Fiel Wrote:And there's where I disagree with you, Frozzy.

Getting married is something that is done before a deity. The two being able to be treated as one pair is done legally. You can still get married today before God and never file marriage papers. You will be married before God and not men. Likewise, you can get a civil union and be together legally but not in the eyes of God (or whatever deity you believe). It is possible that these two things can become separate. But it takes a whole hell of a lot of political wrangling for it to happen. This is what conservatives mean when it "destroys the sanctity of marriage" because it really does change the definition of what a marriage means in America (married before both God and man).

So getting married is wholly different from a civil union. A civil union is not marriage in the slightest.

But since we're only arguing over definitions and not actually each other's arguments, I suppose my definitions are rather pointless.

Shidoshi Wrote:Question, how does it work if you want to marry but you don't belong to the most widespread religion in the US? Do you just take it with your religion and with the government?
So could you simply pretend that you belong to a religion you created in which gay marriage is possible and then file papers with the city hall? (this would mainly be for couples that are not thoroughly religious).

I mean, say there is a certain religion that's fine with gay marriage, can you marriage under it on the US currently or do you have to abide by the official religion?

Shidoshi Wrote:Question, how does it work if you want to marry but you don't belong to the most widespread religion in the US? Do you just take it with your religion and with the government?
So could you simply pretend that you belong to a religion you created in which gay marriage is possible and then file papers with the city hall? (this would mainly be for couples that are not thoroughly religious).

I mean, say there is a certain religion that's fine with gay marriage, can you marriage under it on the US currently or do you have to abide by the official religion?

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Full separation of church and state won't happen due to the flaws of human beings being well... humans. People have beliefs from all walks of life, different faiths, and philosophical values they bring in to a public office to use as an example for morals and socially acceptable ethical behaviors they reflect back onto society to prove themselves as a good leader who is focused on the well being of the people.

The problem is if you go too far to either side which is (A) church becoming part of government in which you can have a situation where church's focus become a national ideology (example: Islam and Iran) and can have the opportunity to oppress and control population using the power of the church to influence, or you have (B) a government that focuses solely on the advancement of the country at the expense of it's population without regard for social issues and is willing to do anything to advance regardless of who is hurt or the cost of life (example: The Borg - Star Trek Franchise).

While those are the extremes, they aren't too far off at times as when leaderships change, as like in this country, there is some flexibility to how the next leader leads and allows government to function but mixes in personal beliefs to use a level of better judgment and ethics to relate to the people and allow the country to advance but keep people's well being in mind. You could actually say for effectiveness, you have to have a small mixture of church with government in a flexible amount to get it just right.

If you want to use an analogy, a normal 16 oz. glass of chocolate milk calls for 4 tablespoons of chocolate powder mix according to directions on the package, but some people like to use maybe only 3.5 tablespoons while others might use 4.5 tablespoons to get the chocolate milk to their specific taste, but not too much where the chocolate flavor is too strong and could make you sick, or too little where there is no taste leaving the flavor flat and bland. It's in that flexibility there is harmony and balance.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:As an Athiest, I can confirm that athiests do have morals and the ability to respect others, and I think more individualisticly rather than advanting the whole. I can also say that excessive religious fundamentalism can lead to a result similar to the borg. I'll take an example from American "lotteries." People use to believe in having a lottery to decide upon a member of their villiage to sacrifice for the greater whole. It didnt matter if killing was wrong, or whether this ritual would bring forth a good harvest or not. They simply followed their religious beliefs blindly and killed off a few of their people for the belief that the community as a whole would benefit.

Quote:An athiest may say to a religious man oh it's only fear of your imagined diety that holds you to the confines of your religion, just as someone may say to an athiest it's just fear of the possible consequences that keeps you from complete hedonism and taking whatever you will.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:I never said lack of religion means lack of morals. In fact religion is NOT the same as faith and beliefs. Religion teaches a way of life within the values of faith and beliefs, nothing more. The fact people use religion as a crutch or excuse is appalling, even to me.

Atheism is a broad term in fact, often too broad to actually have a true definition. It can mean anywhere from anti-religion to anti-deity. Faith and values can be present even in a person claiming atheism. Focus of those faith a values can vary from the self to society. Even some people could say due to this Atheism is in fact a religion of sorts even if denied by those who practice it.

Let me use me for an example: By religious teachings, I'm a heretic gnostic. I am a Christian who has abandoned religion in favor of faith. My focus on my deity (God in this view point) is learned from religion, it is only keep to me by faith because I know there are things of this universe and it's dynamics mankind is never going to understand, nor explain. Should I not have some fallback to the unknown, or was that my free-will to choose that there is some force, entity, and power beyond my knowledge that is there? I feel I should. But, I never go to church, I don't agree with everything religion teaches. I feel there is lots of bigotry, hate, intolerance, and even hypocritical at times in religion.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Ah... but I ask a question... even if there is no deity, do you still hold things like criminal acts and anti-social behavior as wrong?

The problem with the whole thing is as was stated earlier... any two people can form a Legal Civil Union. the issue is the term Marriage which is not a social problem but a religious one. The whole focus of the battle is against society to say marriage and civil unions are the same thing, which by definition they are similar, but they are not the same.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Ah... but I ask a question... even if there is no deity, do you still hold things like criminal acts and anti-social behavior as wrong? The scientific method can not prove everything. It's like the argument on Black Holes. Does a Black Hole compress space down to an infinitesimal point as according to Quantum Mechanics and even Physics show, or is there a bottom? If so, how can we explain something that in infinite equation? Just because no proof exists to something not being there, doesn't equal the fact that it "could" be there and it just hasn't been found. So do you jump in the black hole and prove the theory or do you say the science is sound but infinity's equation is unexplainable?

Shidoshi Wrote:Just to be a bit of a devil's advocate: what reasons you can give pro gay marriage that couldn't be used pro polygamy?

Stereo Wrote:Having a child a separate issue though.

Jamie_Kurosawa Wrote:Ah... but I ask a question... even if there is no deity, do you still hold things like criminal acts and anti-social behavior as wrong? The scientific method can not prove everything. It's like the argument on Black Holes. Does a Black Hole compress space down to an infinitesimal point as according to Quantum Mechanics and even Physics show, or is there a bottom? If so, how can we explain something that in infinite equation? Just because no proof exists to something not being there, doesn't equal the fact that it "could" be there and it just hasn't been found. So do you jump in the black hole and prove the theory or do you say the science is sound but infinity's equation is unexplainable?

The problem with the whole thing is as was stated earlier... any two people can form a Legal Civil Union. the issue is the term Marriage which is not a social problem but a religious one. The whole focus of the battle is against society to say marriage and civil unions are the same thing, which by definition they are similar, but they are not the same. The focus is misguided in my opinion. I don't see it wrong they should share a life together, but what they should do is focus on gaining acceptance from religious leaders, organizations, and groups to have them say the marriage term does apply, not society.