quote:

---

Originally written by Drow:

RSS

---

quote:

---

Originally written by crpgnut:

If you love Jeff's retreads, you might like a series of books by L.E. Modesitt Jr. It's called Saga of Recluce and almost every book is exactly the same. Give 'em a go.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

If you don't follow my faith, why do you take select bits out and turn them into law? That is what I'm trying to get across here.

---

What selected bits am I taking out to turn into law? As I mentioned, I would be all for eliminating regulation of marriage and the corresponding benefits it awards to those hetero couples out there. The state's interest in regulating and providing benefits to married couples is largely derived from its interest in promoting population growth. However, the state could just as easily create this incentive by instead allowing any couple or individual tax benefits for raising children.

If anything, I champion full-blown separation of church and state, because I believe that when religion becomes involved in government, oppression of non-members of that religion invariably ensues. It certainly happens today in my home state of Kentucky.

EDIT: Furthermore, who's to say that Judaism or Christianity or Islam or Voodoo have a monopoly on good ideas for social organization? Just because a particular practice is a part of your faith tradition doesn't mean that it can't exist independently as a good idea for the social contract. That's like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

Because we are talking about laws that necessarily effect everyone in a country, we necessarily are talking about the social contract/politics. Given this, what could be a valid social reason, outside of religious opposition, for not allowing civil unions of gay couples?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Thank you. The term was coined 60 years ago, approxomately 170 years after the constitution was written (give or take a few years).

---

Er, no. It was just used word-for-word in a binding legal document at that time. The phrase was coined shortly after the writing of the Constitution. A quick Google search turns up the date of 1802 from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, which seems probable.

The idea, which is what we're actually talking about, dates back well before the writing of the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

EDIT: Also, I think you missed one of my points. There's a difference between "imposing religion" and "imposing on religion." The Establishment Clause forbids only the former, not the latter. (The Free Exercise Clause could be said to prohibit the latter, but that's another issue.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about what religion I espouse or where I live. Again, "assuming facts not yet in evidence."

---

You're a Jew in Israel, are you not? Your religion is definitely on top in your country.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

So your interests are protected; indeed, civil marriage does not exist in Israel.

So where's your dog in this fight?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only - there is no other explanation. "Traditional marriage" is not "under attack" - how can a formal government union of two monogamous homosexual men possibly threaten a heterosexual couple's marriage?

Fear and hate. How easy it is for so called Christians to forget the "loving thy neighbor" and "removing the log from your own eye" passages of the Gospel - theoretically more important to Christians than the OT or the letters of Paul they rely on for their hate-mongering.

Furthermore, where is the harm? All the other non-Christians can get married, be they Jews, Muslims, or even Atheists. Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not looked at as wrong by a number of Christian sects and certainly not on the part of the Unitarian Universalist church. Why should bigoty fundamentalist Christianity hold the prevailing view? Boo-urns, I say.

Frankly, I think the state probably ought to just get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It draws in only nominal fees, and the common law has progressed to the point that comparable contract law largely makes many of the will, trust, and estate arrangements redundant. Hospital visitation rights and insurance policies could be handled just as comparably.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

You wouldn't be so quick to tear down separation of church and state if your religion wasn't sitting on top of the pile right now, and there's no guarantee it will remain there. So many people don't have a problem with a formal prayer in school now, but what if they decided to start making it to Allah? Believe it or not, separation of church and state protects your interests too.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Neologism of God:

Infernal, you can try to split semantic hairs about the meaning of the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause that follows), but hundreds of years of interpretation have made it very clear that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids legislation imposing religion. "No law respecting" means "no law with respect to." (That's not entirely true, because religions can be subjected to control when religion and civil law conflict, but laws can't be passed solely about religion, I believe.)

"A wall of separation between church and state" is explicitly stated in a 1947 Supreme Court decision anyway.

In my opinion, the state has no business dealing with marriage. A purely legal and contractual agreement between two partners for any reason they'd like would work quite well and not rile up the religious. Call it whatever you like.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Replace the word an with the and you get your interpretation. As it stands it says that it will not impose upon any religion, not it will not impose upon the state a religion.

---

I just realized why you're mis-reading this. When it talks about "an establishment," it's not talking about the Church or something — that is, it's not an establishment in the sense of a thing that has been established. It's talking about the act of establishing. These are both definitions of the word "establishment," but the latter is the definition intended, as we can tell from context.

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

That wasn't an argument for why not doing so is silly. It was an argument for why doing so is necessary.

---

Er, doing what, exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Am I understanding you correctly? You are against civil marriage in principle because it's an abuse of the word "marriage"?

If so, we can just use a different term. We can call them "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Real Ultimate Designing Power:

I'll spare most of my words on this subject. Just, what I do feel is thus (which I tried to indicate by my Tom Tomorrow snippet):

Okay. So marriage is a religious and romantic union that means the world to you. That's great. But isn't your personal (hell, perhaps even spiritual) choice being cheapened when you require government involvement to verify its worth?

Ultimately, two people are going to be economically dependent on one another and will require unions for non-romantic, platonic/filial/familial purposes. For instance, siblings who are living in their parents' house. That is as much as ANY relationship (with the exception of children) should mean to the state. To support infringement on people's relationships any further is to assert that the relationships are hollow and weak enough that state involvement is necessary for their continuation, which I think is absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Was that an argument against civil marriage on the ground that it cheapens the relationship? If so, that's kind of silly. Marriage is important in today's society for various legal purposes, including what happens when those relationships end (divorce) and what happens when someone dies (inheritance, etc.). Abolishing it would create horrible problems in family law.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Micro Phage:

I realize this would increase production costs but I'd be willing to pay more for features like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thin Air:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:
[QUOTE]Exactly, involuntarily. I rest my case.

---

So why can't lesbians get married??? I don't mean union here, I mean marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?

---

Sigh... here we go.

It's an evolutionary benefit from way back when some sort of mate-bonding system was the best was to raise the kids and keep them alive. Really, it's not quite as essential as it used to be, but that's most likely where it came from.

And there's a natural reason for governments to want to encourage this sort of thing, since they want to keep up a stable population base, so they should encourage the evolutionary trick that's so good at raising well-adjusted kids (in a basic, "we can cope with the culture around us" sort of sense). So you see, it doesn't have to be religious at all in origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyran:

quote:

---

Originally written by Wikipedia:

In one form or another, marriage is found in nearly every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom. Despite attempts by anthropologists to trace its origin (such as the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity), evidence is lacking.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thin Air:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

[QUOTE]Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?

---

No-one has yet explained why homosexuality is a sin (at least in Christianity). Spilling the seed, maybe, but then what about lesbians? (Who involuntarily "spill" their seed every month anyway.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:

---

Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.

---

Only if you don't consider marriage to be religious in nature.

---

There's a flaw in your argument here... not everyone in the U.S. does consider marriage to be inherently religious. Particularly with the volume of government benefits bestowed upon married couples, it could almost be considered a governmental institution. I mean, the only real benefit you get from a religious perspective is the privilege of being married in a church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship, and many people (same-sex couples in particular) are willing to forego that benefit in order to get treatment that all other married couples get.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

No it doesn't. There is no mention of a seperation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations.

---

That's not what that sentence means. That sentence means that the state can't establish a state religion. Without a state religion, you have separation of church and state.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyran:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

There is no mention of a separation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations. Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.

---

Would you mind explaining that one to me?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.

---

Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyran:

True the word separation does not appear, but the gist of the first part of the first ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") is that the government shall neither pass laws that force people to adhere to a specific belief (Prohibiting gay marriage sounds just like that to me) or that prevents people from practicing their own beliefs. It seems to me that two people of the sex getting married does not prevent anyone from practicing their beliefs. Religious beliefs are a personal thing. When you try to force your beliefs on others, you'll get nothing but trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyran:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.

---

I think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" sums that up pretty well.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

1) They did not make it a sin, but they took far too much out of context in order to justify it. All that was needed was the phrase that men should not spill their seed, i.e. perform in sexual acts that does not have the potential result of impregnantation.

---

The traditional reply to this is, of course, what about infertile straight couples? What about women after menopause? What about birth control? What about all the heterosexual intercourse that clearly isn't intended for reproduction?

There are those who say that sex should be completely limited to reproductive purposes (and teh Bible sez so!!!1111), but I think they're crazy.

EDIT: And Tyran's absolutely right about separation of church and state.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by United States of Tyranica:

Personally, I think that marriage should be open to any two people who wish to partake of it. I defy you to find any place in the Bible that says that marriage is a religious thing. Go ahead and look. It isn't there. The idea that marriage is religious and a sacrament came out of the Catholic church wanting to control all parts of people's lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyran:

separation of church and state

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Mc 'mini' Thralni:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thin Air:

quote:

---

Originally written by Cairo Jim:

Well, this is supposed to be a Christian country...and according to the Bible, God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah because it was full of gay people and other very corrupt doings.

---

This is not true. If you want to explain why some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, please look elsewhere.

---

I can think of two fairly logical explanations for this (Why christians believe this):

1) The church simply made it a sin, as the church said quite some things (in my opinion) which are simply *cough* bull****;

2) It may be something that our very early ancestors already disapproved from. I don't know this and I also don't really believe in this. Maybe we can ask a biologist about what he thinks: can this be an inherited thing or not? Thuryl?

---