U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[Bleedman0xx]

This argument has dwindled down to "Respect me." "No, you respect me more." Respect isn't the problem. I think it's safe to say that we all respect each other here and our rights to our beliefs. The fact that we haven't resorted to name-calling and such is self-evident to that. So with that said, I think it's time to get back to the primary argument or just call it a day.

[calarahil]

I think that the constitution should always be upheld. It was put in place as a safeguard to prevent laws that violated the principles that the country was builton from being put into place.

 

Well, I think a lot of the core things within are under attack in American Politics right now. And what I say to those politicians who would try to pull a fast one on me.

[Anult]

I think that the constitution should always be upheld. It was put in place as a safeguard to prevent laws that violated the principles that the country was builton from being put into place.

 

Most of the time it seems the U.S Government is just hell-bent on circumventing the constitution it's founding fathers fought and died for.

[NeoZeon]

freedom of religion? yes shockingly i'm quite familiar with it. HOWEVER that doesn't mask the FACT that america was founding on Christianity. I'm not saying follow my religion or die. in no means am i forcing my beliefs on anyone. i am however stating that this country was founded on a moral guide lines that just so happen to correspond with Christian beliefs so to blame Christianity is irrelevant. the only thing to blame is morality. in todays society we are rapidly change the moral basis which this country was based on. 

 

It is much more deep than freedom of religion: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances

 

it completely dislocates religion from the government. The Protestants,Quakers and Jews that founded our nation knew better. They knew of both the virtues and evils of religion and decided that the State was not an appropriate forum for it.  

 

Interesting to know, that Protestants name comes from the Christians who apposed the Catholic church, for many reasons. One being the severing of the same eternal bond that they wish to keep from homosexual men and women.

 

My Rabbi would tell me to not let the Torah blind me, but guide me.  He is a Chasidic Jew, if he can bend with the arc of freedom, then so can everyone else.  

[calarahil]

This argument has dwindled down to "Respect me." "No, you respect me more." Respect isn't the problem. I think it's safe to say that we all respect each other here and our rights to our beliefs. The fact that we haven't resorted to name-calling and such is self-evident to that. So with that said, I think it's time to get back to the primary argument or just call it a day.

Clearly there isn't when people denounce the importance of religion and or beliefs on society whether they agree with it or not. 

[calarahil]

Most of the time it seems the U.S Government is just hell-bent on circumventing the constitution it's founding fathers fought and died for.

quite true sir. btw nice computer case you have there I have the same one :)

[Bleedman0xx]

Clearly there isn't when people denounce the importance of religion and or beliefs on society whether they agree with it or not. 

That was like 8 pages ago...

[whatthe_fuzz]

The first amendment still states that no religion should be promoted over any other. Some of the principles of religion are universal, but regardless, basing a law that is effectively entirely based on the teachings of one religion goes against the intentions of the first amendment.

 

the problem is however that this country as an entirety is based off of one religion. so even though Christianity is at the same levels as all religions (Islam Atheism Judaism) the country's moral code is still in place. im not saying value one religion over another im saying do not ignore the moral code that was set in place. 

 

example. Vitalius and i are hanging out and he mentions a great sandwich he had at subway. i respect what he says so i decide im going to go try out subway but before i go he warns me NOT TO HAVE THE SOUP. i go in and get pretty much the same thing Vitalius got but i also got pickles. i like it. then some guy walks in 10 min later and starts bashing on my sandwich telling me i should get the soup. should i go get a soup or should i stick to what my buddy told me and not falter?

 

in this analogy vitalius' sandwich represents Christian morality. my sandwich represents the US morality and the guy who walks in and tells me to change represents the new ideas for morality. Vitalius and i have similar sandwiches but they are not fully the same. just similar. theres no denying i based my sandwich off of vitalius but they still are infact different. the guy who walked in immediately tells me to get the soup is calling for change that doesnt make sense. no one gets soup at subway. so why change? plus my buddy warned me about the soup

 

this is a pretty casual analogy for a pretty serious topic but i hope i got the point across that even though america was founded on Christianity the morals we now have are those of Americas not Christianity and there is no reason to change

[Vitalius]

I think that the constitution should always be upheld. It was put in place as a safeguard to prevent laws that violated the principles that the country was builton from being put into place.

Ok, one more post just to say this,

If it should always be upheld, how do you define it?

Like I said, it's subjective to what it applies to. Essentially, the only thing that can stop the Legislative (Senate and Congress) branch from making laws that violate the constitution is the Judicial (Supreme Court) Branch, and they have to be backed up by the Executive (President) branch. That's how our government works, btw.

If that particular situation isn't the current status quot for a certain issue, then the Legislative branch can kinda do whatever they want. 

I agree it should be upheld, but it isn't always for the above reason.

 

 

It is much more deep than freedom of religion: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances

 

it completely dislocates religion from the government. The Protestants,Quakers and Jews that founded our nation knew better. They knew of both the virtues and evils of religion and decided that the State was not an appropriate forum for it.  

 

Interesting to know, that Protestants name comes from the Christians who apposed the Catholic church, for many reasons. One being the severing of the same eternal bond that they wish to keep from homosexual men and women.

 

My Rabbi would tell me to not let the Torah blind me, but guide me.  He is a Chasidic Jew, if he can bend with the arc of freedom, then so can everyone else.  

If we are to be judged for our forefather's choices, then we are all damned. :| Interesting connection there btw.

Anyway, now I'm gone. Have fun.

[calarahil]

That was like 8 pages ago...

with enough repetition people will remember. 

 

if you don't get the inside joke its okay

 

o

[Bleedman0xx]

with enough repetition people will remember. 

 

if you don't get the inside joke its okay

 

o

lolwat

[calarahil]

lolwat

I REMEMBER YOU IN THE MOUNTAINS :P the fun of the joke will lose its charm if I need to explain it sir. 

[Bleedman0xx]

I REMEMBER YOU IN THE MOUNTAINS :P the fun of the joke will lose its charm if I need to explain it sir. 

Eh... I'm good.

[greener]

I'm neither for or against gay marriage. To put it plainly; it doesn't affect me and therefore I do not care.

 

However, I find it to be pure bigotry that some people negatively influence someone's life that doesn't affect theirs in any way.

I also find it interesting that one of the only countries founded on the separation of church and state is one of the most religious countries in the world. If the separation of church and state in the USA is of paramount importance, then the laws against gay marriage should not be based on religion. It's hilarious when you think that England, founded on the unity of church and state, is one of the least religious countries and the USA is one of the most, founded on quite the opposite.

 

I also find it interesting that the people that deny this foundation and the ideal of the separation of church and state are often the same people who turn around and declare the second amendment as a reason they should be allowed to bear arms. Hypocrisy is obvious when it comes to certain US citizens using one amendment and refusing to understand another, or just outright ignoring it.

 

It's good that the US majority is finally making important, 21st century decisions and paving the way not only for themselves but for other countries to follow suit.

A little off from the main topic here but I've been reading through some of this thread and It's not quite clear to me what people mean by separation of church and state. For example, it doesn't sound like it refers religious institutions being separate from the government because it has been like that for some time...  So I guess it just generally refers to people who are part of a religion. So let's say I'm religious or Christian, Buddhist, or whatever, than I should not have any say in matters of state because I'm religious? That's kind of an extreme understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant when people are mentioning separation of church and state. What I kind of gather is that people mean more in the sense that people should separate themselves from their specific morals and ethics that come from their religion when considering state legislation that is going to affect everyone else, (who may or may not have the same views). Even that, though, seems a little unfair to me. The reason I kind of feel like its an unfair expectation is that If I'm a theist i shouldn't try and influence state legislation that's going affect everyone but if I'm an atheist than I can because it's not in line with or derived from religion.

[calarahil]

A little off from the main topic here but I've been reading through some of this thread and It's not quite clear to me what people mean by separation of church and state. For example, it doesn't sound like it refers religious institutions being separate from the government because it has been like that for some time...  So I guess it just generally refers to people who are part of a religion. So let's say I'm religious or Christian, Buddhist, or whatever, than I should not have any say in matters of state because I'm religious? That's kind of an extreme understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant when people are mentioning separation of church and state. What I kind of gather is that people mean more in the sense that people should separate themselves from their specific morals and ethics that come from their religion when considering state legislation that is going to affect everyone else, (who may or may not have the same views). Even that, though, seems a little unfair to me. The reason I kind of feel like its an unfair expectation is that If I'm a theist i shouldn't try and influence state legislation that's going affect everyone but if I'm an atheist than I can because it's not in line with or derived from religion.

 

 

It means that the law of the land isn't dictated by religion. It basically means that the law of the land may have religious moral background however there is a difference between church and state. 

[NeoZeon]

A little off from the main topic here but I've been reading through some of this thread and It's not quite clear to me what people mean by separation of church and state. For example, it doesn't sound like it refers religious institutions being separate from the government because it has been like that for some time...  So I guess it just generally refers to people who are part of a religion. So let's say I'm religious or Christian, Buddhist, or whatever, than I should not have any say in matters of state because I'm religious? That's kind of an extreme understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant when people are mentioning separation of church and state. What I kind of gather is that people mean more in the sense that people should separate themselves from their specific morals and ethics that come from their religion when considering state legislation that is going to affect everyone else, (who may or may not have the same views). Even that, though, seems a little unfair to me. The reason I kind of feel like its an unfair expectation is that If I'm a theist i shouldn't try and influence state legislation that's going affect everyone but if I'm an atheist than I can because it's not in line with or derived from religion.

 

 

Generally, the legal interoperation is that while religious law is allowed, it cannot be  the soul reason. Saying gay people cannot be married because the bible says its an "abomination" is not requisiate. This is why we have the court system, to protect people from people among other things. Just because we have a system of checks and balances does not mean we should stress the system for every decision.  

[calarahil]

Generally, the legal interoperation is that while religious law is allowed, it cannot be  the soul reason. Saying gay people cannot be married because the bible says its an "abomination" is not requisiate. This is why we have the court system, to protect people from people among other things. Just because we have a system of checks and balances does not mean we should stress the system for every decision.  

 

Yea I agree hence the balance of church and state :) But agree. Just a very hard thing to kind of try to explain to someone. 

[eshbop]

Re; the biological reason for the existence of homosexuality

 

Traits are the expression of genes and environmental factors - this is why identical twins don't look 100% identical, think the exact same way nor 'turn out' the same (more so when they have't grown up in the same home), or why not every pitbull is a vicious. It is possible that some environmental factor today means that any 'gay gene' is now expressed as homosexuality where is was not in the past (or possibly to a lesser extent). This would lead to genes continued decent through human evolution.

 

Not all genes are expressed as absolutes. People are tall, people are short and everywhere in between. People have dark brown hair, light brown hair and everywhere in between, etc. A 'gay gene' could be passed down though a bisexual male or female, a homosexual male or female, a straight male or female (recessive gene), or anyone else on this 'scale'. ie everyone. Considering the likelihood of bisexuals and homosexuals (males and females) having offspring, especially in the past (social pressures) and likely more so in the distant past (dominant males that mate with whoever), this would again lead to the continued decent of any 'gay gene' through human evolution.

 

Just clearing it up for anyone that hasn't studied biology. I could probably come up with other reasons but those are two quiet obvious ones.

 

As you were.

[eshbop]

in this analogy vitalius' sandwich represents Christian morality. my sandwich represents the US morality and the guy who walks in and tells me to change represents the new ideas for morality. Vitalius and i have similar sandwiches but they are not fully the same. just similar. theres no denying i based my sandwich off of vitalius but they still are infact different. the guy who walked in immediately tells me to get the soup is calling for change that doesnt make sense. no one gets soup at subway. so why change? plus my buddy warned me about the soup

 

this is a pretty casual analogy for a pretty serious topic but i hope i got the point across that even though america was founded on Christianity the morals we now have are those of Americas not Christianity and there is no reason to change

I'm not sure the other guy would be telling you to have soup, more likely add some carrot to your sandwich.

 

Peoples moral are largely similar and overlapping. Sure there are individuals and groups of people whose morals differ from yours or mine, but on the whole humans species think largely alike. And I think when they don't it may be largely due to religion (eg similar moral compass of atheists from all walks of life and backgrounds). But that's another topic...

[whatthe_fuzz]

I'm not sure the other guy would be telling you to have soup, more likely add some carrot to your sandwich.

Peoples moral are largely similar and overlapping. Sure there are individuals and groups of people whose morals differ from yours or mine, but on the whole humans species think largely alike. And I think when they don't it may be largely due to religion (eg similar moral compass of atheists from all walks of life and backgrounds). But that's another topic...

while some groups of peoplw may have similar morals, humans as a whole do not. I.e. sex slaves in asia or cannibals in south america or racial hate groups. so too say humans have a basic grasp of morality is false. humans base their morality off a common ground in society. that is why Christian morality and American morality are so similar. when we start to change the moral foundation we are build upon we allow for corruption. the line between right and wrong begins to fade as we become more "accepting".

[whatthe_fuzz]

I'm not sure the other guy would be telling you to have soup, more likely add some carrot to your sandwich.

Peoples moral are largely similar and overlapping. Sure there are individuals and groups of people whose morals differ from yours or mine, but on the whole humans species think largely alike. And I think when they don't it may be largely due to religion (eg similar moral compass of atheists from all walks of life and backgrounds). But that's another topic...

while some groups of peoplw may have similar morals, humans as a whole do not. I.e. sex slaves in asia or cannibals in south america or racial hate groups. so too say humans have a basic grasp of morality is false. humans base their morality off a common ground in society. that is why Christian morality and American morality are so similar. when we start to change the moral foundation we are build upon we allow for corruption. the line between right and wrong begins to fade as we become more "accepting".

[NeoZeon]

while some groups of peoplw may have similar morals, humans as a whole do not. I.e. sex slaves in asia or cannibals in south america or racial hate groups. so too say humans have a basic grasp of morality is false. humans base their morality off a common ground in society. that is why Christian morality and American morality are so similar. when we start to change the moral foundation we are build upon we allow for corruption. the line between right and wrong begins to fade as we become more "accepting".

That is an absurd statement. 54% of the world, by population, are Christian or Muslim (Pew Research Center, 2012). Both share roots and are very simular monotheistic religions. You should take courses on both Islam and Christianity to see how similar they are.

[Guerrero]

Our country (including all people) doesn't do a good job of separation of church and state for many decisions.

IE My cousin who is christian and studies the bible wanted Romney to win since Romney was against abortions and I explained to him if there was a law proposed against abortion because of the creators religious belief it would be unconstitutional because in the first amendment it says that congress will not make a law respecting a religion

[eshbop]

 Even that, though, seems a little unfair to me. The reason I kind of feel like its an unfair expectation is that If I'm a theist i shouldn't try and influence state legislation that's going affect everyone but if I'm an atheist than I can because it's not in line with or derived from religion.

In reference to separation of church and state, a theist can influence legislation all they want just as long as the legislation is free from religious rule or teachings and therefore neutral towards all beliefs.

 

Obviously in this sense atheists are (more) likely to legislate something that is free from religious rule or teachings, because they are atheist. They simply won't be looking to introduce Islamic law or illegalise abortion DUE to their faiths (or lack of) or specific religious morals don't apply to them (eg the idea that homosexuality is a sin, that homosexual marriage is sinful and therefore it shouldn't be legal).

 

That's not to say there couldn't be good non-religious reason for the legislation of religious ideas. Eg, maybe we decide the Islamic bank is better than the current one, or that voluntary abortions is just too morally/ethic wrong, in that sense they wouldn't be being implemented due to religion.

[eshbop]

while some groups of peoplw may have similar morals, humans as a whole do not. I.e. sex slaves in asia or cannibals in south america or racial hate groups. so too say humans have a basic grasp of morality is false. 

That's why I said largely similar. If you added up the population of all the people that a were sex traffickers, cannibals, in racial hate group, etc it wouldn't amount to much.

 

We know that rape, murder, theft, the withholding of other peoples rights, etc is morally wrong. And IMO when these boundaries are crossed it's due to money or religious ideas. Cannibalism in the sense your talking about is often ritualistic or based on some belief (which one could argue is analogous to religion). I dare say most people that murder or rape know it's wrong but choose to ignore the fact. Either way, these are exceptions to the much wider norm.