Separation of church and state. We do not need religion to tell us that murder is wrong. I'm sorry if you were raised to think otherwise.
No, it's really not. Some of us get married because we love each other, and for no other reason. I'd wager 99% of married couple didn't get married just to have children.
Were your parents divorced when you were very young? If not, you really just need to stop trying to understand.
He is not saying that you cannot grow up and be normal or successful being from a single parent home (or a same sex couple home) just that the odds are better if you do. I, like you came from a split home and see his point, it would have easier if my parents raised me together because there are several things about life that I had to learn through hard knocks instead of learning them through watching my dad.
YOu don't understand the concept of separation of church and state. That concept does not require ignorance about religion or ignoring religious considerations when laws are adopted.
Again, what some couples do doesn;t mean that most couples have children, and society is entitled to create the institution before children enter the picture knowing that most will. I wonder what you think your point is.
No, you don't understand. While an openly atheist politician will never be president during my lifetime, unfortunately, the entire concept of freedom of religion makes it imperative that religion not impact law. It may not have worked out that way, but that was clearly the intent.
Big Blocker is correct. You misunderstand the premise.... Freedom FROM Religion was never contemplated. Federal Coercion of Religion was verboten.
Considering your post makes almost 0 sense, I'm not sure what your point is. Marriage is a bond between 2 people that want to spend their lives together. That is the long and short of it. Children are not a direct result of that, as unmarried couples have children all the time, and married couples choose not to have children all the time. Those unmarried couples get the same tax credits that married couples do for those children. In the eyes of the law, children have nothing to do with marriage. If you want to dispute that, have at it.
No, that's not how it works at all, nor was that how it was "intended" to work. Freedom of religion is exactly that.. people are free to practice their religion without their customs being infringed upon and without government persecution. THAT'S IT. This is a democratic society.. the decision of the majority influences law and social norms. People's beliefs dictate their decisions, ergo religion influences law. It is unavoidable. The freedom of religion simply ensures the sphere of influence of a particular religion will not become so large as to ostracize and infringe the religious rights of others.
I have a couple questions that got a lot of play in the Prop 8 case by experts on both sides: If marriage was instituted and has traditionally existed as a man-woman relationship, does allowing same sex marriage change the fundamental nature of that relationship? That is to say - if you take an Oldsmobile and repair it with Buick parts, do you still have an Oldsmobile? Or do you have something else? Sort of a metaphysical look at the issue, but that leads to a different issue and a bigger question: Since gay marriage is a relatively new concept to society, we don't really have a lot of data on the effects of gay marriage on society. Is it rational or not to maintain the tradition as presently defined simply because we don't know what would happen in the abstract?
Well my god tells me marriage should be about love between two people. I wish I could live long enough for the mass awakening. Any law influenced by religion should be stricken from the books. Laws should be based on logic and common sense, unhindered by mythology.
While I like the thoughtiness those give me, I think they distract from the basic point. We always tend to over complicate things.
OK, I can accept that. So, if we accept that all of the heterosexual married couples that are going to have children have them, be that through natural course or adoption, then we're still left with a surfeit of children. What do you want to do with them? You think the state is a better carer than a committed, loving same sex couple? Also, you seem to be stuck on this idea that if same sex couples can't marry they'll see the error of their ways and find themselves a nice member of the opposite gender to cuddle up and have puppies with.
But those are the questions - among others - that are being played out right now. And when gays are allowed to get "married" or have "civil unions" it seems that it will revolve around those questions.
I'm not sure the first question is reasonable. Your original Oldsmobile is unaffected, you're actually just asking Oldsmobile to make a coupe as well as a sedan. An addition to the Oldsmobile line doesn't affect the suitability of the original model to do the job for which you bought it.
I know you are a well read, thoughtful guy. But do you disagree that we, not just as Americans, but as a species tend to over complicate things?
That's just foolish! First, there is alot of crossover between religious ideals and commom sense. Second, most religions help create a moral, charitable, safer, kinder, selfless society. If that has influanced our laws then we are better for it. Just because you do not believe in something does not mean it has not helped make the society you live in better.
