Most western countries have crosses in their flags and Christianity is at the heart of most laws they write, dating back 2013 years.
The Bible had always been the starting point when it comes to behavior laws.
Pierce Morgan asked the wrong scholar about homosexuality (Dr. Browne)
- Thread starter valet
- Start date
Most western countries have crosses in their flags and Christianity is at the heart of most laws they write, dating back 2013 years.
The Bible had always been the starting point when it comes to behavior laws.
...crosses because the churches funded and organized them.
Most western countries have crosses in their flags and Christianity is at the heart of most laws they write, dating back 2013 years.
The Bible had always been the starting point when it comes to behavior laws.
This has NOTHING to do with the evolution of codified law.
MIND YOU... kings and queens derived their "rule" from "god" so of course thats how they reinforce their dominance.
AGAIN...(if you knew anything about the magna carta) then you'd know that codified law has evolved LONG since the bible has ever had any influence.
valet
The official Chaplain of the Coli
I don't have a problem with your view of some things should be allowed/some not. I think that should be at the heart of this debate. What should be allowed and not? Instead of automatically saying that if you don't wanna allow certain type of marriages then it means you're a (insert name calling here)
marriage is a government concept that helps to resolve legal disputes over kids and property and inheritance issues...so I don't see what the harm is in extending that to couples who for all intents and purposes already pool resources, gay or not.
The problem is that with genetics, WE KNOW you're risking the wellbeing of that child.
FOR NOW, my stance is that they shouldn't allow incest.
valet
The official Chaplain of the Coli
I can see your view on genetics and well being when it comes to incest marriage. But again, I ask why can't that same leeway/benefit of the doubt come with some who oppose gay marriage. One might look at well being when it comes to depriving a child of its natural mother and father for example. Not saying you agree with that (though studies might prove otherwise, idk). But again, when it comes to debate with most. Either you're for it or you're at hatemonger or whatever name you want to assert.
Both Napoleon and Chris B are incorrect. Roman Canon Law makes up for modern legal systems.
because single parenting always has existed and kids are not inherently always fortunate to be raised by a mother and father.
I accept that some are against the concept, but if you're gonna be against "gay marriage" then be against "gay sex...and being gay in general"
You might as well out-law homosexuality if you're gonna be against gay marriage cause all they wanna do is pool resources.
NOPE!
unless you're refering to the same "roman canon" that led to the creation of the angelican church or luteranism or hell...that just apologized to galileo in 1995
believe in a man licking your booty Hole brehs
Just for clarification, i am actually not a Christian in the sense that I literally believe there is a father figure in the sky the that watches over us. I view God more in the sense of political philosophy (i am sure i will get ridiculed here for this). What makes "christian morality" so profound is that it creates a something outside of ourselves...something greater so we don't become destructive narcissists.
I don't really care what your view is. I'm more interested in whether such an entity exists and even further why we should listen to it or try and communicate with it.
Good, so I won't have to start.
1. not all religions are unique in this aspect
2. atheists aren't nihilists
3. not being religious doesn't mean you lack a sense of existential direction or emotional compass.
Its like you haven't reconciled the notion that you can be religious AND have a sense of aim/drive for humanity...it also sounds like you think christianity exists in a bubble in which its unique and progressive. Its neither.
You're right. Although i would still classify myself as a Right-Libertarian, the more i read and the more i am honest with myself i am starting to lean more and more towards paleoconservatism. I still have Libertarian sympathies because i don't think you can be authoritarian over human behaviour, but that is why "Christian Morality" is so powerful, it gives us something outside of ourselves.
"Post-Enlightenment Humanism" simply sounds like an extension of Liberal Progressivism which champions diversity, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and moral relativism as it's belief systems. Moral and cultural relativism are probably the intellectual and philosophical scourges of our time. To say that all things are equal and all view points matter, or that all humans function the same is a disastrous way to look at the world and create policy. The problem with having an empty "post enlightenment" society is that certain groups will always push and capture the social and cultural narrative, in the process, they will infringe on others "natural rights". This is were the concept of natural rights actually fails.. i.e, the kids at certain universities getting white privilege bracelets certainly aren't enjoying the same level of "post enlightenment humanism" as others might be.
Liberal Progressives and Libertarians are simply Gods enemies fighting Gods enemies.
valet
The official Chaplain of the Coli
Sure single parenting has always existed. But we give more "breaks" so to speak to married couples when they have kids. Gay married couple would have the same advantages as heterosexual couples. Even though in essence they're being raised by single parent (not the natural 2 parents).
I guess it depends on what you mean about against. If you mean it should be illegal (like thrown in jail), then I don't see how the 2 are same. Being against gay marriage doesn't follow that it should be against the law to have gay sex.
What about barren couples?
and yes...I completely understand your argument as its the only legitimate non-religious argument I've seen.
BUT...Its not something I'll consider at the end of the day. I think couples should be able to still pool their money because when it comes down to it, a lot of them still have things like inheritance, medical emergency access and health benefits, and cohabitation rights that I think are worth granting.
Sure...tax benefits should be granted to kids, I don't see why gays can't get the other stuff.
I don't really care what your view is. I'm more interested in whether such an entity exists and even further why we should listen to it or try and communicate with it. Good, so I won't have to start.
1. not all religions are unique in this aspect
2. atheists aren't nihilists
3. not being religious doesn't mean you lack a sense of existential direction or emotional compass.
Its like you haven't reconciled the notion that you can be religious AND have a sense of aim/drive for humanity...it also sounds like you think christianity exists in a bubble in which its unique and progressive. Its neither.
If modern society is not narcissistic how do you reconcile the collapse of Christian morality and the rise of "Hook-Up" culture?