American Equality threatened by Religion?

[Sententia]

After Prop 8 and no it was not just the mormons I began thinking that in america we believe that all men and women are created equal. Is that kind of untrue in many senses? Sure, some men are born wealthy and others poor, some will be born ugly and others beutiful etc etc

BUT from a rights standpoint every one in america should atleast enjoy the same basic human rights. If your life partner is of the same sex or a differing sex then you should still have the right to marry them.

Some religions do not advocate or accept gay marriage, but their sphere of domain and control is not the state. There is to be a seperation of church and state. What they allow or advocate in their religion is one thing but when they use their religious status and attack basic rights like the right to marriage because their religion says its wrong isn't there something inherently wrong there? Isn't it against the principles laid out for our country?

They could be against it in a religious sense the same way they are against devil worship. I do not see them out fighting against satanism or trying to amend our rights to no longer include the ability to worship the almighty lucifer. Against gay marriage though churches unite?

It reminds me of when churches would cut out the tongue of a blasphemer or lock them up forever. A church does not have the power to question my right to blaspheme if I so desire anymore. Nor should they have any power over another person, not of their religion, who does not accept their religion and dictate who they can't marry.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I agree. I never understood why some religions think their beliefs should be law for everyone; even those who are not in their religion. If you could make everyone on the planet follow the moral rules of your religion, would that change their core beliefs or make them "one of you"?

 

[Charity]

I agree everyone should be allowed to make their own wrong choice....

Seriously everyone should have the right to live the way they want as long as it isn't harming someone else. But then some appear to be harmed by anything that is different than what they believe to be "normal".....

Religion should be a personal thing and not used to threaten other's rights.....

 

[sojourner]

After Prop 8 and no it was not just the mormons I began thinking that in america we believe that all men and women are created equal. Is that kind of untrue in many senses? Sure, some men are born wealthy and others poor, some will be born ugly and others beutiful etc etc

BUT from a rights standpoint every one in america should atleast enjoy the same basic human rights. If your life partner is of the same sex or a differing sex then you should still have the right to marry them.

Some religions do not advocate or accept gay marriage, but their sphere of domain and control is not the state. There is to be a seperation of church and state. What they allow or advocate in their religion is one thing but when they use their religious status and attack basic rights like the right to marriage because their religion says its wrong isn't there something inherently wrong there? Isn't it against the principles laid out for our country?

They could be against it in a religious sense the same way they are against devil worship. I do not see them out fighting against satanism or trying to amend our rights to no longer include the ability to worship the almighty lucifer. Against gay marriage though churches unite?

It reminds me of when churches would cut out the tongue of a blasphemer or lock them up forever. A church does not have the power to question my right to blaspheme if I so desire anymore. Nor should they have any power over another person, not of their religion, who does not accept their religion and dictate who they can't marry.

First of all, marriage isn't a "right." Marriage has always been the purview of religion. Second, I don't think that any religion (in this country) has the right to foist it's morality upon the general populace through political legislation. I think the gov't. should recognize the legality of unions (whatever they may be) for all, whether they be hetero, homo, or plural (if that be the norm for a particular religion). All the gov't should do is recognize what the religion has done.

Third, this doesn't have to be called "marriage." Let the religions do what they want with their adherents, and let the non-religious have governmental consent. What's so difficult about that???

 

[J Bryson]

First of all, marriage isn't a "right." Marriage has always been the purview of religion.

Simply untrue. In any number of societies, including the United States, marriage has a specific civil status. This goes back to ancient civilizations.

Second, I don't think that any religion (in this country) has the right to foist it's morality upon the general populace through political legislation.

Agreed.

I think the gov't. should recognize the legality of unions (whatever they may be) for all, whether they be hetero, homo, or plural (if that be the norm for a particular religion). All the gov't should do is recognize what the religion has done.

Agreed. It's called "civil marriage".

Third, this doesn't have to be called "marriage.

But it could be, and should be.

Let the religions do what they want with their adherents, and let the non-religious have governmental consent. What's so difficult about that???

I generally agree with you on this, and think that the disagreement is largely semantic.

 

[EverChanging]

Marriage is a right, recognized not only by the states, but the Supreme Court (for heterosexuals, anyway).

I would prefer that all unions -- whether a same-sex union, heterosexual, or plural union -- be called civil unions to disassociate it from the religious concept of marriage, but whatever they are called, civil unions or marriages, it should be the same across the board. Either all of the unions are called civil unions or they're all called marriages. Separate is not equal, even when the separation is merely implied.

I prefer the term "civil union." If some people want to refer to it as a marriage or have it blessed as a marriage with whatever religious ceremony they prefer, that's cool with me.

In order to preserve the separation of church and state, clergy should only be able to marry couples if those who are not clergy can also obtain the right to marry others through some means. Before they can marry couples, clergy should be required to go through the same process, not just granted the right to marry others because they are clergy. Otherwise, clergy are being given a special status to act as agents of the state simply because they are clergy, a violation of the first amendment.

 

[Alceste]

Third, this doesn't have to be called "marriage." Let the religions do what they want with their adherents, and let the non-religious have governmental consent. What's so difficult about that???

I would say the couple making the commitment gets to decide what to call it, whatever the government or various religions think. Who's going to stop them?

 

[Comicaze247]

After Prop 8 and no it was not just the mormons I began thinking that in america we believe that all men and women are created equal. Is that kind of untrue in many senses? Sure, some men are born wealthy and others poor, some will be born ugly and others beutiful etc etc

BUT from a rights standpoint every one in america should atleast enjoy the same basic human rights. If your life partner is of the same sex or a differing sex then you should still have the right to marry them.

Some religions do not advocate or accept gay marriage, but their sphere of domain and control is not the state. There is to be a seperation of church and state. What they allow or advocate in their religion is one thing but when they use their religious status and attack basic rights like the right to marriage because their religion says its wrong isn't there something inherently wrong there? Isn't it against the principles laid out for our country?

They could be against it in a religious sense the same way they are against devil worship. I do not see them out fighting against satanism or trying to amend our rights to no longer include the ability to worship the almighty lucifer. Against gay marriage though churches unite?

It reminds me of when churches would cut out the tongue of a blasphemer or lock them up forever. A church does not have the power to question my right to blaspheme if I so desire anymore. Nor should they have any power over another person, not of their religion, who does not accept their religion and dictate who they can't marry.

This is what I've always thought. I mean, I don't recall hearing any homosexual couples wanting to get married within a church. Just to get the same legal rights (and they are not the same as of yet) as heterosexual married couples.

But it seems that every time I try to make this argument, the Prop 8 supporters refuse to see it. They still think that it's infringing upon their religion when someone else, who doesn't even know them, gets married to someone of the same sex. It really irritates me.

 

[ChristineES]

You'd have to prove that:
a. That everyone who voted for prop. 8 was a theist
b. That everyone that voted against prop. 8 was either atheist or gay.

You can't prove those 2 items- we have a secret vote.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

In short, I believe that all law should be secular. I have religious 'laws' that I hold to be very important in my life, but I don't believe that they should be forced upon other people. As long as laws that protect people from being harmed. As far as I know, civil partnership agreements don't harm anything except the inflated ego of a homophobe.

Maybe I just fail to see the problem with equality...

GhK.

 

[McBell]

I never understood the theistic claim to the word 'marriage'.
I cannot help but wonder what it was called before 1297.

 

[McBell]

You'd have to prove that:
a. That everyone who voted for prop. 8 was a theist
b. That everyone that voted against prop. 8 was either atheist or gay.

You can't prove those 2 items- we have a secret vote.

Why would this have to be proven?

 

[ChristineES]

Why would this have to be proven?

To help prove that theists and religions are not a threat to equality, if you use Prop. 8 as proof that it is.

 

[Sententia]

To help prove that theists and religions are not a threat to equality, if you use Prop. 8 as proof that it is.

The basis and reasons for this attack on others freedom to freely marry the person of their choosing seems to be derived from the bible. A point of interest:

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Here the bible says that it doesn't matter how or even who kills them just that they be killed. Whoever does it will not be responsible for murder, instead it is the victim who is responsible.

What modern christians seem to derive from that is this is their eternal life at stake. Even though the bible says these people are to be put to death and that the act is detestable they back off and say no, no god... Killing others is wrong. We will instead, vote and try, to prevent them from marrying. Here the bible commands to kill and removes the penalty for murder.

But killing others is not moral. Morality is well grounded and built from the bottom up. God did not instill morality into us. You should not kill others because the bible says you should and its right. You don't kill others because it is not right to kill. To not kill ONLY because god commands it and you seek only to please god is not to do good for the sake of being good but to do good for the promise of reward. Its a horrendous implementation of morality IMHO.

Something is not moral because the bible commands or condemns it. The bible reads thou shalt kill the gay people but the majority (Almost everyone in the US) says no... we should not kill. This is not good or the right thing to do nor would it be just because it is written in the bible.

I think that in and of itself shows just how people pick and choose from the bible and interpret things to suit themselves and their lives. Which if it makes them happy great. But I wish, and I am not directing this at you, that they would keep their bible taught hatred of gays to themselves or even better pick another verse to embrace that does not infringe on the rights of others. Maybe thou shalt not eat shellfish.

Even Jesus advocates killing even children in the NT:

4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death

Does that mean you should kill your kids if they dishonor you? The bible is fairly black and white with little room for grey when it comes to killing folk. Thankfully people simply do not derive their moral nature directly from the bible. If they did you would have to kill me to according to jesus again in luke.

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Many would classify me as an enemy of the fictional and dramatized version of jesus who was probably nothing more then an allergorical character in Matthew. (Mark, luke and john copied and embellished or gave it their own style IMHO)

 

[McBell]

To help prove that theists and religions are not a threat to equality, if you use Prop. 8 as proof that it is.

Seems to me that Prop 8 is a clear cut example that some theists and some religions are in fact a threat to equality.

Prop 8 was religiously motivated by theists.
Prop 8 is a direct affront to the equality of marriage for same sex couples.
So to be quite frank, open, and honest with you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps I am missing something....?:help:

 

[Storm]

When bigotry veils itself in religion, is that the fault of the faith?

 

[J Bryson]

With full respect to my Mormon and Catholic friends on this forum, it was theistic groups (The LDS church and the Knights of Columbus) who funneled the most money to the Yes on 8 campaign.

 

[McBell]

When bigotry veils itself in religion, is that the fault of the faith?

Depends.
I fully understand that religion is oft times a scapegoat for people to justify their bias and prejudice.

However, when a religious text flat out claims that a group of people are an affront to nature and are to be killed for it.....

 

[Sunstone]

Although I believe everyone should have equal rights, I do not believe people are born equal.

 

[ChristineES]

Not all religious people and not all religions were responsible for prop. 8. Likewise, there are plenty of atheists who are against gay marriage, as well. It is not just a religious thing.
It isn't really fair to dump all problems and all complaints against theists. Atheists aren't any more perfect than theists are, in general.