Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
The United State of America is not meant to be a Democracy. "And for the Republic for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.
Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.
They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.
I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?
Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?
Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party.
That alone is insufficient reason to declare a right to gay marriage.
In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc.
Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).
Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."
Dear heart, I never said anything of the kind. I believe I quite clearly indicated that the First Amendment protects people's right to engage in the free exercise of their religion (i.e. formulate opinions based on their own values, however derived) and to engage in free speech (i.e. to vote in accordance with their own opinions/values, be it directly by referendum or indirectly through their elected representatives).
Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?
I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole.
Name the last thing 350 million Americans all agreed on.
And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them.
I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.
If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses.
Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.
It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law.
I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?
I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.
However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority.
You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.
Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse.
You're conflating two different issues. Also engaging in the "we're the minority and we demand to be treated like we're 51% and be given our way" sort of thing I mentioned above.
However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?
Certainly. I can even empathize with it. For all you know, I may even agree with you. (Though I would bet money that you think I'm some rabid gay basher). You're arguing Gay Rights. I'm talking basic Civics.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.
Not at all. You merely have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed.
Thank you for proving my point. You have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment. You obviously haven't the slightest idea what the Establishment clause refers to.
America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.
Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and
totally ignore the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.
And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.
Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.
If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.
You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.