The Church and Homosexual Marriage

You can do it on the Web these days.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And what's new here?

---

Nothing. I agree. However, it's true that the church hasn't always done what the founders of the religion would deem as acceptable. If the whole country was Christian we would have some basis for discussion in the political arena, however, being as a whole country never is, or never has been, I think we've overstepped our bounds on many occasions.This guy was moving in with his girlfriend and knew that his conservative Christian aunt would object, so in an attempt to be sensitive to his Aunt's religious leanings he made a statement along the lines of "I know you disagree but it's still my decision." His aunt looked at him and said "Your not a Christian, what difference does it make?"That's kind of where I'm coming from. If someone recognizes God's authority in their life, there's room for discussion about it. If not, why the heck should I expect them to live by my standards?

Actually I am quite happy that the U.S. is not a theocracy. I am a moderate, however, in that I believe that we need the discipline of the conservative as well as the unfettered expression of the liberal. Homosexual Marriage is a civil issue and the question is this: Is Marriage a sacred sacrament or a civil technicality?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angeldust:

That's kind of where I'm coming from. If someone recognizes God's authority in their life, there's room for discussion about it. If not, why the heck should I expect them to live by my standards?

---

*cheers*finally. someone gets it. of course then there are those people who call themselves christians but don't ascribe to the regulations of the establishment. and, naturally, i am finding myself more often in that throng.

yes, but the majority is christian, and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed. you all know this. it has been one of christianity's goals from day one to make everyone christian. Rome may have been difficult to convert but this place is in the bag.a hole country never is or never has been chritian? are you serious there is one that is today. It is the smallest indepedant state on earth and it is called Vatican City.we've overstepped our bounds? we as in who? I thought you are Canadian?

Then majority rules is always the case? Well, what if the majority of the population decided that Arabic peoples in the US should be herded up and placed in particular locations? Would you go along with it?At the end of the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), the majority of the voting population of the US would have still allowed slavery. Why, then, was it abolished?Clearly, there are some things that go beyond majority opinion. There appear to be some ideals that must be upheld or inacted despite the majority opinion. Perhaps freedom of/from religion is one of those?

That's not actually how it works. In fact our founding fathers designed the Constitution so that the 51% couldn't completely rule over the 49%. Hence we have things like the Bill of Rights, etc.

like the amerindins? hmmmm
personally, probably not.
I am not for a national majority rule, I'm a state's rights rights fan. if a particular state wanted to do this, and they had the majority's support, well then why not? this is definately a gray issue its not black and white. are these arabs citizens? you said arabic peoples, do you mean people who consider themselves arabs or what? you wouldn't have the same freedoms in thier country.back to the topic at hand:
i live in Illinois, but i work in Misery aka Missouri (STL). the state of Misery has an anti-same sex marrige amendment on its state constitution. the state will not regonize a marriage between same sex partners (no matter what state they are married in). this was put into effect by the majority of the sate (im thinking at least 70%). if you do not live in Missouri what business of this is yours? or mine? (i pay taxes in Missouri, but its the voters of Missouri who count)This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 14:24 AM

Mainly because of the fourteenth amendment. By being a citizen of the United States, you are entiteld to equal protection under the law. In other words, no level of government can treat you any differently than it does any other citizen. Not at state level, not at federal level. It works under a pretty basic premise... it doesn't matter if the Governor or the President signs the piece of paper to bully a minority, it's crap either way. Funny choice of words. Look at the case Loving v. Virginia, in which it was ruled as absolute horseshit that the state of Virginia could choose to not recognize inter-racial marriages, or otherwise penalize people for having them. This was all hashed out a very long time ago. It's just a different group getting screwed.A right is exactly that... a right. You can't get together and decide it doesn't apply to some people. And marriage was in no uncertain terms defined as a "fundamental right" in that same case.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

Vercingetorix writes:

quote:

---

if you do not live in Missouri what business of this is yours? or mine?

---

Indeed, and what business did Illinois and New York have telling Mississippi and Alabama what to do with their racial minorities? Why did they care if African-Americans in the South had no civil rights or legal protections? It didn't affect them; they lived in different states. What business did they have telling citizens of other states what to do?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I might add... if the state of Missouri can decide that homosexuals are less than equal humans, then the state of Illinois can decide that heterosexuals are less than equal humans. So yes, it is very much my business.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

well those are blue states for you (and two of the worst). well actually illinois is only blue because of chicago, but that is new york and chicago for you. i couldn't agree with you more, its none of thier business.This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-01-2005 14:11 AM

yeeeaahhhh rrriiight! that's gonna happen good rebuttle.in theory i guess it depends on how crazy those liberals up there get, but you can keep them in check im sure Blagojevich is looking out for us, right?

do you really believe that? (affirmative action? anyone)that is for citizens, no one answered the question above if the arabic peoples in question were citizens or not, if they were they would be called americans so i am guess they are not, and therefore not coverd by that amendment.so said one thing right, "...its crap..."

Slot in whatever group pleases you in the place of "heterosexual". The state of Illinois would have precedent to decide that Jews are less than equal humans, for instance. (Which you may have noticed happens from time to time on this crazy ol' planet of ours.)I'm constantly amazed by people who don't get the basic premise that legal prejudice against one group opens the door for legal prejudice against anyone. That the fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection? There's no "believing it" or not.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you feel that certain practices like affirmative action violate that, then go ahead and start a topic on the subject. But the language of the amendment is clear. "Nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."So basically, the state does not have the ability to fuck over a subset of the population, no matter what the group consensus is.Free tip, sport... get a basic understanding of civil rights law under your belt before trying to argue civil rights. The Constitution is a good place to start. No, non-citizens are not protected by the fourteenth amendment. Non-citizens are also not married by the United States Government. So what's your point?

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov