Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

"Human Beings are not flies. Should the vast majority allow their ideals to be usurped by a very miniscule, but semantically gifted minority?"

I just meant it as an analogy. Or didn't you bother to read the whole post again?

"the vast majority", "semantically gifted minority".. I'm not blessed with the gift of understanding as was obvious from my previous posts, so you'll need to spell it out a bit clearer for me, who's what now?

bad analogy.
everyone knows (or at least I thought so) that you can't legislate morality. We agree, and I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you...I surely didn't mean to.
I wonder what everyone's idea of progress is, especially in a forum of anachronistic straight razor affecionados.

Why is it a bad analogy?

It seems everyone does not, since FUD says the opposite. You didn't offend me, I wouldn't know where, same goes for FUD.(but maybe that wasn't meant for me)

Now it seems to me that a lot of people have the same type of faith in science that I have in my God.

Take evolution, the simple fact that we share 95% of our genes with a type of monkey proves absolutely nothing. I've read that figure as well. It was presented by a scientist. He also (at the same time) explained that we share about 80% of our dna with some type of caterpillar....so does that mean that we're also related to the caterpillar? Of course not! There are just about as many holes in every theory that explains our existance. If you'd have read a bit more in depth about the subject you'd also know that the fact that there are still monkeys also makes the idea that we came from monkeys highly unlikable. Evolution is just like anything else a simple theory. Don't make an absolute truth out of something that still can't be proven as certain.

Now if you'd want to teach THAT in school etc and say: one of our theories is evolution, that means that.....
another one is..... and also..... etc.

I'd have no problem with that.
But don't call a theorie an absolute truth and then chase it with religion like fervor.

As for Gay mariage, sorry Joe, but even living in the Netherlands i'm against it. I have my reasons for it but I still don't believe that this is the place to discuss it. It's too impersonal and won't bring my real opinion across as it should. I believe that anyone can do as they please, yes that is true. But I don't believe that this is right or should be encouraged by law as if it's normal. I've said too much already I fear because some seem to be out on a witch hunt themselves.

Have a nice day gentlemen, this was my last reply to this topic. If you have anything to say to me you can pm, e-mail or even call me if you wish and I'd love to talk about it furthermore. But not here, and not now.

I personally do not see why science and belief God absolutely have to exclude each other. The problem is that some people take that if you don't blindly believe in everything you read in the Bible means that you don't believe in God. Also, just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution or any other scientific principle.

goin home, do some christmas shopping...
I looked over FUD's posts . . . thanks, FUD, thanks all...

Originally Posted by FUD

I came back from the hospital to take a shower and skimmed over all this. I probably missed out on a great deal of it but here's a few key points.

1) the united states government was founded on religious principles.

Let me start out by saying that I don't want to stress you at this difficult time. Apparently, you feel up to it, so I'm responding normally.

Our government was most definitely not founded on religious principles! If anything is clear, it's that religion is not supposed to be impeded or aided by the government, so religious princples must be kept out. What our government was founded on is humanism: the dignity and rights of men. That is something that was foreign to governments at the time and continues to be so to many.

2) It is most certainly the job of ANY government to impose morality upon the citizens of that government.

Again, that's not the job of government. The job of government is to protect society and enforce the law. Although there is overlap between law and morality, at least with respect to things that are necessary for society to survive, like preventing murders, rapes, robberies, etc., it's not based in anyones morals, but taking steps to protect the members of society against wrong doing. Perceptions of unlawfulness will undoubtedly change with moral standards of the society. For example, the outlawing of racial discrimination. However, other than harmful wrongs, society cannot legislate morals.

3) I have never said I'm not prejudice at all. I am scientifically prejudice.

I know you said it, but I suggest it's something that needs to examined. As with morality, legislating based on science is problematic. Some of the most abusive acts have been based on what was asserterd to be science. I gave the specific example of Nazi exterminations being based on scientific principals, accepted by that society society, relating to the superiority of Arians and the need to protect the race.

4) I would again caution everyone against throwing or even insinuating insults. We're all adults here and should always treat each other with respect.

Agreed, but attacking a factual presentation with other facts, no matter how strongly presented, is not an insult. Attacking a person is.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

it's not the place of government to impose moral beliefs.

It is if the majority of citizens say it is, the whole idea of representative government is that the government reflects or REPRESENTS the majority of the citizens. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion not matter what current usage seems to be.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

This is a fallacious argument. Every government has the right to control marriage because it has legal consequences.

Just because it uses the same word as the Bible doesn't mean it impacts on the Bible in any way. Insisitng on not allowing the same name for a gay union is just another way of denigrating homosexual union. In law, when you give something a different name, it invites different treatment at some point. If it bothers you so much, the only fair thing would be to eliminate "marriage" as a legal term and call everything a union.

Calling everything a union would be fine. Marriage in many religions holds a key place, and it is extremely denigrating to these believers to be lumped with what they consider the most base of sinners. To them the secular consequences of marriage are as unimportant as to gays they are key. If you grant gays the secular benefits of marriage they have all they want or can have, if you do it without effecting peoples religious beliefs they won't even care and this whole debate would deserve to be moot.

It is if the majority of citizens say it is, the whole idea of representative government is that the government reflects or REPRESENTS the majority of the citizens. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion not matter what current usage seems to be.

you should be glad democracies have minority protection built in, you never know when you're the minority, you may already be one.

Your second point is easy to refute, religions do not have the monopoly on either the word 'marriage' or its concept, it existed before many of todays main religions including christianity, so you have no right to divide people by reserving 'marriage' for only 1 group. 'marriage' in this society is a contract by 2 people and the government, a government which in such may not discriminate if all criteria are met. "Church marriage" is a religious happening/moment. You can still have a church marriage and your church still is allowed to decide who they marry and who they refuse to.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion

It means exactly that in the case of an atheist or an agnostic and it also means that you, he or she will have to accept and respect the muslim or satanist next door, while he/she does the same for you.

Originally Posted by harold

you should be glad democracies have minority protection built in, you never know when you're the minority, you may already be one.

This is a common misconception. Minorities are only protected as long as the majority feels it is a good or moral thing to do.

Originally Posted by harold

Your second point is easy to refute, religions do not have the monopoly on either the word 'marriage' or its concept, it existed before many of todays main religions including christianity,

In most religious societies one of the key beliefs upon which all is based upon is that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" so there is nothing before that.

Originally Posted by harold

so you have no right to divide people by reserving 'marriage' for only 1 group. 'marriage' in this society is a contract by 2 people and the government, a government which in such may not discriminate if all criteria are met. "Church marriage" is a religious happening/moment. You can still have a church marriage and your church still is allowed to decide who they marry and who they refuse to.

What society are you talking about? There again you are only adressing the secular side of the issue.

Originally Posted by harold

It means exactly that in the case of an atheist or an agnostic and it also means that you, he or she will have to accept and respect the muslim or satanist next door, while he/she does the same for you.

Wrong again. You don't have to accept them or respect them at all, you are only required to leave them alone if they want you to and thats all you have the right to expect of them. They shouldn't have to cater to your beliefs as well.