, so I've left a lot out that shouldn't need to be repeated.

Well that's a very difficult issue, but for the record I am pro life for this reason.

I respect your consistency and integrity.

 

[Green Gaia]

This is true but there is a difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of a marriage between something other than a man and a woman. You could be pro homosexuality but still believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman since it states this in seperate passages of the Bible.

This only applies if you are a Christian. I do not consider myself Christian, so why should I be held to your rules?

 

[Green Gaia]

A person voting aganist gay-marriage because its immoral is no different than a person voting against murder.

Why do you keep comparing homosexuals with murderers? This is at least the second time I've seen in this thread.... :sarcastic

 

[painted wolf]

I have to agree as a non-Christian my faith historically had no problem with gay marrage.
Why should I obey your bible?

wa:do

 

[Fluffy]

This only applies if you are a Christian. I do not consider myself Christian, so why should I be held to your rules?

I agree since I'm not a Christian either but I was trying to argue from within a Christian viewpoint and seperate these 2 issues from each other as they often get intermingled which is unfair since each argument against homosexuality is very different from the other. I agree with neither but I think its important to understand this in order to argue against them effectively. It is also important because I'm sure some religions might contain one but not the other and so the distinction is important.

Isn't denying same sex couples legal marrriage rights based on your religious beliefs forcing your religion upon those people, and aren't we supposed to be protected from being forced to accept any one religion in this country? Why are we letting certain religious groups write our secular laws?

I have heard arguments, my religious teacher for one, that modern law is based upon the morals contained within the Bible rather than on reason or logic which certainly seems a reasonable claim in a place like England though I'm not sure if the same would hold true for America. So my response would be: we have ALWAYS let religious groups write our laws so what we are suggesting to do, to forum our laws from something else, is a relatively new and radical idea and it will take a good argument to convince many people and prevent them from retaliating with why not.

Why do you keep comparing homosexuals with murderers? This is at least the second time I've seen in this thread.... :sarcastic

I'm guilty of this as well. I do it to try and create a contrast between something which is obviously wrong and detestable and homosexuality to show up homosexuality for what it really is ie nothing like murder and therefore it is ludicrous to consider it wrong. I'm very sorry if this offended you however, since I, in no way, wished to insinuate that homosexuality was anything like murdering another living being.

 

[Pah]

I have heard arguments, my religious teacher for one, that modern law is based upon the morals contained within the Bible rather than on reason or logic which certainly seems a reasonable claim in a place like England though I'm not sure if the same would hold true for America. So my response would be: we have ALWAYS let religious groups write our laws so what we are suggesting to do, to forum our laws from something else, is a relatively new and radical idea and it will take a good argument to convince many people and prevent them from retaliating with why not.

You tell your religious teacher that he or she has little knowledge of common law that originated in your country. There was (and is) a distinct separation of eclesiastical courts from civil courts. There was no "bleeding" of laws between them and a completely separate judiciary.

That is what our country adopted largely because it was the English system we knew. The Bible (and God) has no place in our common law tradition.

 

[Fluffy]

You tell your religious teacher that he or she has little knowledge of common law that originated in your country. There was (and is) a distinct separation of eclesiastical courts from civil courts. There was no "bleeding" of laws between them and a completely separate judiciary.

That is what our country adopted largely because it was the English system we knew. The Bible (and God) has no place in our common law tradition.

Then I stand totally corrected . I won't tell my religious teacher that though because I don't get on with him very well. There are some laws, like those which are against homosexuality in places such as the Isle of Man or having a different age of consent for gay sex as opposed to hetero sex, which seem to leap straight out of scripture so I was more than willing to believe my teacher. I didn't really want to think that they came from yet another source of intolerance (IMO).

 

[Green Gaia]

I agree since I'm not a Christian either but I was trying to argue from within a Christian viewpoint and seperate these 2 issues from each other as they often get intermingled which is unfair since each argument against homosexuality is very different from the other. I agree with neither but I think its important to understand this in order to argue against them effectively. It is also important because I'm sure some religions might contain one but not the other and so the distinction is important.

Of the major world religions, only Christianity (depending on how you read the text, others differ) and Islam outright forbid homosexuality. No religion that I know of explicitly says: "No same sex marriage." Now, some people can read certain texts and verses and get that meaning out of them if they so wish to, but it remains that none specifically outlaw it, TMK.

I have heard arguments, my religious teacher for one, that modern law is based upon the morals contained within the Bible rather than on reason or logic which certainly seems a reasonable claim in a place like England though I'm not sure if the same would hold true for America. So my response would be: we have ALWAYS let religious groups write our laws so what we are suggesting to do, to forum our laws from something else, is a relatively new and radical idea and it will take a good argument to convince many people and prevent them from retaliating with why not.

In those societies that allowed religion to be the defining factor in laws did not have religious freedom in their society. You would have one religion and follow it in all parts of your life. We are starting to move away from states (worldwide) that sponsor a particular religion, and instead base their laws on what is fair and just for all. We have to make that move if we are to uphold the religious freedom we hold dear in this country. I don't care about what was done historically. If you want to look at what was done in the name of religion in America, it's not pretty, just ask the Native Americans. So to those (not necessarily you, Fluffy ) who would say that basing our laws on Christian values is the way to go, I would have to respond that they have a lot explaining to do to reconcile the past first.

I'm guilty of this as well. I do it to try and create a contrast between something which is obviously wrong and detestable and homosexuality to show up homosexuality for what it really is ie nothing like murder and therefore it is ludicrous to consider it wrong. I'm very sorry if this offended you however, since I, in no way, wished to insinuate that homosexuality was anything like murdering another living being.

I know. And some would say they are just comparing sins, yet you don't see them comparing a person who tells a lie to a murderer or rapist, yet I hear those comparisons made with homosexuals all the time. It's just annoying.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"Of the major world religions, only Christianity (depending on how you read the text, others differ) and Islam outright forbid homosexuality. "

Judaism.

 

[Green Gaia]

Judaism.

Yes,some Jews, but not all. Reform Judaism accepts gay and lesbians.

 

[chris9178]

fluffy:

If you want a one on one debate then there is a forum for that.

I don't and I don't suggest that I do.

Don't assume that someone commenting on your post doesn't know what they are talking about merely because your post was not directed towards them.

I don't, I base that judgement on the display of their complete focus of out of context remarks rather than on the issue. I would rather assume they don't know, than they're completely an idiot. Maybe I'm giving some people too much credit then.

If someone obviously doesn't know what they are talking about then simply ignore them if you choose do to so.

That's basically what I was telling them would happen......

maize:

Why do you keep comparing homosexuals with murderers? This is at least the second time I've seen in this thread....

It's not comparing, its analogous. You use something easily understood to help illustrate the more abstract. Murder is the simplest, most direct illustration to use since it's more widely accepted to be immoral, or against ones right of life (for the sake of our arguement). That doesn't make the two comparable. Now biblically they may be comparable, but for this arguement I wouldn't use that, considering many here aren't Christians, and because it is pretty insensitive. But don't confuse what I'm saying. If you've read my previous posts you should realise that I don't promote the hatred of gays at all. Sorry for the confusion.

Now before when I said
Murder is the simplest, most direct illustration to use since it's more widely accepted to be immoral, or against ones right of life (for the sake of our arguement)....

If taken out of context that one could say that I'm arguing the case for homosexuality being immoral... which I am not in this discussion. In context one finds that I'm actually using murder to show the relationship with morals and the law. This is based on people who already believe homosexuality to be immoral.

That's how things get taken out of context - people reading what they want to read and not taking into account everything else that's been said. Because of that we end up going in circles repeating things over and over again and getting nowhere.......