You can't separate a person's religion from their morals. You can't separate a person's life experiences, education, or family from their morals. Separation of church and state does not ban a person from being religious while holding office; it bans them from mandating a religion.

 

You can't seperate a person's religion from their morals? I dont even have a religion and I still have morals. Morals are defined as simply the rules of right conduct and the difference between right and wrong? I can see where a religious person may have their own set of morals based on their religion but that gives them no more right to force those morals onto the public than the religion itself.

 

Homosexuality is also not an entirely religious issue. Many non-religious or atheistic people believe it is wrong - or just don't like it - as well. People don't like things, actions, or people different from their own, no matter the issue.

 

And that's reason enough to deny them basic human rights? In the 60's there were religious groups and nonreligious groups who both opposed intergration...did that make extending those basic human rights to African Americans and other minorities wrong?

 

Personally, I don't understand homosexuality. I don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man. I do, however, realize that it happens. I have been lucky enough - through college and jobs to be able to become friends with a few homosexuals and see them now as people and not some distant primative minority to which there is no good associated.

 

The fact of the matter is we are denying homosexuals basic human rights that should have nothing to do with religious beliefs, morals, likes, dislikes, or anything else. It has to do with common deceny.

You can't seperate a person's religion from their morals? I dont even have a religion and I still have morals. Morals are defined as simply the rules of right conduct and the difference between right and wrong? I can see where a religious person may have their own set of morals based on their religion but that gives them no more right to force those morals onto the public than the religion itself.

 

Morality is not universal. Each person has their own unique set of moral values. Morals are comprised of our life’s experiences; they are not innate. You are arguing that one aspect of this life experience be dropped because you disagree with it. If we should exclude a leader because they are religious, then why shouldn’t we exclude a leader based on other experiences that shape our morality? Why is it wrong for a leader to make a decision based on their religious beliefs and not wrong for a leader to make a decision based on morals derived from their family, schools, and hometown? I will reiterate that separation of church and state is meant to prohibit a theocracy or government mandated religion while ensuring that all citizens may freely practice their own religion. It is not a barrier to prohibit a religious person from holding office.

 

And that's reason enough to deny them basic human rights? In the 60's there were religious groups and nonreligious groups who both opposed intergration...did that make extending those basic human rights to African Americans and other minorities wrong?

 

Personally, I don't understand homosexuality. I don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man. I do, however, realize that it happens. I have been lucky enough - through college and jobs to be able to become friends with a few homosexuals and see them now as people and not some distant primative minority to which there is no good associated.

 

The fact of the matter is we are denying homosexuals basic human rights that should have nothing to do with religious beliefs, morals, likes, dislikes, or anything else. It has to do with common deceny.

 

I shouldn’t bother replying to this since you obviously didn’t read and/or comprehend my post, but I will anyhow. You said that the issue of homosexual marriages is purely the result of religion - I said it was not.

Morality is not universal. Each person has their own unique set of moral values. Morals are comprised of our life’s experiences; they are not innate. You are arguing that one aspect of this life experience be dropped because you disagree with it. If we should exclude a leader because they are religious, then why shouldn’t we exclude a leader based on other experiences that shape our morality? Why is it wrong for a leader to make a decision based on their religious beliefs and not wrong for a leader to make a decision based on morals derived from their family, schools, and hometown? I will reiterate that separation of church and state is meant to prohibit a theocracy or government mandated religion while ensuring that all citizens may freely practice their own religion. It is not a barrier to prohibit a religious person from holding office. .

 

How do you seperate a politican basing his politics on religious beliefs from a government leaning towards theocracy? Religion has no place in government. Period.

 

 

I shouldn’t bother replying to this since you obviously didn’t read and/or comprehend my post, but I will anyhow. You said that the issue of homosexual marriages is purely the result of religion - I said it was not.

 

 

My stance is the same Hab. There is no logical argument against same sex marriage outside of a religious reference.

Nothing to see in this post.

My stance is the same Hab. There is no logical argument against same sex marriage outside of a religious reference.

 

That really depends on how you want to define the purpose of a marriage in reference to the state and how it suits the state's purposes.

 

As the state should have no innate religious trappings for the institution of marriage it does indeed call into the question what defines a marriage. Moreover why would a state with no religious connotations even bother with recognizing any sort of union between couples, heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. So the driving we question we have here is this: What benefit do we have for the state with the recognition of any sort of marriage?

 

As an entity that is to be based on prudence and pragmatism our amoral state should not be swayed by notions such as "love." No because "love" is of no practical relevance, you can't tax love. You can't measure or quantify love, devotion or affection thus rendering that benefit moot. Married couples tend to get tax breaks and incentives, to what end though? For what purpose would the government wish to treat them differently?

 

The only thing that a married couple has that is of use to the state is the eventual production of future citizens. These citizens, provided they make it to adulthood, are an eventual source of revenue via taxation and/or of use in their contributions to society through their careers or through civil service. The state's primary goal, outside of self perpetuation(the same as any good bureacracy), is to "promote the general welfare." Thus through the enrichment of the population via said production of citizens the government would attain an eventual benefit.

 

With this as the primary motivating factor as a benefit to the state it would stand to reason that the only "marriages" that would be worth recognizing would be those capable of producing said benefit to the state.

 

While the relationship of Bob and Horatio may be healthier than that of Eamon and Sally, B&H are biologically incapable of what E&S can do. This is of course provided that the terrible film Junior was truly ficticious.

 

Outside of that I personally can see no reason, this is not taking into account religious connotations that is, as to why a couple that uses the same public restroom should not be granted some benefits, tax break wise, if they were to adopt a child. However I personally find that calling it a marriage is not politically prudent. I don't take personal issue with those who wish to subscribe to religion, thus no reason to want to annoy them.

 

 

Just throwing that thought out there.

How do you seperate a politican basing his politics on religious beliefs from a government leaning towards theocracy? Religion has no place in government. Period.

Do you believe that a practicing Christian is capable of holding political office and making sound decisions?

You can't seperate a person's religion from their morals? I dont even have a religion and I still have morals. Morals are defined as simply the rules of right conduct and the difference between right and wrong? I can see where a religious person may have their own set of morals based on their religion but that gives them no more right to force those morals onto the public than the religion itself.

 

 

 

And that's reason enough to deny them basic human rights? In the 60's there were religious groups and nonreligious groups who both opposed intergration...did that make extending those basic human rights to African Americans and other minorities wrong?

Personally, I don't understand homosexuality. I don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man. I do, however, realize that it happens. I have been lucky enough - through college and jobs to be able to become friends with a few homosexuals and see them now as people and not some distant primative minority to which there is no good associated.

 

The fact of the matter is we are denying homosexuals basic human rights that should have nothing to do with religious beliefs, morals, likes, dislikes, or anything else. It has to do with common deceny.

 

You are comparing CIVIL RIGHTS to human rights. Apples and Oranges. The African Americans could not help being African American . . . they were being denied simply because of how they were born into this world. I know you won't agree but I believe homosexuality is a choice .... they choose to be the way they are. I think most African Americans would be offended to have their plight compared to that of homosexuals. They are not the same at all.

You said that the issue of homosexual marriages is purely the result of religion - I said it was not.

 

Yes, it is. Because of the First Amendment separation of religion and government, all marriages in this country are what we've come to refer to as "civil unions" and always have been.

Yes, it is. Because of the First Amendment separation of religion and government, all marriages in this country are what we've come to refer to as "civil unions" and always have been.

 

Perhaps I was speaking too specifically, but I intended to say that the vilification of homosexuals is not solely because of religion.

FrontRow, I have a question for you.

 

You believe that a Christian is wrong using his religion to make decisions. Even if you believe that a Christian's set of beliefs are wrong, he/she is still voting or policymaking on what he/she believes, just as you make decisions based on your beliefs. Why should his or her beliefs be kept out of politics while your beliefs are ok? Isn't keeping a Christian out of government (as you wish to do) discrimination?

FrontRow, I have a question for you.

 

You believe that a Christian is wrong using his religion to make decisions. Even if you believe that a Christian's set of beliefs are wrong, he/she is still voting or policymaking on what he/she believes, just as you make decisions based on your beliefs. Why should his or her beliefs be kept out of politics while your beliefs are ok? Isn't keeping a Christian out of government (as you wish to do) discrimination?

Good questions, but I'd settle for an answer to this.

Do you believe that a practicing Christian is capable of holding political office and making sound decisions?

Do you believe that a practicing Christian is capable of holding political office and making sound decisions?

 

Absolutley. But said politician should make decisions based on what is good for our country and not what is directed of him by a book which millions of US citizens have no faith in.

 

Like Kerry said during one of the 04 debates, and I am paraphrasing, "I (Kerry) believe that we are all God's children - but I can not enforce my particular article of faith on a country that is far more diverse that the reach of that article of faith."

You are comparing CIVIL RIGHTS to human rights. Apples and Oranges. The African Americans could not help being African American . . . they were being denied simply because of how they were born into this world. I know you won't agree but I believe homosexuality is a choice .... they choose to be the way they are. I think most African Americans would be offended to have their plight compared to that of homosexuals. They are not the same at all.

 

I had began losing any confidence in your debates - but now I am certain. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Did you make a conscience choice to be heterosexual? Or were you BORN THAT WAY?

 

My personal theory - whilst I have no scientific research to back it up (HAB - Back off ) - is that homosexuality is nature's way to control the population.

 

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you probably have had no or very limited contact with anyone who is gay or lesbian - as you get older and gain more life expierence you'll better realize the incongruity of your comments.

FrontRow, I have a question for you.

 

You believe that a Christian is wrong using his religion to make decisions. Even if you believe that a Christian's set of beliefs are wrong, he/she is still voting or policymaking on what he/she believes, just as you make decisions based on your beliefs. Why should his or her beliefs be kept out of politics while your beliefs are ok? Isn't keeping a Christian out of government (as you wish to do) discrimination?

 

You are either misunderstanding or grossly over exagerating my oppinion on this. I have no problem with someone of any religion (or religious thinking) making personal choices based on their religion - but when it comes to policy dealing with human rights (same sex marriage being the most clear example and to a large degree abortion and other issues) religion should take a back seat to basic human rights and logic.

I had began losing any confidence in your debates - but now I am certain. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Did you make a conscience choice to be heterosexual? Or were you BORN THAT WAY?

 

My personal theory - whilst I have no scientific research to back it up (HAB - Back off ) - is that homosexuality is nature's way to control the population.

 

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you probably have had no or very limited contact with anyone who is gay or lesbian - as you get older and gain more life expierence you'll better realize the incongruity of your comments.

This is really a funny asumption. I am probably old enough to be your grandmother --- but thanks for the compliment ... anyway, I have friends, yes, I said friends, who are homosexuals . . . they tell me they chose the lifestyle . . . I witness to them about what the bible says . . . they listen, respect what I say, but they CHOOSE to remain in that lifestyle. It is a choice. I'll not try to convince you otherwise, we will just have to agree to disagree! Perhaps as you grow older you will eventually understand the scope of your misconceptions. I know one day we all we have perfect Truth when we bow before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. :thumb: