Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Wakie]

Of course they ignore the Bible, but they do not ignore thier own teachings. I am certainly not saying we should use the Bible as our law, but that it is only right that we take a glance at all of the great religious traditions of the world and go from there. As for athiests, they have no moral compass and therefore we cannot use thier beliefs as guidelines for our society. I am not religious in the least, but it is necessary to uphold major the major traditions of our society, such as heterosexual marriage.

I disagree with the statement that atheists have "no moral compass".  Just because one does not believe in a deity does not mean that they do not have an understanding of right and wrong.  The concept of right and wrong does not stem purely out of religion.

That being said, Buddhism does not believe same-gender sexual acts are inherently sinful.  Now, in my experience, Buddhists are some of the most centered and morally upright people I've ever encountered.

I cannot find any non-religious reason to believe that it is wrong to deny 2 consenting adults the right to be married (even if they are the same gender).

[Wakie]

This argument just amazes me.  Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong for religious reasons, how can you support imposing those religious beliefs on others?

[Wakie]

Wouldn't a change in the legal definition of marriage equate to forcing a religious belief upon society?

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

Also, we currently don't allow bigamy based on the fact that Christianity teaches against it, paying no attention to the fact that Judaism and Islam accept such behavior.

Umm ... no, actually the case against legal bigamy is that it would mean that an individual could the legally deceive their spouse(s) and engage in multiple marriages.

In fact, we declared our independence from England based on a religious belief that God has given the right to be free.

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

[Wakie]

Umm ... no.  Legal consumption of pork doesn't equate to forcing a religious belief on Jews and Muslims.  This wouldn't force you to enter into a gay marriage, to attend one, or even for any church to sanction one.

OK, so then, retaining the current definition of marriage doesn't force homosexuals to believe gay marriage is wrong.  Correct?

It doesn't force them to change their beliefs but it does limit their rights based on the beliefs of others (thereby imposing the religious will of others upon them).

Just as outlawing murder does NOT force people to believe murder is wrong.  The law against murder couldn't care less about one's personally religious belief concerning murder; the law simply says don't do it.

This is a ridiculous comparison.  Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults.  Murder involves 1 person imposing their will on another person.

The SCOTUS recognized the Christian origin of laws against bigamy:

"However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation...bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

I find it interesting though that you cite a ruling authored by a man appointed to the SCOTUS in 1863.

Yes, the language of the declaration of independence states that all men are created with certain inalienable rights by their creator.  And I agree with that ideal.  But in the Bill of Rights we have freedom of religion (which means you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist).

Again, I'll quote the following: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subject of punitive legislation..." (Justice Field, Davis v. Reason)

And I'll agree that religious practice is subject to the rule of law.  However, laws should be made if they make sense, not just because some gray hairs don't like the idea of homosexuality.  This is why I ask for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

I'm just looking for a nonreligious reason to oppose gay marriage.

Why?  The SCOTUS doesn't consider whether a law has its reason based in religion, it just makes sure the law doesn't promote religion.  Your search criteria has nothing to do with judicial review.

My argument is that the law is idiotic.  Imagine Utah passing a law which stated that non-Mormon couples cannot be married there.

[Wakie]

jmfcst, what I'm looking for is a rationale for the law.  Something which goes beyond just "God says don't do that".  I would just like someone who is opposed to gay marriage explain to me why they are opposed to it.  And to do it WITHOUT invoking religion.  Every other law can be explained without invoking religion.  Why is this one different?

Now, back to our show ...

I don't remember ever hearing of the right to marry the same sex.  Nor did the framers of the constitution ever hear of that right.

The framers also did not hear of semi-automatic weapons.  But interestingly enough many people feel the right to possess them is protected by the Constitution.

Again, the laws reflect the beliefs of the people, regardless of the origin of the beliefs.  The only thing that matters is if the law is in agreement with the constitution.

And I would argue that it is not.  It is denying the religious freedoms of certain individuals.

I disagree with your interpretation of this statement.  Nowhere does he state that all laws come from Christianity.  He only states that "civilized and Christian countries" outlaw these things.  Since America has no state religion we must take his statement to mean that as a "civilized country" we outlaw bigamy.

1) No one would argue at the time that statement was made that American wasn't a "Christian country".
2) Also, is he not citing the wisdom of Christian countries?

1) Yes, but the composition of this nation has drastically changed.
2) He is citing the wisdom of civilized countries.  Keep in mind that great wisdom has come from non-Christian nations too.  I don't think he is saying all law comes from Christianity.  In fact, if I remember correctly, the first civilization with a code of laws were the Sumerians who were polytheistic pagans.

[Wakie]

why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Well, gee, I didn't know there was still a debate raging on the destruction to society caused by sexual immorality.  If you want a purely provable scientific argument, then:

Sexually immoral people (as defined by the bible as those having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman) are less healthy than those abiding by the rules of the bible; for it is an undisputable scientific fact that the sexually immoral have:
1) increased death rates caused by STD's.
2) increased infertility rates caused by STD's.
3) Lower self-esteem.
4) Higher rates of suicide.
5) Higher poverty rates.
6) Higher drop-out rates.

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  Monogamous homosexual couples though actually tend to outperform monogamous heterosexual couples in these areas.  Nonetheless, a big part of marriage (whether it is heterosexual or homosexual) is monogamy.  Marriage promotes and encourages it.  There is something about the title ... the ceremony ... which reinforces to people that this is the person they will be with the rest of their life.  That, AND it adds a cost to cheating.

Realizing this, one would think you would be in favor of homosexual marriage.  People will be gay or straight regardless of legislation.  All we're talking about here is whether they can engage in an activity which will encourage them to be monogamous.

[Wakie]

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  

No, homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, regardless of how promiscuous.  Also, have you ever heard of a virgin gay wedding?

You know I never bother to ask the couple at a wedding about their sexual history.  And that includes both hetero and homo sexual couples.