C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Myself, I'm not so sure.
Sorry this took so long, I was on vacation.
About the first, I agree. I just think their definition is meant more from a legal standpoint than what we're talking about here (their definition would be more applicable if states wanted to tax "religious" organizations and needed to know what exactly was a religious organization).
About the second: I don't think their definition of "marriage" has come up here before. And I don't think I didn't accept their definition of religion. But that's really my question to you: You seemed to say in the other thread that you would be against gay marriage, even if it was allowed by law, because of that interfered with your personal religious beliefs. So I was trying to see if you personally believe atheism is a religion since otherwise, if you go by the Court's definition, it is you who seems to be pick and choosing which set of rules to go by.
M
mythosx
Guest
I can see where your coming from. But look at it this way. If I follow all my religions rules, I still would not be breaking any laws. These people are breaking current laws. So...you tell me? Who is picking and choosing what rules to follow? The original idea of secular rules wrecking havoc on the religious life is not based on a supposed scenario. I will give you and existing example. In the bible, technically the divorce is a total no no. And if you did get a divorce you aren't allowed to be remarried. But divorce is rampant all across the boards and I see people in many different churches doing it and accepting it. The government says its ok and so some of the less educated buy into it. And it takes people like me many many hours trying to answer people like them as to why I am opposed to divorces. IF Gay marriages were to become legal, what did you think I would do? Go around ripping up marriage agreements? I just wouldn't vote to make it so in the first place. My whole arguement is that people are saying I am wrong for being opposed to the change, which is basically a form of oppression.
I can see and agree with what you're saying, but what about when (or if if you want to think of it that way) when gay marriages DO become legal through voting? Even though you voted against it, would you support it then because it IS the law and it IS legal?
You give a biblical example. Let me ask you this: is there a point when the Bible cannot be the underlying authority or reference? My example is that the Bible mentions the treatment of slaves; obviously secular law is in contradiction to this. Which do you follow?
Not exactly. It was legal where they got their marriage certificate, that's part of all the brouhaha, whether it would be legal in other states that didn't have it on their books.
You give a biblical example. Let me ask you this: is there a point when the Bible cannot be the underlying authority or reference? My example is that the Bible mentions the treatment of slaves; obviously secular law is in contradiction to this. Which do you follow?
T
train
Guest
Drivers licenses are accepted everywhere...
Use the same rules for marriage licenses...
Use the same rules for marriage licenses...
Generally, at least in regards to straight or hetero marriages, they are accepted... not sure why it's not the case for gay marriages unless it's because every state has a hetero marriage law which is why they're accepted but not a gay marriage law which is why they aren't.
T
train
Guest
I should have mentioned "gay/homo" marriage licenses...
It only makes sense to use a working template...
It's sad to know that businesses are so money hungry that they fight the thought of having to "insure, support, or handle" a whole new type of "relationship" for legal matters...
It only makes sense to use a working template...
It's sad to know that businesses are so money hungry that they fight the thought of having to "insure, support, or handle" a whole new type of "relationship" for legal matters...
M
mythosx
Guest
Spiderman - Actually I was referring to the marriages in San Francisco...Which in no way were legal.
I think you are referring to the treatment of chattel slaves in early American history. Have you ever read the biblical treatment of slaves? Technically, if did have slaves we would have to treat them almost as good as our own children. Sure many characters in biblical history and many of them treated them like garbage. I dont condone any of that. But biblical guidlines for masters of slaves are that they are not to be harsh, treat them with respect and love. Bascially it would be a little better than a butler-master relation ship, But perhaps less than a rapper-posse relationship.
I think you are referring to the treatment of chattel slaves in early American history. Have you ever read the biblical treatment of slaves? Technically, if did have slaves we would have to treat them almost as good as our own children. Sure many characters in biblical history and many of them treated them like garbage. I dont condone any of that. But biblical guidlines for masters of slaves are that they are not to be harsh, treat them with respect and love. Bascially it would be a little better than a butler-master relation ship, But perhaps less than a rapper-posse relationship.
M
mythosx
Guest
You do have a valid point. Which brings me back to my argument against Istanbul originally...If you don't use a belief system to base your arguements upon...you cant really argue for or against anything.
I think everyone has a "belief" system, but it may not be the same or have the same origins as someone else. For example, you may use the Bible as the foundation of your belief system while Isty "developed" his own by what he feels is right and wrong through observations and personal experiences.
Although I think he tried to "meet" you on your ground, but more by trying to point out inconsistencies in your foundation to perhaps illustrate that it was flawed and thus your opposition to gay marriages is flawed (that was my impression).
Although I think he tried to "meet" you on your ground, but more by trying to point out inconsistencies in your foundation to perhaps illustrate that it was flawed and thus your opposition to gay marriages is flawed (that was my impression).
M
mythosx
Guest
I can't see that. It is hard to meet some one on terms of thier grounds if you have no comperhension of such. His lack of biblical understanding limits his ability to do so.
His major arguement was that no ones beliefs should be used in deciding policies for other people. That in itself is a belief...in determining the policy of not using. Well you get the picture.
His major arguement was that no ones beliefs should be used in deciding policies for other people. That in itself is a belief...in determining the policy of not using. Well you get the picture.
I agree. I think you got hung up on the definition of "belief" when all he was trying to say was that someone's personal beliefs should not interfere with policy-making that involves people of many beliefs - the policy should cover all beliefs and not restrict any certain ones no matter what (like anti-discrimination hiring laws and stuff).
At least supposedly for the US. Obviously if you're in a dictatorship or theocracy or such, the ruling head(s) can do whatever they want
At least supposedly for the US. Obviously if you're in a dictatorship or theocracy or such, the ruling head(s) can do whatever they want