^ This. Nearly everyone is grounded in their beliefs and don’t wish to be insulted for what they stand for. Think saying a condecending message to some gay folks…you just don’t do it unless you’re FT.
it’s all well and good to let people believe what they want. what chaps my ass, as mentioned by others, is when those beliefs find their way into politics and the majority rule tramples individual rights. e.g. christian zealots doing everything they can to make sure it is so unbearable to be gay that you give up and pretend to be straight.
Every politician, whether he or she is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Athiest, Buddist, Rastafarian, etc., brings his/her religious beliefs with them when they take office and voters generally know a candidate’s religious background when they cast their ballots. While I agree that people should not force their beliefs on others, it is unrealistic, and frankly wrong, to expect politicians to divorce themselves from their beliefs when they take office. No one expects openly-gay politicians to ignore the fact that they are gay. No one expects black politicians to ignore the fact that they are black. No one expects female politicians to ignore the fact that they are women. Why should we expect politicians to ignore their religious beliefs?
Mercy before justice: I think that was the idea behind “Turn the other cheek,” Mary Magdalane, and (to some extent) the parable of the prodigal son.
The criticism of the Pharisees could also be read as a criticism of hard-line justice, particularly when applied by hypocrites.
because it violates the founding axiom (in the U.S.) of the inalienable individual right to pursue happiness.
As citizens, we are free to vote on out beliefs, and there’s no rule saying that religious beliefs can’t inform a voter’s opinion.
Mat some level it may be impossible to separate religious beliefs from our ideas of how a just and/or good society should be ordered.
The Constitution generally says (or is designed so) that laws and public policy should follow the will of the majority, but there are at least some protections that try to prevent the majority from using that power to disenfranchise the minority, such as separating church and state, equal protection, etc… They may not ways work effectively, but that’s why they are there, at least.
I have long voiced this same opinion. It is impossible to check your baggage at the door, rather that be racial baggage, sexual-preference baggage, gender baggage, or religious baggage. (This would also include socio-economic baggage, Judge Sotomayor.) However, I think that politicians who take the oath of office should recognize their inherent biases and try to take steps to decide what’s in the best interest for the nation as a whole, and not to kowtow to their special interest, not pander to their voter base, or let their personal opinions get in the way of their political opinions.
And think that we can all agree that a snowballs chance in hell (if you believe in it) is better than the chance of that happening with most politicians.
If you can’t tell, I have a very negative view of the government, especially the federal government. And a very negative view of most politicians, including my own.
Higg - consider this: your religious beliefs tell you that homesexuality is an abomination. should you, as a politician, propose and promote legislation to outlaw sodomy?
Not “do you think some would”, “SHOULD” you?
If you run on the “anti sodomy” platform, then you should try to outlaw sodomy. You do what voters want.
I would prefer they attempt to inform people of why they believe it’s bad in the hope they’ll convince others instead of ruining a good time for the rest of us.
Even thought the question was not addressed to me, I want to opine on this.
No, they should not. Absolutely and without discussion. Human beings are rational creatures who can reason and enter contracts. I see absolutely no reason why they should be excluded from any basic protections under the law simply because they do their thing with a person of the same gender rather than the opposite gender. If I were Emperor, I would immediately afford gays equality of all laws in all states.
Some people say, “If you expand the definition of marriage to allow men to marry men, then why can’t men marry horses?” And to that, I would respond, “Horses are not human beings. Horses cannot enter into contracts. To imply that a man can marry a horse is ridiculous. Horses do not deserve the same protection of the law that a human does.” And many people (religious and non) have used that same line while grandstanding against gay marriage.
I like the cut of your jib Greenman. the question gets at the heart of what a government should be. you and i are on the same side of the fence.
I would actually like to hear an argument against gay marriage, if anyone has one. You don’t have to believe it, just put out the argument. Two rules: 1. The argument can’t be religious in nature, and 2. It can’t be a fallacious slippery slope argument like “if a man can marry a man then a man can marry a fire hydrant” or some other equally ridiculous garbage.
It would enable tax avoidance by two men who are not gay. If your buddy is unemployed, you can marry him and claim a deduction. If you die and have no relatives, you can be married to some guy and he can claim all your assets tax free.
Of course, the way to stop cheaters like this is to ask them to consummate the relationship before witnesses.
^ Can’t two friends who are male and female do this with the current system?
Yes. But he asked for arguments against gay marriage, not arguments against gay marriage but not against non-gay marriage.
My imaginary homophobic friends are all in favor of gay marriage, as long as there’s no gay divorce.
Saw this posted by a friend today, and it made me think of this thread. Love the grammar in the title, too. It’s either fewer miracles or lesser miracles, not ‘less miracles.’
Clearly, if God had wanted people to know more, He would have created more scholarships.
I don’t think we should legislate what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults. I would also eliminate marriage as a legal term entirely, that is, everyone would enter into a civil union from a legal perspective. If you want to say that you’re married, that’s up to you.
so it shouldn’t happen, but it’s unrealistic to expect (or demand) otherwise? this is what’s wrong with our society. dare i say, “who is john galt”.