When religion strangles the life out of people, they will find ways around it (Page 2)

davesdatahut: Shadow, denying equal rights under the law based on who someone wants to love IS bigotry. Just as it was bigotry to deny the same thing based on skin color. You can cloak it all you want in the banner of morality. But that's just a cloak. Lift up the cloak and the cries of alleged immorality are utter crap because the religious have no greater call on morality than the non-religious, just as straights have no greater claim to morality than gays.

Zanjan: Shadow: " It always seems to come down to the same three things - gay marriage, gay marriage, and gay marriage."

Actually, that's only for individuals like Dave, who use every topic to rant on about it, never having made a single point to support it as a viable institution.

Yes, what a strange world when individuals just up and invent brand new personal rights then demand the world kowtows to them. Not once have they considered that even when they get their paper, nothing has changed for them insofar as their place in society and relationship to other humans. (a true fact, revealed by societies where gay marriage is legal)

Of course, smoking marijuana and prostitution are other new legal rights in a few countries, not given by religions. Yet where it's legal, that doesn't imply the industry is respectable, it's members do an honest day's work, or that prostitutes are no longer people of questionable virtue.

As for old rights that are no longer feasible: in the USA, people aren't willing to let go of their primitive right to bear arms, any kind of arms in any situation, despite the glaring facts of lack of training in ordinance and consistent inability, as a nation, to show proper responsibility. The price is massive loss of the lives innocent, unarmed citizens. Friendly fire. How clever!

Zanjan: By all means, let all civilians have total liberty and free reign to do exactly as they please - what you have is strife, division, deadly preventable accidents, sedition and chaos -> the new morality. That pretty much sinks any nation from the inside.

Zanjan: If God had not given man free will, none of this would have happened. Neither would anyone be able to learn from errors.

God, for the happiness of all, respectfully requests man to use the gift of free will to behave in a certain manner; for those who don't know how to achieve that, He gives them a way.

You have only one lifetime to figure this out for yourself, if you actually make it as far as your normal lifespan.

davesdatahut: Invention of new rights, Zanjan? Seriously? You seriously think that gay marriage is an 'invention' of 'brand new personal rights?' Are you that phenomenally self-righteous and uninformed that you call this an 'invention' of rights.
Here is what the 216-year-old U.S. Constitution has to say about rights. It's been hammered home in this thread so many times. But it bears copying the full text of the 14th Amendment to this great and enduring document:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

NO state shall deny ANY person EQUAL protection under the laws. Those laws include laws covering marriage. The Constitution doesn't lay out each and every right granted by law. It says whatever laws are made MUST cover all citizens equally.
You can hide behind your self-proclaimed morality and declare gay marriage some invention of new rights. But it's not. It's the application of a right granted 216 years ago - the right to be treated equally under the law. The same protection that would be granted to you, were you to be a citizen of this country.

Neither I, nor anyone, need prove gay marriage to be a viable institution because that is not a requirement for equal protection. We wouldn't be able to anyway because it's been illegal in most states until recently. So out the window goes that spurious argument.

To top things off, in your usual application of faith-based bigotry, you liken gay marriage to smoking pot and whoring. Really? Gay marriage is to be discussed in the same breath? What is the matter with you that you can be THAT inhumane?
Or immoral.
At long last, have you NO decency when it comes to people who love differently than you/ None?

shadowline: "denying equal rights under the law based on who someone wants to love IS bigotry. Just as it was bigotry to deny the same thing based on skin color. You can cloak it all you want in the banner of morality. But that's just a cloak. Lift up the cloak and the cries of alleged immorality are utter crap because the religious have no greater call on morality than the non-religious, just as straights have no greater claim to morality than gays."

This would indeed be quite true, IF it had ever been demonstrated that homosexuality is inborn and physical in basis. That's why the attempt goes on so assiduously to demonstrate that. But in all the decades that medical researchers have looked for the elusive gay gene they have found nothing, and I wouldn't call it an unreasonable guess, at this point, that that is because no gay gene exists.

That makes homosexuality a form of behaviour, not an analogue to race. Comparisons to skin colour simply don't wash. Homosexuality is a psychological condition, not a race. Nothing we know about it suggests that it is Nature's doing in any way whatsoever, unless the same thing can be said for alcoholism and kleptomania.

And I didn't say that the religious had any claim to be more moral than anyone else. I simply observed that they believe in a specific morality. To try to demonize that as bigotry because you happen to want indulged what they want chastised....is bigotry.

davesdatahut: Shadow, what you wrote is absolutely, positively, unequivocally wrong under the laws of the United States.
The Constitution mandates, as noted in the prior post above, that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It does not limit these laws to people whose behavior is "inborn and physical in basis" or considered moral. It says the laws must apply to "any person" within the jurisdiction of a set of laws. ANY person. Not certain persons. Or persons behaving according to what medical research deems inborn. ANY person. What part of ANY person is unclear?.
To deny equal application of the laws is grossly unconstitutional. As such, unequal application of marriage laws deserves to be struck down as violating the law.
Morality has NOTHING to do with it because your morality may be different than mine, which may be different than someone else's.
Evem if morality somehow should be part of the equation, what do you do about the following people who act immorally under many definitions of morality:
liars, cheaters, adulterers and masturbaters. And alcoholics and kleptomaniacs, to use your example.
Are you prepared to strike them off the list of marital material?
How bout convicts? They're allowed to get married and I don' hear you opposing that. Surely they've acted immorally, no? All I hear you opposing is the idea that two men or women who kiss and have sex with each other can't marry.
So, as we close this circle, all we are left with is - presto magnifico - faith-based bigotry and nothing more.

shadowline: Dave, you are talking like a school boy. You are including under the category of rights what does not merit that inclusion. The matter is controversial and is under discussion, but a simple assumption that indulgence of whatever your sexual proclivities may be qualifies as a right does not make it one. That's why the matter is controversial and under discussion. "Any person" does not mean any form of behaviour. If it did then Al Capone would have had the right to massacre his business rivals.

There are reasons why six women cannot marry seven men in your country, and there are reasons why a mother cannot marry her own son. No one's rights are being denied by those legal prohibitions. That two people of the same sex cannot marry has been among those prohibitions for as long as Biblical morality has been influential in the West (although as far as I know it has until recently been under prohibition in ever culture on earth, whatever the source of their morality) and that is now changing. Perhaps it should change, and perhaps it should not. But it is merely childish to suppose that there is no reason to have a problem with it.

It is an entirely relevant point that homosexuality is not known, and cannot be proven, to be anything other than a psychological condition which many psychologists would still describe as a pathological adjustment. That makes it a form of behaviour which may or may not be properly categorized under the heading of right. Fraud and misrepresentation are not rights. Assault and battery are not rights. Grand theft auto is not a right for which a state must provide justification. Indulging pathological adjustments is not a right, it is probably not wise, and legalizing for it strikes some people as dangerous.

But apart from all that, my point about morality was not that it should be decisive in forming laws. I was simply making the observation that trying to dismiss someone's moral beliefs as bigotry is ignorant and stupid...and bigoted. Morality is not bigotry, whether it plays a role in forming laws or not. Morality is a standard of right and wrong and a sincerely held belief, whether it refers to sex with your boyfriend or beating your wife. It is not bigoted to disapprove of either.

davesdatahut: Ok, Shadow, talk to me about robbers, assaulters, car thieves and Al Capone They're not practicing inborn behaviors and they're not behaving according to any form of biblical morality.
Should they be allowed to get married?
How about adulterers and masturbaters. They ain't followin no biblical morality.
Should they be allowed to get married?
How bout it, Shadow. You got any problems with that? Or is it just the gays whose marriage you can't stomach?
PS - I'm not dismissing anyone's belefs about morality. Just calling em what they are when they seek to treat people as second-class citizens.

chronology: davedata. Gays will no doubt be a little gloomy when they study the history of 'illigitamacy' in regards to marriage Law.

I used to think it was pretty streight forward. A woman who had a baby outside marriage considered an 'imoral fornicator or adulterer' and the child was called a 'bastard' .

But it is way more complex than that. If a couple have a 'full devorce' where the marriage was annuled, then any children born to them instantly became bastards and lost their rights to be called by their fathers name, even if he was their father.

And hey, it gets more complex, any children born to devorced and remarried couples are not considered legitimate in some countries.

Curiously, Islamic countries led the way in treating iligitimate children humanly, 'a man should not suffer for the sins of his immoral parents' is the view of many Islamic scholars. No doubt Muslims considered the brutal treatment of bastards in England until recently as completely inhuman; 'the only prospect a bastard in England can hope for is to be confined to a work house then be a social outcast all his life' observed one comentator.

And with often 'shocking' revelations of DNA tests these days, there are a lot more people, often perfectly respectable, waitng to join the ranks of the outcast.

The church 'making people bastards' puzzled me; 'how can a man or woman be 'made' a bastard' I asked one Guy, 'because the church decrease that his or her parents were never married in the first place' he told me. Weird.

As said, it is not just the low life in the ghettos who have had their lives trashed by the church like that, even perfectly respectable men and women have.

Zanjan: "equal protection of the laws."

That's "equal protection UNDER the law. That means existing legislation, in particular, applying to persons who haven't breached the laws. Obviously, there are conditions under the law where a former protection will be withdrawn or not be granted without meeting certain conditions under that law.

Each state and province has power to legislate laws under its own jurisdiction. The government decides the national and regional jurisdiction of a matter. For now, the US government has permitted the people to have power in their region on this issue - gays in the USA want that freedom removed.

Canada once had this freedom, not anymore. We didn't mind, provided civil marriage certificates reflected the same information everyone else is required to have on theirs. Gays don't - they figure they're special and shouldn't have to ID their gender.

Why? Are they not proud of who they are and what they're doing? There's that, and the fact they want to make sure nobody can track their divorce rate.

We've been over this a dozen times in the other topic but it falls on deaf, one-trick pony ears.

davesdatahut: So what is your point Zanjan, that current laws must stand regardless of whether they are constitutional? As long as a state passes a law, it must stand, no matter whether it adheres to or conflicts with the Constitution?

Zanjan: How often people hide under cover of a religion to receive some of its perks and privileges. Yes, there is always a back door entry; civil laws have plenty of loopholes to make that even more attractive, though it's very costly to pay lawyers their wages.

Sure everyone has their own sense of morality but common moral standards of a society have always existed; no matter how often they change, the majority of the population will hold to it. Even so, some aspects of morality are universal and never change - they're a constant set of virtues, no matter how many ignore them.

What we've been seeing is a major shift in loyalties to the universal morality of mankind. This has caused a shuffling into little circles, then these circles merge until there are only two significant positions and there's a huge abyss between them.

davesdatahut: Whatever that last post means, Zanjan, the question to you has to do with the how laws stand or fall.
What is your view on whether current laws must stand regardless of whether they are constitutional? As long as a state passes a law, must it stand, no matter whether it adheres to or conflicts with the Constitution?

Zanjan: Dave, some old laws will go, some new laws will be made; but, it's the mindset and environmental issues affecting the majority that determines these decisions. A civil law is not always just and sometimes it's dead wrong; it can be reversed once the results are seen IF the government isn't corrupt.

I remember a recent incident where a law was made that didn't stand more than 2 weeks - I figure it was the government's attempt to see how gullible the people were. We've had the abortion law flip flop a few times and I expect it will happen again soon.

However, I don't think it's wise to use a whole country as guinea pigs. The standard application is to do what is in the best interest of all the people under the given jurisdiction, not just a few. I think putting it to a vote is a good idea.

As was said before, the constitution can't cover everything, certainly not the mindset of the people. I've been following with great interest the new movement in the USA to eliminate the public flying of the confederate flag. This is in response to the church massacre, a couple days ago. Today, well over 200,000 people, some from all over the world have signed the petition.

See, I'd always thought that was rebellious bumper sticker and T-Shirt stuff but when hearing how Americans still fly it in the South, I was stunned. Some sectors in the same country are like a different country altogether, and very slow to catch on to what even the smallest of symbols can perpetuate in the minds of psychologically unstable individuals.

In my experience, the Constitution has been used and manipulated more by criminals than good people. Anyone can use it to walk free when they're totally guilty of wrong doing - have seen it happen lots.

davesdatahut: Zanjan, are you suggesting that the rights of different people to do different things be put to a vote? And that's where it ends? No court review? Just let the people vote on who has the right to do what? Let the majority decide, regardless of the impact on the minority?

Zanjan: Yes, because the government is usually ignorant of what the MAJORITY want - it's their job to serve and represent the people as a collective. You can't foist anything on a people before they're ready for it or there will be hell to pay.

That's why dictatorships don't work and why democratic principle must recognize and respect demographics. While minorities (which could be any size) have a voice, they must demure to the majority. A united country is not based on "us and them".

Zanjan: There are times when the government has to take logistical action to run the country. For example, when our federal government instituted the International Trade Act and Metric System, there was a lot of complaining, crying, and screaming because it was very difficult to adjust to the change. Businesses were seriously affected in the short term but in the long term, it was a tremendous improvement.

On the flip side, we're more than ready to eliminate the Senate and will be very happy to see it go since Senate reform through public watchdog pressure has failed. We can change things by voting for politicians who support our view but we can't do that for social issues.

Of course, none of the aforementioned are social issues, which are a lot touchier. Thankfully, the crimes of suicide and certain forms of sexual practice have been abolished; while those absurd laws were self-nullifying because they weren't executable, they managed to inflict a stigma on the whole of society.

However, abortion, prostitution, capitol punishment and humane euthanasia, for example, are still serious issues which have never been resolved, despite legislation. I could list more that make people unhappy. Social laws reflect our current, collective state of mind.

You see, personal liberties are a double edged sword - it's one thing to do something to yourself, and quite another to do it to someone else, regardless of consent. Society has many vulnerable people who need protection from predators and abusers; thus, we have laws in place to support their well-being and safety.

Religious laws legislated by God are flawless; whereas, civil laws are always legislated by trial and error.

Though Canadians are seen as a conservative lot, they're a people who can handle change better than most on earth; therefore, it's a good idea to look at their results instead of diving into the shallow end of the pool.

Zanjan: That said, any civil law must have regulations under which it's applicable. We'd be fine with the idea if instituted with vision and integrity - otherwise, we inadvertently condone an action rather than seek to control it.

For example, food and beverage laws, including liquor, tobacco and marijuana are truthfully saying "if you want to do unhealthy shit, we want a cut of the action (taxes). Yet it produces the erroneous view that 'if it's legal it must be good/ok', which is very damaging to the young.

davesdatahut: Zanjan, where go you think black people would be today if society in the USA had deferred to the wishes of the majority, especially in Southern states?
Where would women be if society had deferred to the male majority that was allowed to vote before women got that right?
And what action would be condoned by allowing gay marriage that equates it with eating unhealthy foods?

Zanjan: Dave, nobody controls your mind. How you were brought up from child to man merely makes you so familiar with a certain environment, it seems natural to you. Free Will is the power that gives you the ability to choose whether or not to be tethered to that environment.

Remember, of those who were born into slavery or as slave masters, some wanted to remain that way, some wanted to put it behind them. So it was that some were free, some not. If Black people were still slaves, they'd be treated with the same respect you see today because the Love of God still falls on all but is only internalized by the receptive.

However, ALL people are WHERE they are today because the Command of God has recently forbidden slavery - permanently. Thus, women, be they married or single, became emancipated. No civil legislation could have caused it or prevented it.

Civil legislation is only a reflection of what the majority of people want and signifies what the government is willing to promise to support.

Case in point - the right to water. Water rights are considered property, and that's in the Constitution. Yet, in California, the State Water Board has ordered a whole county of farmers to stop taking water immediately from the water resources. Without a hearing or even warning, the Board just took away their property, purchased and given to them permanently at the turn of the century.

Bad timing since there's a serious drought and the farmer's crops will be destroyed by that order. Naturally, there's a class action lawsuit against the Board. Was this huge infringement and costs to settle the issue necessary? By the time this lengthy court battle is decided, others will have prospered while the rightful owners will have had their sole livelihood and personal life savings destroyed.

This is what happens when there's no consultation or communication between interested parties.....and no vote.

Zanjan: "And what action would be condoned by allowing gay marriage that equates it with eating unhealthy foods?"

If gays and non-gays were able to execute the institution of religious marriage, nothing would be unhealthy about it. Yet there's a segment of society that wants the label detached from its contents. That's an absence of integrity - living a lie is a sign of sickness. After all, they say you are what you eat.

Since the said people either don't want a religious marriage or don't qualify for it, there is an alternative for them - a Registered Union, with the same civil privileges a religious marriage has. This would be a healthy choice - come out of the closet and be who you are with the burden of pretense lifted from your shoulders.

They don't want that - they want the Title without its qualifiers, requirements and monitors - that's wrongful use of the Title of Marriage.

I've suggested *the terms* be put to a public vote as a way to find middle ground. That is, the language of the law should be changed out of concern for the divisions people have created, which have brought them to a psychological and emotional standoff.

How odd few have thought of that or are championing fair resolution, resulting in a happy handshake.. How strange few want to fix this broken world.

davesdatahut: This bit of faith-based glory just stands on its own, from Zanjan, without further comment, for none is necessary:
"Remember, of those who were born into slavery or as slave masters, some wanted to remain that way, some wanted to put it behind them. So it was that some were free, some not. If Black people were still slaves, they'd be treated with the same respect you see today because the Love of God still falls on all but is only internalized by the receptive.
However, ALL people are WHERE they are today because the Command of God has recently forbidden slavery - permanently. Thus, women, be they married or single, became emancipated. No civil legislation could have caused it or prevented it. "

Zanjan: Yes, my faith is in God, the Perfect One. Only an idiot would have faith in a civil government today - it's just a tool, chinked beyond repair.

The current political system(s) will change when people shift direction of their own values. That only happens when folks see there is something better than what they have.

Change begins in the home, works it way through the community, embraces the city then states and provinces until it reflects the nation. Yet, now, change goes beyond a country's borders - in this New World Order, all Nations are involved in the affairs of mankind.

davesdatahut: Zanjan, your ignorance of history, reality and the human condition is nothing short of mind-boggling. You are usually able to hide this ignorance behind a string of non-sequitors, gibberish, circular reasoning and poor writing that render your reasoning incomprehensible. And then you post something like this, which makes it all real clear and bears copying yet again:
"Remember, of those who were born into slavery or as slave masters, some wanted to remain that way, some wanted to put it behind them. So it was that some were free, some not. If Black people were still slaves, they'd be treated with the same respect you see today because the Love of God still falls on all but is only internalized by the receptive.
However, ALL people are WHERE they are today because the Command of God has recently forbidden slavery - permanently. Thus, women, be they married or single, became emancipated. No civil legislation could have caused it or prevented it. "

When you type stuff like that - as well as the idea that people's rights should be subject to a vote of the people - your lack of connection to reality and your ignorance of the rules of democracy becomes ever more cemented.
If blacks were still slaves, they'd be treated with respect? Slavery with respect? How the hell do you equate slavery with respect of any kind? This view comes straight out of the Antebellum South's defense of forcing blacks to work for no money. Good grief.
This mindset would have fit neatly in with Nazi Germany. Good grief again.