What gives you guys the right to deny another human being happiness by not allowing them to be married?

At the risk of being too glib, you are assuming that marriage=happiness :)

Out of curiousity, are you asking in religious terms, or political ones (I teach both politics and religion, and would like to know a bit more about where you're coming from before offering any thoughts).

The Constitution guarantees equality for all men. Yet Christians seem to think that because they have their Bible, they can ban the marriage of homosexuals, or deny them their Constitutional right to equality.

where, any where in the bible, does it say "homosexuals are evil, and bad"???

In Leviticus it says 'It is detestable to lie with a man as a woman"

Well, since we live in a free country, it's our right to vote against something that will make it inner gender marriage legal. That's our right.

However, homosexuality is also against the Bible. So according to God it is wrong.

Right. But this country was built on freedom of religion. What right do you have to impose your morality on someone who doesn't want it?

i didnt know god made the laws in america. i was under the impression religion was left out of lawmaking.

Davis said: "The Constitution guarantees equality for all men. Yet Christians seem to think that because they have their Bible, they can ban the marriage of homosexuals, or deny them their Constitutional right to equality."
To give a political answer to your quesiton:
There are many things about which the Constituion guarantees people an equal condition. Marriage, however, is not one if them. In fact, the only place where the Constitution even comes close to dealing with marriage is Article IV, Section 1, where it says that each state has to recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state" (called the "Full faith and credit" clause).
This means two things:
1) States, not the national government, get to recognize marriage.
2) When a state does recognize marriage, every other state has to recognize marriages performed in that state.
So we're really not talking about a Constitutional issue at all, this is an issue that has to be battled out at the state level, one way or the other.

But, there is a broader point to be made here. The question that each state is going to have to answer (if they haven't already) is: what is marriage? Traditionally in the Western world, marriage is a covenant (not a contract) between a man and a woman of the appropriate age and not related by blood.
This begs the further question: is there some kind of "right" to marriage? Well... that's a sticky question. It's certainly never mentioned as a right in the great Liberal "rights" writers (Hobbes, Locke, etc). For most of the last 300 years, "natural rights" have meant life (the government won't randomly kill you for no reason), liberty (the government won't randomly throw you in jail for no reason), and property (the government won't randomly steal your stuff and do what it wants with it). "Civil rights" on the other hand, have included local and national things like "free speech," "keep and bear arms", and other things like that which only apply to citizens of specific countries.

Again, the question is, does marriage fit into one of these categories? The answer is "not historically." Historically, the role of the state has been merely the recognition of marriage, not the creation of it. "Marriage" has been considered as a covenental institution recognized by the state, not a political right created by it.

So, all of that is to say that it's not that Christians want to "ban the marriage of homosexuals", it's that traditionally there is no such thing. You can't have a "marriage" between two people of the same sex because there is no category for that within the institution.

That's the political side of the answer, anyway.

Right. I got all of that, I've heard it all. However, we are in a new generation. The Bush campaign of 2004 used homosexual marriage to mobilize their loyal Christian Conservative rights to vote, they scared the intolerant Christians, making Gay Marriage an overly-politicized issue, when it should have just been quietly legalized.

exactly davis.

Yeah, that was a major problem with Bush (and Kerry, and McCain, and Obama, for that matter)- their nationalizing issues that really ought to be left to the states to deal with.

At least Obama and Kerry want to move into the right direction, rather than backtrack like Bush and McCain.

Davis wrote: "Right. But this country was built on freedom of religion. What right do you have to impose your morality on someone who doesn't want it?"

It's not just Christian's who vote against homosexual marriage when it comes to the polls.

Jenn{ AKA duncanator } wrote: "i didnt know god made the laws in america. i was under the impression religion was left out of lawmaking."

But voting is still left in lawmaking, correct?

"It's not just Christian's who vote against homosexual marriage when it comes to the polls."

No. But it's the overt influence of Judeo-Christianity morality that produces homophobia.

Ninja wrote: "Jenn{ AKA duncanator } wrote: "i didnt know god made the laws in america. i was under the impression religion was left out of lawmaking."

But voting is still left in lawmaking, correct?"

Plenty of people wanted to keep slavery around, did that make it correct?

if all the Christians in the USA voted for McCain, he would of won, if all the Christians vote against gay marriage they would win. God does make laws. and i dont think saying "America" is specific, Canada, USA, Mexico. all in America...

Max wrote: "if all the Christians in the USA voted for McCain, he would of won, if all the Christians vote against gay marriage they would win. God does make laws. and i dont think saying "America" is specific..."

How does God make laws?

max is saying, there are so many christians, that if god suddenly said 'get rid of the immigrants!' they would take over the polls and win. they are the biggest majority.

Quite true. But it's the fundamentalist minority that is causing all the problems and agitation/discrimination.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

Shouldn't you all be out killing homosexuals?

Davis wrote: "Quite true. But it's the fundamentalist minority that is causing all the problems and agitation/discrimination.

"
you should watch the movie Jesus Camp... fundamentalists aren't really a minority...

Fundamentalists are disgusting.

indeed they are. but i dont mind Catholics. its just the Christian chanting in tongues is really demonic and creepy.

Catholics are 2nd only to Mormons as the worst of the worst Christians.

i dont think so. Catholics at least have a language and a leader, Christians pretend to have a language and dont really have a say in the popes election.

Leader? How is that good? The Pope they have now was a Hitler Youth and condemns condoms, doesn't sound like a great guy to me.

ya but at least they have a leader. Bush wasnt so great either but that doesnt mean we're all bad.

Catholics are backwards as fuck, they are against gay-marriage, abortion, and birth control.

they are, but Christian fundamentalist (and im assumming you're talking about fundamentalist Catholics)have the same views but they talk in tongues and have less tolerance for the truth.

Catholics have zero tolerance for the truth as well

and yet Christians have less... i know some that think dinasauts live in california.

Catholics are Christian, and anyone under that banner is lacking in intellect.

indeed.

The entire "what is marriage?" argument is nothing more than an appeal to tradition fallacy. Essentially all it says is, "gay marriage is wrong today because it's been wrong in the past; that's just the way it's always been." It's an invalid argument, and pointless because no one, as far as I know, argues that marriage in recent Western history has been anything other than a union between a woman and a man (well, except when it's been a union between one man and many women, of course). The goal of the movement to legalize gay marriage is to broaden that definition to include same sex unions. To argue that such an institution can't exist for no other reason than that it hasn't existed in the past is irrational. To argue that we can't create a new right, simply because that right hadn't been an issue during the Enlightenment is absurd (and note that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, does establish a right to marriage). In a free society, that which is not prohibited must be permitted, and nothing may be prohibited unless it can be shown to cause harm (to individuals, or to society as a whole). The onus falls on the opponents of same sex marriage to demonstrate what harm would be engendered by its legalization.

Since no one has stepped up to explain how gay marriage would be harmful, are we all agreed then that it should be legalized?

No, some of us just crazy busy. I don't have time right now to give a full response (maybe this weekend?), but I would point out three quick things (again, these are all political, rather than religious answers):

Rick said: To argue that such an institution can't exist for no other reason than that it hasn't existed in the past is irrational.
It's not at all irrational. Traditions are there for a reason, and should only be changed if absolutely necessary, and even then only very slowly. And once a tradition is in place, the burden is not on those who keep living as people have lived in the past, but on those who want to change it. You've got to have a darn good reason to change something that's been the same way since at least the beginning of recorded history. (And quite frankly, I don't think "because we want to" is ever a good enough reason- there has to be a real wrong that needs to be righted.)
-To argue that we can't create a new right, simply because that right hadn't been an issue during the Enlightenment is absurd
Actually, by definition we can't create a new right, we either have them or we don't. And despite the rubbish claims of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it's at best unclear whether or not marriage is a right.
-In a free society, that which is not prohibited must be permitted, and nothing may be prohibited unless it can be shown to cause harm
In a free society, as the public and political restraints on the indivudal are lessened, the internal and personal restraints need to be increased. The purpose of a free society is not allowing us to run amok, but to give us the opportunity to develop virtue and the ethical life on our own. If we ever either fail at this or just stop trying, then the external restraints on our behavior have to be increased.

In the strict sense that we live in a reality characterized by cause and effect, it's correct to state that everything happens for rational reasons; this however is no excuse to rely on the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. To argue only that "there are reasons" is insufficient because reasons that had been valid in the past may have become obsolete, and because those reasons might have been based on invalid arguments or false premises from their inceptions. Indeed, a false belief or a valueless tradition may remain entrenched for thousands of years for no better reason than that generation after generation mindlessly assumes that the previous generations must have known what they'd been doing. To be rational is to hold every belief up to criticism and possible disproof. To accept any belief blindly, unchallenged, without critical thought, as you do whenever you exalt tradition for its own sake, is the essence of irrationality.

Note that this does not mean, as you appear to imply, entering into a novel situation and appealing to one's own ignorance to immediately claim that those who've come before have no greater understanding of that situation than your own (which is, incidentally, exactly what most creationists do every time they attempt to dispute evolution). What it does mean is that once armed with the facts, we're perfectly justified in arguing against any tradition with no deference whatsoever to its age. And it means that when a tradition is challenged, it's incumbent upon those who wish to defend that tradition to argue its valid reasons, not to fall back on fallacious appeals to tradition or authority.

"Traditions ... should only be changed if absolutely necessary, and even then only very slowly. And once a tradition is in place, the burden is not on those who keep living as people have lived in the past, but on those who want to change it. You've got to have a darn good reason to change something that's been the same way since at least the beginning of recorded history."

How did you come to conclude any of that? That sounds to me like nothing more than a statement of your own personal infatuation with tradition for its own sake. What reason do you have for making these sweeping claims? Every situation must be evaluated on its own merits. One tradition may be so harmful that reason or decency demand that it be done away with as quickly as possible. Another might better be dealt with slowly. A third might be worth preserving. And it bears noting that marriage has not "been the same way since at least the beginning of recorded history." Marriage has changed many times already, and there certainly are valid reasons for changing it again today. There are no good reasons for preventing that change.

"Actually, by definition we can't create a new right, we either have them or we don't."

Actually, that's not the definition of rights, that's a statement of your personal belief that natural rights exist and that those rights (however you may be defining them) are the only "real" rights. How have you come to the conclusion that the debate on the nature of rights has been conclusively settled, and settled in your favor? Even if we assume the existence of natural rights, it's absurd to deny that legal rights can be created, enforced, restricted, denied and taken away by governments.

"The purpose of a free society is not allowing us to run amok, but to give us the opportunity to develop virtue and the ethical life on our own."

Strawman followed by more groundless opinion. First of all, arguing for the creation of a new right, or for the expansion of an existing institution, is not advocating anarchy. Second of all, the purpose of society in general is to allow us to work cooperatively for our survival and prosperity as individuals and as a species. The purpose of freedom is to allow all of us to decide for ourselves what meaning we wish to give our lives and what goals to pursue. Freedom is not merely freedom from incarceration; freedom is the ability to control your own life. Behaving ethically should certainly be one of the goals that each of us follows, so that one person's freedom infringes as little as possible on the next person's, but if you're claiming that "virtue and the ethical life" must the one and only goal that each of us must pursue then I suspect that your idea of an ideal society would be a Christian version of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Traditions are there for a reason

Yes, two reasons.

1 - The tradition should be maintained because it is rational and beneficial.

2 - People are afraid of change.

Religion exists not for rational reasons, but because people are afraid of changing. They are afraid of looking at their belief system and examining it critically.

Hmm… this is getting a bit more political than is probably appropriate for this particular group. But! As I’m the one who up that door, why stop now? :)


“To argue only that ‘there are reasons’ is insufficient because reasons that had been valid in the past may have become obsolete.”
While it’s certainly true that the original reason for the creation of a tradition may have no longer be valid, that does not destroy the value of the tradition. We are historical creatures, formed in large part by our culture and tradition (and, given the group we’re having this discussion in, if you want the theological language: “God partially uses history, tradition, and culture in shaping us”). Every tradition contributes to part of who we are as individuals, including how we think (reason), feel (emotion), and desire (appetite). To assault a tradition is to assault a part of who we are as people. Attack part of what formed us, and we attack a part of ourselves. Attack the tradition that shaped us, and we attack our own reason, emotion, and appetite.
Of course, there are times when this is either right or necessary, but because of the damage we do to ourselves in undermining tradition, we ought to only do so carefully and slowly.
And, even more importantly, decisions to do so should be made only very carefully, and never in any kind of rational vacuum (not that there is such a thing), because, as Burke says, “we are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages.” (Reflections on the Revolution in France)


“ How did you come to conclude any of that? That sounds to me like nothing more than a statement of your own personal infatuation with tradition for its own sake. What reason do you have for making these sweeping claims?”

Not that I want this to turn into a “yes it is/no it isn’t argument”, but couldn’t one just as easily ask what reason you have for making your sweeping claims? If I’m “infatuated with tradition” (which I suppose I am, to a certain limited degree), couldn’t the argument just as easily be made that you’re “infatuated” with reason?
But, to answer your question, I have come to that conclusion through eight years of studying history, politics, philosophy and literature (particularly Classical and American Colonial/Founding stuff). Sudden disruptions of tradition and history are always traumatic for societies and individuals, and very often end in bloodshed (sometimes even horrendous bloodshed- cf. Revolutionary France, Nazi Germany, and pretty much any Communist country) that could have been avoided if only people had proceeded more cautiously and slowly.

“ How have you come to the conclusion that the debate on the nature of rights has been conclusively settled, and settled in your favor? Even if we assume the existence of natural rights, it's absurd to deny that legal rights can be created, enforced, restricted, denied and taken away by governments.”

Well, it’s not really “in my favor”, it’s just that there’s not a lot of argument in the Western world that “natural rights” are anything other than life, liberty, and property (I don’t know about places outside of the West). I think a lot of the confusion on this is the result of the increasing rhetoric of rights of the 20th century. Mary Glendon deals with this pretty well in her book: Rights Talk The Impoverishment of Political Discourse.
People like to claim that their “rights” have been violated, with no real idea of what “rights” are, which in turn causes a general cultural confusion on the nature of rights.

And certainly no one denies that legal (the word used is normally “civil”) rights can be created, enforced, etc. If they couldn't, American's wouldn't have the right to things like freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms. But, the question is, does that apply to marriage? And again, the answer seems to be “no.” Marriage is an institution (not a right) involving a man and a woman of the appropriate age and unrelated by blood. A state might pass a law recognizing something different (the Constitution gives the states the power and legitimate authority to do so), but such a relationship would not be a "marriage," no matter what label was put on it.

I should probably emphasize that I’m not disagreeing with the right of states to create some kind of civil category officially recognizing the relationships between people of the same sex (though I would likely vote against it should it ever come up in my state). I’m just arguing that 1) there’s no “natural right” of any kind to legitimate the claim that we should make such a law; 2) such a relationship would not be a marriage, no matter what the state calls it.

“ but if you're claiming that "virtue and the ethical life" must the one and only goal that each of us must pursue then I suspect that your idea of an ideal society would be a Christian version of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.”
I would argue the virtue thing only in political terms when discussing the goals and place of society in the life of the individual. I certainly wouldn’t want to confuse this with the Christian claims that we have already willingly failed to live the life of virtue, and desperately need forgiveness for that failure.

And not that I believe in an ideal society (there’s no such thing, the best we’ll ever get is a society that’s not completely terrible), but my personal political philosophy leans towards a Federalist (The Federalist Papers) structure with an Anti-Federalist culture (The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates).

um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??

good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"

Not if it discriminates against an entire group of people.

and thats kinda unAmerican... wanting to take away a persons freedom as human beings? remember Hitler and Osama Binladin?

Davis wrote: "good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"

Not if it discriminates against an entire group of people. "

its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH...we can say/do whatever we feel like doin and we rnt discriminating against a whole group of people we just dnt blieve wat they r doin iz rite

and we rnt taking away a persons freedom i mean u dnt hav 2 bcum a Christian its not like its required by law

hitler and osama bin laden r people not rleigions they r totally diff

"um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"
Remember that there are two things going on here, one religious and one political. As Americans, we have the freedom to believe and act how we want, within the boundaries of the law (and if we don't like the laws, there are processes by which they may be changed).

As Christians, it is our obligation first and foremost to share the Gospel, which means we are to tell everyone (including continually reminding ourselves of this great truth), that we have all angered God by our sinful lives. But, that God in his kindness and mercy has taken his own anger off of those who repent and believe and placed it on his son, Jesus Christ, on the cross. So that we need not pay the penalty for sins ourselves, but that if we embrace this good news, we can be at peace with God.
Part of this Gospel includes a careful explanation of what sin is, including the sinfulness of homosexuality (not that it's worse than any other sin- Christians are wrong to treat it like some kind of "super-sin"), and the opportunity God offers for forgiveness.
One of the wonderful blessings that God has given us in living in America, is that we as Christians have the right to encourage (not "force") the government to reflect moral realities. The means we have to do this are public discussion and our right to vote. Sometimes we will succeed in influencing society and politics, sometimes we won't, but our obligations are always the same.

good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "Davis wrote: "good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"

Not if it discriminates against an entire..."

so you're saying that allowing some people to marry and others can never just cause they're a certain way is not discriminating? also you cant DO whatever you want. and you're a person that is part of a religon that doesnt want gays to have equal rights, just like
Hitler and Osama.

Coyle wrote: ""um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"
Remember that there are two things going on here, one religious and one political. As Americ..."

so you want to influence America to be christian and either run the other religions to some place else or convert people to christianity. i dont think its right to vote on subjects of today by addressing a book written thousands of years ago.

Max wrote: "good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "Davis wrote: "good charlotte rox!! *leah* wrote: "um im not gonna read all that but um dont we (Christians) hav a rite 2 believe wat we wnt 2 believe??"

Not if ..."

we want gays 2 hav equal rites and stuff...we jsut dnt support their way of thinking!!! everyone deserves 2 hav equal rites, gay or not. just cause we don't believe that being gay is rite, that doesnt mean that we want them to hav any less rites than us. they r humans too.

also, hitler was against a whole religion for no darn reason. we rnt against a religion, nor r we against gays, as i explained above