Proposition 8

Actually, it's nothing like that.  It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not god, so that means your words aren't God's words."

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher. You can't really argue about faith considering it's just a part of someone. >_>

http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154
The Mormons make up the vast majority of the donators to the Prop 8 rallying.

I wanted evidence because I didn't really know, lol. I've been only fighting the religious aspect of this thing. >_>

Anyways, doesn't that mean the Mormons just support Prop 8 the most? They're just rich as hell and they'll do what they like. It's not like they're the ones that brought up the idea of Proposition 8... were they Lol.

http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx
This article just pissed me off.  It's mostly outrage that something would ever change.  But at the bottom, lo and behold, 4 religious reasons all based on the same church.

Note: I'm not saying the only reason it was instated was religion, but none of the reasons given by anyone are anything besides HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO ALLOW THOSE DIRTY STINKING GAYS TO HAVE FREEDOM, or GAYS ARE GOING TO HELL DAMN THEM ALL NO MARRIAGE.

Eh, if they really read the Bible, they should be more focused on converting these people. Like Halo said, not having a ring on their finger won't stop them from "guzzling seman."

What bothers me the most about Proposition 8 is not that it's disallowing homosexual marriage, or anything of the like.  It's that it was created because of religious beliefs.

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate! Just because someone believes that killing animals is a horrible evil equivalent to murder doesn't mean they should bother me or try to have it passed into law. It's just their beliefs that are influencing their actions, and really, unless I believe it too, it has no place in law making or politics.

Be honest though, if Prop 8 was about disallowing something mundane, like using endangered species as exhibits in a zoo, and it was based and put forward by a Jewish or other religious group, then you wouldn't care half as much. It's totally because it's disallowing homosexual marriage, and maybe the fact that it was put forward by a religious group is supplementary to that..

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate!

Separation of Church and State.

Just because someone believes that killing animals is a horrible evil equivalent to murder doesn't mean they should bother me or try to have it passed into law. It's just their beliefs that are influencing their actions, and really, unless I believe it too, it has no place in law making or politics.

I'm not going to pick apart that one example, and I'm just going to comment on the point you're making.

Law is supposed to be neutral, not colored by any particular moral standard.  I'll say it again.  Separation of Church and State.  Everyone in America has their own particular moral standard, but laws are meant to be universal.  It simply doesn't work, if the laws start being tuned by one particular group above the others.  Something as universal as laws should be completely neutral. 

Laws are meant to protect life, rights, and property.  Not to enforce a particular moral standard.

It makes perfect sense for a religion to say 'no gay marriage', but it makes no sense for a law to say the same.  Because gays marrying doesn't kill anyone, or destroy any cultural foundations or cause theft and denial of rights or anything remotely harmful to society. 

Be honest though, if Prop 8 was about disallowing something mundane, like using endangered species as exhibits in a zoo, and it was based and put forward by a Jewish or other religious group, then you wouldn't care half as much. It's totally because it's disallowing homosexual marriage, and maybe the fact that it was put forward by a religious group is supplementary to that..

Regardless of the reason, I would still be ticked that a law was passed due to religion.  As stated earlier, laws are universal and therefore shouldn't be colored by any religion or moral set.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher. You can't really argue about faith considering it's just a part of someone. >_>

when a preacher quotes something that God actually said (for the sake of argument I'll allow that some direct quotes exist)* then yes, he is speaking God's word.  But when he reads sections of the bible that were written entirely by man (direct quotes from God constitute sections written at lest in part by God)*, or gives his homily, he is -not- speaking God's word.


*I'm not aware of any particular direct quotes from said God, and am not stating that they exist or do not, simply allowing for the possibility for the sake of discussion.

why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

I think that this is the question that really needs to be answered.

Separation of Church and State.

But the people of the church can be/are citizens of the US. They have their say in the matter. If you wanna go about "separation of church and state," it's the individuals that are having their opinion. If you think that's wrong, maybe we should just have a government where everyone's got to be either agnostic or an atheist. Then we should completely disregard the actions of all past (and current) presidents.

Laws are meant to protect life, rights, and property.  Not to enforce a particular moral standard.

This is a less serious rebuttal but, property is also often changed with "pursuit of happiness," right? What if having gay people marry affects that pursuit and it disturbs you? Plus, you might think you have a right to live in a country where you're not influenced by the existence of gay marriage. It's obvious that most of the country is straight and a good chunk of people should be concerned about this issue. Does this not go against the common good, then?

Regardless of the reason, I would still be ticked that a law was passed due to religion.  As stated earlier, laws are universal and therefore shouldn't be colored by any religion or moral set.

We have freedom of religion. It's a law passed due to religion. Although it accepts and encourages tolerance, it's still a law passed due to religion. If it wasn't passed, then people would be, like, "HEY! WE WANT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" Then what would the argument be? "Oh, sorry, we shouldn't mix religion with the government. Even though a majority of you want this law passed, it's too bad." If you say, "It's a democracy and if the majority want it passed, let's let it be a law!" then you should also agree with Proposition 8.

when a preacher quotes something that God actually said (for the sake of argument I'll allow that some direct quotes exist)* then yes, he is speaking God's word.  But when he reads sections of the bible that were written entirely by man (direct quotes from God constitute sections written at lest in part by God)*, or gives his homily, he is -not- speaking God's word.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher.

I also meant that any word the preacher says, it's by faith that we take those words as God's words through the preacher.

why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

I think that this is the question that really needs to be answered.

Then we might as well legalize using hard narcotics (for the sake of it being your private life, only in your own house, of course), allow child/spouse abuse, allow child molesting,  etc.

But the people of the church can be/are citizens of the US. They have their say in the matter. If you wanna go about "separation of church and state," it's the individuals that are having their opinion. If you think that's wrong, maybe we should just have a government where everyone's got to be either agnostic or an atheist. Then we should completely disregard the actions of all past (and current) presidents.

No, it means that to pass a law you should have some reason other than "god says no" or "well I don't like it".

This is a less serious rebuttal but, property is also often changed with "pursuit of happiness," right? What if having gay people marry affects that pursuit and it disturbs you?

that's a matter of opinion and moral standard, which the law does not exist to enforce.

Plus, you might think you have a right to live in a country where you're not influenced by the existence of gay marriage. It's obvious that most of the country is straight and a good chunk of people should be concerned about this issue. Does this not go against the common good, then?

how does it go against the common good?  Does it kill people?  Do gays walk the streets and rape everyone in sight?

We have freedom of religion. It's a law passed due to religion. Although it accepts and encourages tolerance, it's still a law passed due to religion. If it wasn't passed, then people would be, like, "HEY! WE WANT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!" Then what would the argument be? "Oh, sorry, we shouldn't mix religion with the government. Even though a majority of you want this law passed, it's too bad." If you say, "It's a democracy and if the majority want it passed, let's let it be a law!" then you should also agree with Proposition 8.

freedom of religion means you can worship whatever god in whatever way, or choose not to at all.  It has nothing to do with using religion as a reason to pass laws.  You're totally missing the point.

But it's because of faith we take it that it's God's words through that preacher.

Wow, god must be a total asshole then, given some of the stuff he's been saying through those preachers down south.

Then we might as well legalize using hard narcotics (for the sake of it being your private life, only in your own house, of course), allow child/spouse abuse, allow child molesting,  etc.

Hard narcotics can harm someone and end lives, child/spouse abuse is also injury and possible loss of life, meaning it'd be perfectly logical to pass a law against them, for the sake of protecting life.

You're completely disregarding 3/4 of what I say in an effort to find a hole in my argument.  It's not working.

This thread is getting stupid. You can't argue with a religious person because belief is based on faith. Faith means accepting something without proof, so no amount of facts will make them see the light. Anyway, one of you is arguing the legality of the issue while the other is arguing the morality.

shouldn't we be talking about legality of the issue anyway?  I mean, considering it's a law and all?

Yeah, how dare people let their beliefs influence their actions? Belief and political action ought to be completely separate!

Separation of Church and State.

Belief, not religious belief. For instance: "Laws exist to protect life, safety, and property.  Laws should be concrete, not subjective." - this is a belief, not a fact - perhaps it is something a majority of Americans believe, but that does not make it a fact. It is, quite simply, a belief that you would like to see put into practice more effectively. Is it invalid for your belief in this to influence how you vote or how you would like to see laws operate? 

It seems to me that Law is just as subjective as everything else and I am not at all certain that I believe in any objective morality - certainly none without an accompanying god. Laws exist in a society to reject those elements of human behaviour that are not desired in that society, and that is all. You believe that the only behavioural restrictions ought to be those that protect other human beings, and that is perfectly valid. However, others believe that the law should operate to restrict behaviours they consider immoral even when those behaviours do not harm other members of the society. Certainly you can contest their beliefs and certainly their beliefs and yours are in opposition, but it is hardly fair to say that those beliefs ought not influence how they want their society to operate, just as it is unfair to say that your political action should not be influenced by your personal beliefs on how laws should operate. Does it even make sense to expect that from someone? And yes, what you believe may be a founding principle of your society, but why should those principles be immutable?

This thread is getting stupid. You can't argue with a religious person because belief is based on faith. Faith means accepting something without proof, so no amount of facts will make them see the light. Anyway, one of you is arguing the legality of the issue while the other is arguing the morality.

You guys have a different kind of faith, too. You believe, without reason, that people should be left alone. You were obviously brought up with that kind of attitude or influenced by others to develop this attitude which was done by faith in what other said or did.

Letting people be isn't faith. It's not being annoying.

It's your belief that we should let them be.

:stuff:

I have to concede on this point as you are right as far as equality goes. 
However my stance on laws isn't founded in religious text.  Whether that makes a difference or not to you doesn't make a difference to me.  I'd just personally like to see a little more reasoning and logic used by the majority of America, when it comes to laws.

It's your belief that we should let them be.

what's your point?  So it's their belief that their morals should be enforced on everyone around them.  That doesn't make it any less annoying, or any more acceptable.  It's -my- belief that they can do whatever the hell they want, as long as they leave me and mine alone.

Some people would go far enough to call that kind of lifestyle and attitude a religion.

Some people would go far enough to call that kind of lifestyle and attitude a religion.

so what is the deity of "keep your nose out of everyone Else's business"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I believe none of those say anything that talks about a deity/deities of any kind.

Well: "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"

but yeah, a religion does not require a deity.

@NAM -

Well, I would say the implication that religious belief is necessarily illogical or unreasonable is false. While there are certainly people in a religion who are unreasonable or illogical, I doubt if those people were atheist that they would be any more reasonable or logical. Some people in religions are very smart - the last pope knew like 16 languages fluently, which certainly suggests an IQ that could not be easily subverted. Religions just adopt a certain philosophical outlook, and the moral codes that follow from that are generally more or less logical. You could easily argue that the premise:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

is equivalent to a religious belief in that it is based on no logic or justification, but is merely accepted - held as self-evident. Personally, I do not see this as self-evident, though I do see it as a useful basis for a society to function on.

In any case, you're right - I make no distinction between religious belief and any other type of belief, and so none of this will make a difference to you.

In any case, unless anyone has anything more to add, I'd be willing to lock this.
And moo, you've lost.

Lol. Maybe next time.