I don't agree that marriage is inherently religious, as it has both long term religious and secular usage. However I have still considered this as a good potential solution on the marriage issue.
On the civil side, domestic partnership & civil union make sense for naming, but don't for religions, so I also felt that religions ending up with the word marriage would be the best solution.
@JustAnotherMutant RRT has a good solution, but not many people want it. However, I remain unconvinced that marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact that ancient cultures who established marriage traditions were religious doesn't give any grounds for saying it's a religious ceremony. Ancient Greece didn't even have a ceremony, just a contract of commitment. Marriage is a human creation which is why there's no reason gays cannot be added to the creation and religions separate.
RuinSonic, I am not trying to imply that it is or was exclusively a religious institution. I agree that a religious culture practicing marriage within their culture would be a civil institution. It has been done within religions though, and in those times and places, it was a religious institution... and in many it was both a religious and civil institution.
Why would you think that making marriage a religious term would exclude homosexuals? As a religious term, any religion could declare
(cont) homosexuals to be married. The state would have nothing to say about it, any more than they have a say about other religious statuses, for example when Mormons men gain the priesthood, or who can receive the Catholic sacrament of confirmation.
Likewise, religions would have no say in each other's practices, any more than Catholics can determine the baptismal age for Quakers.
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it would exclude homosexuals. I'm going to have to disagree with RRT that it infringes on people's religious freedom if the government is involved in marriage. If it were the case then almost everyone's religious freedom has been violated at some point by the government since abortion, capital punishment, and education promote a view that some people's religious view would support and others would deny.
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it would exclude homosexuals. I'm going to have to disagree with RRT that it infringes on people's religious freedom if the government is involved in marriage. If it were the case then almost everyone's religious freedom has been violated at some point by the government since abortion, capital punishment, and education promote a view that some people's religious view would support and others would deny.
Well, honestly I do not think it will solve the core issue. Californians can do as they please, but I think that my solution would work better in the long run.
@RationalRoundtable Well, I am a gay man and a firefighter and served in the AF, My Partner is a Pilot for Delta and alos served inthe AF together we have two children and live in Boston and are married. How does it effect you.
the question is not about how it affects me personally... some of us can separate the term marriage from our theological beliefs, some of us see no conflict to begin with however some have a big problem. My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all.
@RationalRoundtable "My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all."
The whole issue is symbolism though. For instance if we singled out black people and said they have a "Wmarriage" instead of a marriage it would be an offense to them as if they have to be singled out even if their rights and ceremony and everything else were the same.
Please explain how marriage is inherently religious even if it did come from a religion?
Under my proposal the contract has no required ceremony or service, however if one wants a captain to do a marriage that is fine, it just has nothing to do with a legal partnership just as the same could be said for pastor preist etc.
@RationalRoundtable Look, we give the churches freedoms that no onther groups has in America including Tax free Land and Buildings and they are a protected class, Its rediculous to give in to one more item,,simply ridiculous. They are like spoild babies.
@RationalRoundtable I kind of disagree with your premise. I think the government is legislating morality all the time and morality is deeply involved with most religions. Based on your interpretation it seems like the government is violating religious rights all the time.
Here's the problem. It sounds a lot like separate but equal in that we are just going to change the rules just to appease injustice. On the other side religious people won't want to change tradition for appeasement.
The only thing I would argue with is your reserving the word "marriage" for religious bonds only.
Why? A christian ceremony is nothing like a hindu ceremony, or a muslim ceremony. In Iran, for example, you can have up to 4 wives (as long as you get permission from each wife before marrying another). That's nothing like the Christian marriage (though how many wives did Solomon have...?) And the rules are all different.
Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Secular - all different, but still marriage.
you might miss my point on that. I do not suggest that the term be reserved for religious groups, rather that it be removed from law because of it's religious implications. If you want a secular marriage of some kind, I really do not care, but if you remove the term from law, the state is not imposing on religion at all.
@RationalRoundtable I don't see why having the word "marriage" used by the state is in any way interfering with your religious freedom.
I agree that the state shouldn't be allowed to force a given church to perform a ceremony that is against it's dogma - a catholic church performing gay marriage for example, but gays should be able to get married in a gay friendly church, or in a courtroom, or on a ship, and still call it "marriage".
I agree. That is why any group that wants to do a marriage can do so. By removing the term from the legal system however you remove any possible conflict.
haha, "if you are an atheist and wanna have some kind of made up ceremony..." all religious ceremonies are made up! Your proposed solution, to stricken "marriage" from the law and subsume all things formerly called "marriage" to the new "domestic partnership agreement" is legally consistent, but is it realistic?
If marriage is a religious institution, then the first amendment prohibits the government from respecting that institution as well. in order to defend a religious definition of marriage, the religious people must give up all the legal rights carried by marriage. If it is a religious institution, then it is ONLY a religious institution, in which case no law can speak to marriage at all. So this defense fails entirely. Marriage is clearly a legal institution, so it must be free of religion.
This is what I have been saying for a long time, too. And you say it more articulately than I could. Fantastic channel and a fantastic video, one I will be sure to share with other like-minded individuals. :)
Very nice solution, Mike. I never realized until now that the main problems here exist only because marriage is both a religious and a legal institution (and religion and law often conflict).
So simply separating the legal aspect from the religious, and opening the legal rights to everyone, would in fact solve most (if not all) of the issues...
If you run for president in 2012, I'll vote for you :) !
I don't mean to sound authoritarian. I'm not. I would oppose laws criminalizing fornication, sodomy, pronography, ect.
But I do believe the State should promote programs and policies that discourage ppl from practicing them or at the very least inform ppl to the risks associated with the behavior.
With respect to marriage. I see the word as defining a type of relationship. Like the word mom or family. It articulates a concept. Gay-marriage more of a misnomer in my eyes than anythiing.
I understand that you are not an authoritarian, unless someone says otherwise, I take any and all comments as simply their opinion.
I understand your idea of what marriage means, and I tend to agree with your statement, however if marriage were simply a theological issue that would be that, but marriage in this nation also involves tax status, hereditary rights, and more. This becomes an issue of equal protection under the law.
I really never bought the equal protection argument because it doesn't seem to apply.
Opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage.
If one State interest in marriage is to attach mothers & fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement seems perfectly permissible. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose.
I just seams rather... odd to try to set up two parallel sets of laws especially if the goal is to treat everyone the same.
The whole point of my concept is to truly treat all couples the same, and remove religious terms from state and federal law.
While the California law as well as other states that have Domestic Partnership laws does offer some of the same benefits, the real problem comes in at the Federal level. Social Security Survivors benefits, Federal Tax returns, etc.
I looked at your profile, and you say that you are a liberal Christian strangely ironic since I am a Conservative Christian and we are both taking the opposite stance of what our respective stereotypes are.
To be more precise I am fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
Being a poli sci major, after studying social-contract theory, I have taken a strong interest in the subject of sovereignty, state legitimacy, & social engineering.
The goal of equal protection is to treat people who are similarly situated equally.
I maintain that when considering the States interest in marriage, same-sex unions are not similarly situated.
In any case, I agree in principle with your DPA. Their really is no reason why I couldn't make a roommate or sibling a beneficiary for Social Security.
I just maintain that marriage defines a concept,a type of relationship. One, the State has an interest in promoting & privileging over others.
Watch Demographic Winter, no-fault divore, population control ideologies, contraception and abortion are leading to societal upheaval. The government has a 1000% interest in promoting certain sexual practices in its citizens for health reasons and familial stability.
Oh no, certain segments of the government are promoting gender-neutral marriage defs. because they see any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions in the law as inherently oppressive. I personally don't by the distinction=discrimination rhetoric but that's just me.
My comment was a general disagreement with your comment that "the government shouldn't be talking about sexuality anyway."
Well, as you know I do not think that the Government should be involved in marriage at all, and I do believe that separate but equal is wrong. It may not be oppression in of itself; however it does make oppression more likely. So if you take issue with my statement that the government should not be talking about sexuality, please tell me exactly what the government should be saying about sexuality?
How is government regulated sexuality in any way shape or form a good thing? My Wife is black, and when we first met, it was illegal in some states for us to be married. No my friend, the problem is that if the government controls marriage it sounds great as long as the government is on our side, but what if in 30 years the government is dominated by gays and they decide that straight marriage is out? Would we have a right to complain?
Look, you live in a society. That means NOTHING u do is absolutely private. What u choose to study, inhale, consume, or practice in one way or another affects how you interact and relate to others.
If u do drugs, u can endanger the public. If u smoke, ur health problems can become societal burdens. If u r promiscuous & unaware of ur partner's sexual history u can endanger other ppl with STI's'
Unwed childbearing and divorce cost society as a whole $112 billion a year in conservative estimates
Anti-miscegenation laws were EUGENICS laws. Similar to anti-consanguinity laws (incest) of today. I could explain more if you want.
Laws against bestiality, rape, fecal & pedo-eroticism are all forms of sexual regulation.
But back to your comment about the government TALKING about sexuality.
My position is ]message based rather than advocating laws against liberty. Just like the government funds sex ed programs to deter teen sex so too should it fund programs directed at adult behavior.
Recognition of the biological & sexual nature's of its citizens government should promote programs & messages that encourage its heterosexual citizens (who do not wish to be celibate) to engage in monogamous relationships as well as inform them on the importance of married biological parents to child development.
For queer citizens (who do not wish to be celibate) government should promote monogamous relationships & inform them of the health risks of sodomy, oral sex, ect.
You're 1000% right. My position on this has always been that state marriages are civil unions and civil rights cannot be denied.
You take it a step further and define the partnership as non-sexual, or rather no inferred sexual component. This is a workable solution and respects everyone's rights.
Now, here's why won't it work: Because people on both sides are manipulated to believe that they have something to lose. And you and I don't have the $ to convince them that they don't.
In terms of children and the loss of power of straight marriage would be the biggest resistance. I agree with your idea but it essentially gives the fight up to the gay marriage crowd and some people won't like that. There are also people on the gay marriage side that simply want to harm the religious right.
Well it's been a pleasure, RationalRoundtable, but now as I'been up all night working on my next novel, it's time for me to turn off the lights. In hope we'll get to debate together again.
I will have to add that gay it will be up to religious institution to decide if they want to marry gays and lesbians because of their rights as institution. For the state part, the minister has to fill the government papers unless the couple has a ceremony in a church then goes to the mayor office afterward.
So by filling these papers, the ministers wears two hats. One that is a religious one, and the second one that represents the state. Churches have all the rights not to wear the hat of the state (by having the legal act in hand, they are automatically linked to this legal act) if they want. So the minister won't say he has any power given by the state though the couple will need to find a legal representative to validate the papers.
Obviously with all rights are tempered to one extent or another, just as you cannot use free speech to incite a riot, you cannot use freedom of religion to stone people to death. That has not been a real issue in modern history; however I am concerned about the potential of the state dictating to the Church terms for providing a ceremony.
You are right that ministers wear two hats when performing marriage; I am attempting to remove one of those hats buy truly separating Church and State. If you remove the term of marriage from law, and further remove the rights of ministers to enact a legal union (remember my concept cuts both ways here) you prevent the Church and State from coming into conflict while protecting equal rights.
Even if gay marriage was not a hot topic, I would be opposed to Churches performing the legal end of marriage (as they currently do) I think that all legal marriage should be a matter for the legal system and all religious ceremonies should not involve the legal system at all. If we change the name of the legal term and bar Churches we repair the already sketchy situation while also enabling gay marriage.
There would be a problem with international recognition though. Because most countries talk in terms of marriage. What would be the real value of a couple's union act? Not much. At least, if you travel to Canada, the term legal union would not have the same weight.
Well the hat of the state that is worn by the minister doesn't really belong to him. It is an interim so not to have a minister AND a representative of the law involved, and also for not having the couple going from one place to another so to have both religious and legal papers signed. It's an accomodation that was offered by the state.
In Canada, the state never could force a church to provide any service to anyone they don't want. Thay are not even oblidged to make legal acts, so... No, the only institution that must provide the service is the civil institution.
If we renamed the legal term to Domestic Partnership I sincerely doubt that Canada or any other nation would suddenly have a problem allowing immigrants. If for example Canada has gay marriage (I dont know) and a gay couple moved there do you really think they would say, "well we dont call it Partnership so we will not let you in."
I know almost nothing about Canadian law however most liberal Americans think that it is vital that we maintain a separation of Church and state, given that they should support the idea of disallowing ministers to be legal representatives of the state.
Most conservatives believe that the state cannot intervene in the policies of the Church, so they should support the idea of preventing marriage from being a civil contract so that Churches can do as they please.
Yes, but it is not in the hand of the churches nor is it in the hand of the majority. It has to do with the law. As I said in my earlier post, religious institutions will be accomodated as best as can be, though the institutions are not citizens so they don't have human rights. I know it's a bit of a struggle as people now don't get along together. And as churches don't have to provide any service they don't want to provide, they are free to do as they please.
Actually, before the last election, there was a priest here who was in a deputation. He's a citizen too. So as long as he knew what his fight should be in the government, there was no problem. But separation of church and state is the best to me, so the church can have its own morals and the society can decide about its own.
Could be, though the problem is, there actually are existing legal union laws existing in a lot of provinces, old laws that were the first agreements for gays that are now for everybody. The legal union is like the one you find in the USA. It doesn't provide the same rights. The law is still viable for it offers other opportunities for couples, even though I never heard of anybody using that law. But if a person shows a legal union paper here, they'll need more papers for protection.
And if the couple wants to emigrate to Canada, seeing as they have a legal union, they will need to invalidate the union and make a legal marriage. It's a bit of trouble...
Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriages were practiced by Celtic cultures, byt African tribes, way before any of the actual religions existed. What is religious about marriage is the ceremony, nothing else.
I would concede the point to you on this if it were not for the fact that the ancient Celtic and African tribal societies were deeply religious. Sure they were pagans, but they were religious nonetheless. I am not suggesting that this is a strictly "Christian" issue, rather religion in general.
Marriage also has a very old tradition in Far Eastern societies. Marriage was celebrated so the father of a girl would give ownership of his daughter to another man. The ceremony was purely an act dedicated to seduction. For the Celtics, it was an act of sacrifice as the father would sacrifice his daughter to the will of another man. So we are faced again with an act of slave selling.
Rituals may have been taken on by cults, first to accentuate the seduction tradition, then to make men and women groom and bride under a god, the first meaning was still a title of property that was passed. It is the ceremony that became religious. But the act was still a transaction.
The act of selling the daughter remained in the European society until Renaissance, when romantism took over and religion appropriated itself the act of love. But at this time already, what was important was mostly the contract, which was kept by the church, okay, but remained property of the state.
If you are trying to suggest that the idea of marriage has been somewhat different in different cultures, I would not disagree, however the modern institution of marriage still started as a religious institution, not a secular contract.
Some cultures believed in arranged marriage, some believed in selling your kids, that does not have much barring on the currant topic. If you want to argue for a purely secular marriage, and you have no religious feelings in the matter, no matter if you call it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" in the legal system should make no difference as long as it is the same for all.
The ceremony might have been religious, but the act was one to sell the girl. Even though you go to church today to get married, there is a religious ceremony and civil acts. That's the civil act that is, and have always been important to the eyes of the society. The ceremony, it left it to whatever religion or cult you took part of.
This is the legal act that was necessary to give right for a certificate of marriage. If marriage was a religious affair, you wouldn't find it in the list of fundamental rights of your country but at your church.
While the video you point out is interesting, I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. I am not fighting against rights for gays, I am offering a solution that gives equal rights to all and still supports the 1st amendment.
and I still have no idea why you are obsessing over the whole "sell your daughter" thing, seriously... if you want to pick a fight do it with someone who would try to defend selling your daughter, or discrimianating against gays. that is not me.
I know that. I've watched your video. Though the slavery thing was meant to explain the real purpose of marriage, even though religious convictions made them being practiced by religious leaders, which was to sell the daughter. I don't think you want to discriminate against anyone. What I think though is that the reality of marriage being a religious really is far more ambiguous than what churches pretend.
Then again, marriage is a fundamental (civil) right. Why not simply go for citizens' rights instead of wanting to accomodate both sides? Fundamental rights must be fulfilled while religions must be accomodated if and only if it doesn't infringe human rights.
The answer to that is simple my friend, religious freedom is also a fundamental right in this nation. Keeping the name marriage could eventually open up religious institutions to lawsuits for refusing to provide a basic service that they currently perform (marriage) to people legally entitled to that service (gays) this would in effect cause a constitutional crisis in which two fundamental rights are in conflict. By changing the legal term you avoid this.
You have freedom of religion, just like you have freedom of speech. Though it does by no mean say that these religions have any rights other than what the society gives organisms with no lucrative motive. The freedom of choice is made on a personal basis. So while people have the right to choose their religion, religions themselves don't have the right to impose their values onto the society. They may make requests for accomodation. These accomodations must not though infringe over human rights.
Because if it was the case that religions could request any accomodation, or worse, rights, that would give them the right to infringe human rights, then the Phelps family could request to be able to stone gays and soldiers to death.
So in other words, it is not because one has the fundamental right to associate to a cult that it means that religious institutions have any right over society.
This is close to the exact same arguments I've always made. I generally called it being "joined" instead of a "domestic partnership." Kind of borrowing the word from a "joint" bank account, I didn't want to have a real strong label on it.
Let the government handle the laws, let the people handle any sort of commitment or love ceremonies they wish to conduct.
The only problem with this argument is that it is not practical. The christian right would raise quite a storm if this seriously came under consideration.
No, on issues of morality nobody has the right to dictate to the other. This is a matter of equality under the law, and the majority is objecting for "moral" reasons. Also, do try to remember that America is not a purely majoritarian system. We have minority rights and protections.
You have told me that you are a Calvinist and Calvinists are a small percentage of Christianity in general. I support your right to follow the Calvinist doctrines however In a strict majority rules world, Calvinists would have to simply abide by what the majority of Christians believe.
I do not doubt the sincerity of most Calvinists I have meet, however I do disagree with much of their doctrine, I may do a video on that in the future. But just because we disagree does not give me the right to force my belief on you. Just as when you disagree with the practice of homosexuality that is fine, but you do not have the right to give (or take away) equal protection under the law.
I disagree. The right does plenty of dictating of its own. One example is gay rights in California. Religious people have decided that there will be no marriage for gays there.
The problem with America these days is unrealistic blame-games played by both the right and the left.
Anytime you see someone using a word like "always," you can be sure they are not thinking clearly or honestly.
So now voting is "dictating"? I must at this point remind you that the emperor has no clothes. Can anyone remember the great plea for Gay marriage in the 60's? NO? the 70's? the 80's?
but SUDDENLY in the late 1990's it appeared as the NUMBER ONE DESIRE of sodomites!! That is because it ain't real. It is a chess move by the radical left to LEGITIMIZE sexual perversion. WE...have all traditional Americans on our side, YOU have uh, well, let's see who is left in the closet...Oh! PEDOPHILES!
Americans don't know what the "left" really is, since in reality there are about half a dozen in the whole country.
Anyone who's the least bit more liberal than Reagan gets slapped with the label "radical left" so that their adverseries don't really have to think things through or know what they are talking about.
Americans don't know what the "left" really is, since in reality there are about half a dozen in the whole country.
Anyone who's the least bit more liberal than Reagan gets slapped with the label "radical left" so that their adverseries don't really have to think things through or know what they are talking about.
Radical left: Demanding sexual perversion be taught as normal to public school children-demanding socialist policies, (i.e. taking money away from those who earn it, and giving it those who don't) voting for laws that violate the 2nd amendment- demanding ONLY Darwinianism be taught in public schools-voting for freedom FROM religion-appeasing foreign enemies, and generally being anti-American. I would say about 20% of the adult population in the USA.
1) I assume by "perversion" you're referring to homosexuality. In our culture, it is indeed becoming seen as "normal." Kids know this whether they hear it in school or not.
2) I agree! We should not give any tax breaks or bail-out money to people who've ruined business & already get 500K a year!
4) I'll give you this one. I'm pro 2nd Amdmt.
5) Only evolution by natural is supported by the evidence. ID can be taught in church.
"Tax breaks"? yes, you are a lib! We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the ENTIRE world, and you are fine with that? show me where in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to have a monopoly on Schools, or even where it is ANY of their business.
6) Freedom from other people's religions (including yours) is the American way. Get used to it.
7) Not sure what "appeasment" you're refering to, but we probably disagree on that point.
8) Leftists care as much about their country as you do. They just disagree about what America needs, that's all.
9) 20%, Radical Left? That's a lot. If you consider that another 30% or so are garden-variety liberals, well, that's half the USA! Your fellow countrymen!
The Constitution says, "freedom OF...religion", not freedom from religion. America is not some amorpheous blob that can be shaped anyway a leftist want it to be. America is an experiment in LIMITED government, designed for a people who will GOVERN THEMSELVES by the Ten Commandments. If you are a socialist, then you are NOT American in your view of government!! You may have citizenship, but you are an enemy of this nation nonetheless.
3) Assuming you are using the word Socialism properly, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The US Government has historically nationalized property and distributed it as it has seen fit. Much of our railway system was built this way. Our national parks were formed this way. And a 2005 Supreme Court ruling (a pretty conservative court, too, I might add) upheld the practice.
Ours is in practice a Social Democracy. Though somewhat less socialist than other Western countries, it has never been purely laissez-faire and has, like all advanced societies, become even less so since the 1880s.
Just because you personally hate something does not make those who have a better understanding of it enemies of the nation.
4) I would like to know where you get your comparative information concerning tax scales for various countries. If we do in fact have the second-highest tax rates for corporations, yes, I am fine with it, since they seem to need us to bail them out occassionally.
5) What makes you say the government has a "monopoly on schools?" My daughter goes to a private Christian school, without interference from the government.
1. worldwide-taxdotcom 2. you are PAYING for the public school whether your children go there or not, even though your private school does a better job. I am glad that you are able to send your daughter to a private Christian school.
Yes, I pay school taxes - and gladly. I believe in education and wish it for every child.
But even if I weren't concerned about that, I would recognize that absolutely no good could come, for my neighborhood or my nation, if the government did not provide schools to those who cannot afford a private one.
In places where governments do not provide education for all children, swarms of them enter either into the workforce, driving down wages and creating terrible poverty - or into a life of systematized begging and/or crime, making life very unpleasant for everybody.
This is *exactly* why America adopted a public education policy in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
You know that I respect you, and I love hearing from you in my channel, even when we disagree. I like that I can always count on you to have an interesting and respectful argument. However that being said, I have to tell you that in this case, I think that you are fighting a lost cause when it comes to sirjames45
The common ground is the Homosexuals have TOLERANCE in society. They will NEVER get more than tolerance, and they are demanding EVERYTHING as if they are equal to people who are not sexually perverted.
Your problem here seams to be that you think that because you are not sexually perverted as you say, that you are somehow superior to others. As a Christian you my not struggle with homosexuality, however you are far from perfect, and in Gods eyes sin is sin.
Look, Homosexuals HAVE tolerance. That is as far as they can go, and you can see that for militant leftists, it is not good enough! They have about 15% of Characters on TV played as gay. They have movies, parades, etc, and notice, for the militant gays, it is STILL not good enough! They want ALL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS applied to them! That will NOT happen.
Sexual perversion will NOT be given a legal status. In the Old Testament we see Sodomites becoming militant and horribly evil. And GUESS what we see today............my how things have changed.
I listened to your video, and you left out some HUGE points! I am a Christian living in America and therefore I KNOW what militant leftists do.
The SECOND we make gay marriage legal, they will FORCE companies to give pensions to the survivor of a gay marriage. They will SUE, and SUE and SUE, and threaten to sue, ANYONE who would they could over any issue they could.
I am a Christian in America as well my friend, and while I understand that you strongly disagree with homosexuality based on the idea that it is in fact a sin, our nation is built on the idea that all persons are to be treated equally under the law.
Then we must not legitimize Sexual perversion. The second we do, the socialist laws will used to force us to support sin. Just like our tax dollars already go to pay for abortions, making gay marriage legal will force those who are against it, to PAY for the costs. If the liberals had not already made this nation partially socialist, then maybe it could be allowed. Have a government ceremony for secular marriages, and a Christian one for Christians.
How on earth could gays make you pay for their marriage? The only way this could happen is if all marriages were payed for by the government, but this is an outrageous assumption.
Sodom was destroyed for a plethora of sins, the biggest ones being greed, and idol worship, not homosexuality. The "gang rape" was an act of cruelty and humiliation, and it happens again in the Bible in another city, the only reason that this particular case holds any kind of relevance is because the angels happened to be male... You should also take note that EVERY man in the city was there, and it's outrageous to think that every man was gay, and wanted to rape the angels for enjoyment.
I think that Marcus033090 makes a good point about the financial end of things while I do not support Gay Marriage as it currently stands (you already know my position on this) I do not see any attempt to make Gay Marriage paid for by tax money. If it were, than traditional marriage would have to be as well.
I would also point out that there are many sins that are legal and sometimes encouraged by the government, many Christians feel that gambling is a sin, yet they generally do not raise a fuss about the lotto that almost every state has. The reason is simple, having something legal is one thing, but dictating to the Church is another, that is the whole point of my position on Gay Marriage.
I agree with your assertion in the video, and have in fact proposed said assertion to people in the past. However, my results were not nearly as good as yours; most people felt that I was simply playing semantics, but I guess that really addresses one of the larger issues at hand within this subject: the government is currently defining a religious institution.
In this video you did a great job explaining the problem, and addressing the constitutionality of the term "marriage".
I beleive you've pulled together a thought that has been bouncing around in the minds of aetheists and those of varying sexual orientations, as well as people who just beleive in seperation of church and state and gay rights.
This was Jesse Ventura's solution too. I whole-heartidly agree with you. It solves the problem completely. The one thing I would add is that people who are currently married should get grandfathered in as in a civil union. Also this solves the divorce problem for churches, now you can disolve the civil union and churches don't have to recognize divorce if they don't have to. People need to think outside the box here.
It really doesn't matter what the Bible said. If the Bible said "It's okay to be gay" I wouldn't want it used as part of this issue anyway. This is America, a secular nation. The Bible can say kill gays or it can say love gays, I really don't give a shit. The bible has no place in legislation.
I agree to that to some extent, but it becomes very problematic when trying to determine exactly who makes the correct interpretation.
In some parts, the Bible labels homosexuality as a sin, while in other, celebrates everyones equal rights and equal value under God.
Since it's not up to state or government to decide who reads it the "right way", the only thing they can do is to determine what is moral and fair on society's terms, and religions would have to accept and adapt to that.
While I strongly believe in religious freedom, I also believe that this should include an equal amount of responsability. Where secular law strive toward equality, old religious law carries a significant amount of bigoted baggage.
A society that promotes equality and sets up laws against hate speach, while at the same time tolerates the very same, as long as it wears a mask of faith, is sending an inconsistent message that in itself is hateful to gays, doesn't it?
If one misunderstand the Bible, it is very true that you can pull from it some terrible things. However that being said anyone who thinks that the Bible endorses hate of any kind does not 'get it' in its entirety.
Marriage is not strictly a religious institution, never has been. Either way a religion isn't forced to recognize a marriage that goes against its beliefs. Therefore gay marriage does not violate any religious rights, especially since some religions allow gay marriage. The easiest solution I can see is to just allow gay marriage, changing the word would cause a lot of confusion.
I fully endorse cross-stomping, that symbol of death has been used to oppress people for far too long, it belongs in the dust bin of history and the respect people have for it needs to fade away. Perhaps if they see that a person can show utter disrespect for it and not immediately receive a Zeus style lightning bolt, they'll realize it isn't magical.
I don't agree that marriage is inherently religious, as it has both long term religious and secular usage. However I have still considered this as a good potential solution on the marriage issue.
On the civil side, domestic partnership & civil union make sense for naming, but don't for religions, so I also felt that religions ending up with the word marriage would be the best solution.
JustAnotherMutant 8 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant RRT has a good solution, but not many people want it. However, I remain unconvinced that marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact that ancient cultures who established marriage traditions were religious doesn't give any grounds for saying it's a religious ceremony. Ancient Greece didn't even have a ceremony, just a contract of commitment. Marriage is a human creation which is why there's no reason gays cannot be added to the creation and religions separate.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
RuinSonic, I am not trying to imply that it is or was exclusively a religious institution. I agree that a religious culture practicing marriage within their culture would be a civil institution. It has been done within religions though, and in those times and places, it was a religious institution... and in many it was both a religious and civil institution.
Why would you think that making marriage a religious term would exclude homosexuals? As a religious term, any religion could declare
JustAnotherMutant 5 months ago
(cont) homosexuals to be married. The state would have nothing to say about it, any more than they have a say about other religious statuses, for example when Mormons men gain the priesthood, or who can receive the Catholic sacrament of confirmation.
Likewise, religions would have no say in each other's practices, any more than Catholics can determine the baptismal age for Quakers.
JustAnotherMutant 5 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it would exclude homosexuals. I'm going to have to disagree with RRT that it infringes on people's religious freedom if the government is involved in marriage. If it were the case then almost everyone's religious freedom has been violated at some point by the government since abortion, capital punishment, and education promote a view that some people's religious view would support and others would deny.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustAnotherMutant I don't think it would exclude homosexuals. I'm going to have to disagree with RRT that it infringes on people's religious freedom if the government is involved in marriage. If it were the case then almost everyone's religious freedom has been violated at some point by the government since abortion, capital punishment, and education promote a view that some people's religious view would support and others would deny.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
How do you feel about prop 8 about to be overturned?
Clemburke1111 1 year ago
@Clemburke1111
Well, honestly I do not think it will solve the core issue. Californians can do as they please, but I think that my solution would work better in the long run.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
@RationalRoundtable Well, I am a gay man and a firefighter and served in the AF, My Partner is a Pilot for Delta and alos served inthe AF together we have two children and live in Boston and are married. How does it effect you.
Clemburke1111 1 year ago
@Clemburke1111
the question is not about how it affects me personally... some of us can separate the term marriage from our theological beliefs, some of us see no conflict to begin with however some have a big problem. My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
@RationalRoundtable "My solution is not about placating to any on group rather to resolve the issue in a way that works for all."
The whole issue is symbolism though. For instance if we singled out black people and said they have a "Wmarriage" instead of a marriage it would be an offense to them as if they have to be singled out even if their rights and ceremony and everything else were the same.
Please explain how marriage is inherently religious even if it did come from a religion?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Love your videos but saying that atheists could have any "made up" ceremony my <3 became </3 (all them ceremonies be made up, just saying)
but besides that, this is the first video I've seen that expresses my view of this issue almost to a T.
neverhero3215 1 year ago
In fact, I believe a ship's captain can perform a marriage service. How would you classify that?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
Under my proposal the contract has no required ceremony or service, however if one wants a captain to do a marriage that is fine, it just has nothing to do with a legal partnership just as the same could be said for pastor preist etc.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
@RationalRoundtable Look, we give the churches freedoms that no onther groups has in America including Tax free Land and Buildings and they are a protected class, Its rediculous to give in to one more item,,simply ridiculous. They are like spoild babies.
Clemburke1111 1 year ago
@Clemburke1111
For the record, I do NOT support tax free status for religious groups (or any other group for that matter)
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
@RationalRoundtable I kind of disagree with your premise. I think the government is legislating morality all the time and morality is deeply involved with most religions. Based on your interpretation it seems like the government is violating religious rights all the time.
Here's the problem. It sounds a lot like separate but equal in that we are just going to change the rules just to appease injustice. On the other side religious people won't want to change tradition for appeasement.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
The only thing I would argue with is your reserving the word "marriage" for religious bonds only.
Why? A christian ceremony is nothing like a hindu ceremony, or a muslim ceremony. In Iran, for example, you can have up to 4 wives (as long as you get permission from each wife before marrying another). That's nothing like the Christian marriage (though how many wives did Solomon have...?) And the rules are all different.
Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Secular - all different, but still marriage.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
you might miss my point on that. I do not suggest that the term be reserved for religious groups, rather that it be removed from law because of it's religious implications. If you want a secular marriage of some kind, I really do not care, but if you remove the term from law, the state is not imposing on religion at all.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
@RationalRoundtable I don't see why having the word "marriage" used by the state is in any way interfering with your religious freedom.
I agree that the state shouldn't be allowed to force a given church to perform a ceremony that is against it's dogma - a catholic church performing gay marriage for example, but gays should be able to get married in a gay friendly church, or in a courtroom, or on a ship, and still call it "marriage".
OccamKant 1 year ago 2
@OccamKant
I agree. That is why any group that wants to do a marriage can do so. By removing the term from the legal system however you remove any possible conflict.
RationalRoundtable 1 year ago
haha, "if you are an atheist and wanna have some kind of made up ceremony..." all religious ceremonies are made up! Your proposed solution, to stricken "marriage" from the law and subsume all things formerly called "marriage" to the new "domestic partnership agreement" is legally consistent, but is it realistic?
skurt999 2 years ago
If marriage is a religious institution, then the first amendment prohibits the government from respecting that institution as well. in order to defend a religious definition of marriage, the religious people must give up all the legal rights carried by marriage. If it is a religious institution, then it is ONLY a religious institution, in which case no law can speak to marriage at all. So this defense fails entirely. Marriage is clearly a legal institution, so it must be free of religion.
skurt999 2 years ago
This is what I have been saying for a long time, too. And you say it more articulately than I could. Fantastic channel and a fantastic video, one I will be sure to share with other like-minded individuals. :)
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I absolutely agree. This is what I've been saying for a while as well.
Bozeman42 2 years ago
THE Michael Crawford? You should sing for us. ;)
Rockymtntruth 2 years ago
lol, no, I am Michael J. Crawford, not Michael Crawford! I actually put the J. in there because of Mr. Crawford.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
LOL - got it. You've got a good channel.
Rockymtntruth 2 years ago
Very nice solution, Mike. I never realized until now that the main problems here exist only because marriage is both a religious and a legal institution (and religion and law often conflict).
So simply separating the legal aspect from the religious, and opening the legal rights to everyone, would in fact solve most (if not all) of the issues...
If you run for president in 2012, I'll vote for you :) !
-IMP ;) :)
IceMetalPunk 2 years ago
I would love your vote, but I cannot run... I am interested in solving issues which appears to be a disqualifying attribute.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Wow! I have been proposing the same solution for years. How nice to find a kindred spirit.
Thank you for your videos.
drmamalou 2 years ago
No problem if we could just get the people in Washington DC to get this now...
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
You seem rational & in principle I could be swayed by your position.
Congratulations friend you got a new subscriber.
wood9670 2 years ago
Thank you, I appreciate that a lot.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
I don't mean to sound authoritarian. I'm not. I would oppose laws criminalizing fornication, sodomy, pronography, ect.
But I do believe the State should promote programs and policies that discourage ppl from practicing them or at the very least inform ppl to the risks associated with the behavior.
With respect to marriage. I see the word as defining a type of relationship. Like the word mom or family. It articulates a concept. Gay-marriage more of a misnomer in my eyes than anythiing.
wood9670 2 years ago
I understand that you are not an authoritarian, unless someone says otherwise, I take any and all comments as simply their opinion.
I understand your idea of what marriage means, and I tend to agree with your statement, however if marriage were simply a theological issue that would be that, but marriage in this nation also involves tax status, hereditary rights, and more. This becomes an issue of equal protection under the law.
And equal protection needs to be truly equal.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
I really never bought the equal protection argument because it doesn't seem to apply.
Opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage.
If one State interest in marriage is to attach mothers & fathers to their children and to one another, then the dual gender requirement seems perfectly permissible. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose.
wood9670 2 years ago
It should also be noted that here in Cali Domestic Partnerships offer the same benefits to SS couples & OS couples over the age of 62.
wood9670 2 years ago
I just seams rather... odd to try to set up two parallel sets of laws especially if the goal is to treat everyone the same.
The whole point of my concept is to truly treat all couples the same, and remove religious terms from state and federal law.
While the California law as well as other states that have Domestic Partnership laws does offer some of the same benefits, the real problem comes in at the Federal level. Social Security Survivors benefits, Federal Tax returns, etc.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
I looked at your profile, and you say that you are a liberal Christian strangely ironic since I am a Conservative Christian and we are both taking the opposite stance of what our respective stereotypes are.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
To be more precise I am fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
Being a poli sci major, after studying social-contract theory, I have taken a strong interest in the subject of sovereignty, state legitimacy, & social engineering.
wood9670 2 years ago
The goal of equal protection is to treat people who are similarly situated equally.
I maintain that when considering the States interest in marriage, same-sex unions are not similarly situated.
In any case, I agree in principle with your DPA. Their really is no reason why I couldn't make a roommate or sibling a beneficiary for Social Security.
I just maintain that marriage defines a concept,a type of relationship. One, the State has an interest in promoting & privileging over others.
wood9670 2 years ago
Watch Demographic Winter, no-fault divore, population control ideologies, contraception and abortion are leading to societal upheaval. The government has a 1000% interest in promoting certain sexual practices in its citizens for health reasons and familial stability.
I don't by distinction=oppression
wood9670 2 years ago
so are you suggesting that the government is promoting homosexuality as a means of population control?
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Oh no, certain segments of the government are promoting gender-neutral marriage defs. because they see any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions in the law as inherently oppressive. I personally don't by the distinction=discrimination rhetoric but that's just me.
My comment was a general disagreement with your comment that "the government shouldn't be talking about sexuality anyway."
wood9670 2 years ago
Well, as you know I do not think that the Government should be involved in marriage at all, and I do believe that separate but equal is wrong. It may not be oppression in of itself; however it does make oppression more likely. So if you take issue with my statement that the government should not be talking about sexuality, please tell me exactly what the government should be saying about sexuality?
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
How is government regulated sexuality in any way shape or form a good thing? My Wife is black, and when we first met, it was illegal in some states for us to be married. No my friend, the problem is that if the government controls marriage it sounds great as long as the government is on our side, but what if in 30 years the government is dominated by gays and they decide that straight marriage is out? Would we have a right to complain?
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
My sexuality is strictly between me, my wife, and God, and I for one do not want Uncle Sam sticking his nose in my bedroom.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
Look, you live in a society. That means NOTHING u do is absolutely private. What u choose to study, inhale, consume, or practice in one way or another affects how you interact and relate to others.
If u do drugs, u can endanger the public. If u smoke, ur health problems can become societal burdens. If u r promiscuous & unaware of ur partner's sexual history u can endanger other ppl with STI's'
Unwed childbearing and divorce cost society as a whole $112 billion a year in conservative estimates
wood9670 2 years ago
Anti-miscegenation laws were EUGENICS laws. Similar to anti-consanguinity laws (incest) of today. I could explain more if you want.
Laws against bestiality, rape, fecal & pedo-eroticism are all forms of sexual regulation.
But back to your comment about the government TALKING about sexuality.
My position is ]message based rather than advocating laws against liberty. Just like the government funds sex ed programs to deter teen sex so too should it fund programs directed at adult behavior.
wood9670 2 years ago
Recognition of the biological & sexual nature's of its citizens government should promote programs & messages that encourage its heterosexual citizens (who do not wish to be celibate) to engage in monogamous relationships as well as inform them on the importance of married biological parents to child development.
For queer citizens (who do not wish to be celibate) government should promote monogamous relationships & inform them of the health risks of sodomy, oral sex, ect.
Just for starters.
wood9670 2 years ago
You're 1000% right. My position on this has always been that state marriages are civil unions and civil rights cannot be denied.
You take it a step further and define the partnership as non-sexual, or rather no inferred sexual component. This is a workable solution and respects everyone's rights.
Now, here's why won't it work: Because people on both sides are manipulated to believe that they have something to lose. And you and I don't have the $ to convince them that they don't.
digibal235 2 years ago
Sadly you are likely correct about that.
RationalRoundtable 2 years ago
In terms of children and the loss of power of straight marriage would be the biggest resistance. I agree with your idea but it essentially gives the fight up to the gay marriage crowd and some people won't like that. There are also people on the gay marriage side that simply want to harm the religious right.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
The state should stay the hell out of the church and the church should stay the hell out of the state.
If a church pays for political advertisements then it should also get to pay taxes.
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago 4
woooo! ur awesome lol
honors619 2 years ago
Well it's been a pleasure, RationalRoundtable, but now as I'been up all night working on my next novel, it's time for me to turn off the lights. In hope we'll get to debate together again.
À la prochaine,
L'Agnostique Café - Montreal Psycho
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
I will have to add that gay it will be up to religious institution to decide if they want to marry gays and lesbians because of their rights as institution. For the state part, the minister has to fill the government papers unless the couple has a ceremony in a church then goes to the mayor office afterward.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
So by filling these papers, the ministers wears two hats. One that is a religious one, and the second one that represents the state. Churches have all the rights not to wear the hat of the state (by having the legal act in hand, they are automatically linked to this legal act) if they want. So the minister won't say he has any power given by the state though the couple will need to find a legal representative to validate the papers.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Obviously with all rights are tempered to one extent or another, just as you cannot use free speech to incite a riot, you cannot use freedom of religion to stone people to death. That has not been a real issue in modern history; however I am concerned about the potential of the state dictating to the Church terms for providing a ceremony.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
You are right that ministers wear two hats when performing marriage; I am attempting to remove one of those hats buy truly separating Church and State. If you remove the term of marriage from law, and further remove the rights of ministers to enact a legal union (remember my concept cuts both ways here) you prevent the Church and State from coming into conflict while protecting equal rights.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Even if gay marriage was not a hot topic, I would be opposed to Churches performing the legal end of marriage (as they currently do) I think that all legal marriage should be a matter for the legal system and all religious ceremonies should not involve the legal system at all. If we change the name of the legal term and bar Churches we repair the already sketchy situation while also enabling gay marriage.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
There would be a problem with international recognition though. Because most countries talk in terms of marriage. What would be the real value of a couple's union act? Not much. At least, if you travel to Canada, the term legal union would not have the same weight.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Well the hat of the state that is worn by the minister doesn't really belong to him. It is an interim so not to have a minister AND a representative of the law involved, and also for not having the couple going from one place to another so to have both religious and legal papers signed. It's an accomodation that was offered by the state.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
In Canada, the state never could force a church to provide any service to anyone they don't want. Thay are not even oblidged to make legal acts, so... No, the only institution that must provide the service is the civil institution.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
"A rose by any other name smells just as sweet."
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
If we renamed the legal term to Domestic Partnership I sincerely doubt that Canada or any other nation would suddenly have a problem allowing immigrants. If for example Canada has gay marriage (I dont know) and a gay couple moved there do you really think they would say, "well we dont call it Partnership so we will not let you in."
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I know almost nothing about Canadian law however most liberal Americans think that it is vital that we maintain a separation of Church and state, given that they should support the idea of disallowing ministers to be legal representatives of the state.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Most conservatives believe that the state cannot intervene in the policies of the Church, so they should support the idea of preventing marriage from being a civil contract so that Churches can do as they please.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Yes, but it is not in the hand of the churches nor is it in the hand of the majority. It has to do with the law. As I said in my earlier post, religious institutions will be accomodated as best as can be, though the institutions are not citizens so they don't have human rights. I know it's a bit of a struggle as people now don't get along together. And as churches don't have to provide any service they don't want to provide, they are free to do as they please.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Actually, before the last election, there was a priest here who was in a deputation. He's a citizen too. So as long as he knew what his fight should be in the government, there was no problem. But separation of church and state is the best to me, so the church can have its own morals and the society can decide about its own.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Could be, though the problem is, there actually are existing legal union laws existing in a lot of provinces, old laws that were the first agreements for gays that are now for everybody. The legal union is like the one you find in the USA. It doesn't provide the same rights. The law is still viable for it offers other opportunities for couples, even though I never heard of anybody using that law. But if a person shows a legal union paper here, they'll need more papers for protection.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
And if the couple wants to emigrate to Canada, seeing as they have a legal union, they will need to invalidate the union and make a legal marriage. It's a bit of trouble...
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriages were practiced by Celtic cultures, byt African tribes, way before any of the actual religions existed. What is religious about marriage is the ceremony, nothing else.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
I would concede the point to you on this if it were not for the fact that the ancient Celtic and African tribal societies were deeply religious. Sure they were pagans, but they were religious nonetheless. I am not suggesting that this is a strictly "Christian" issue, rather religion in general.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Marriage also has a very old tradition in Far Eastern societies. Marriage was celebrated so the father of a girl would give ownership of his daughter to another man. The ceremony was purely an act dedicated to seduction. For the Celtics, it was an act of sacrifice as the father would sacrifice his daughter to the will of another man. So we are faced again with an act of slave selling.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Rituals may have been taken on by cults, first to accentuate the seduction tradition, then to make men and women groom and bride under a god, the first meaning was still a title of property that was passed. It is the ceremony that became religious. But the act was still a transaction.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
The act of selling the daughter remained in the European society until Renaissance, when romantism took over and religion appropriated itself the act of love. But at this time already, what was important was mostly the contract, which was kept by the church, okay, but remained property of the state.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
If you are trying to suggest that the idea of marriage has been somewhat different in different cultures, I would not disagree, however the modern institution of marriage still started as a religious institution, not a secular contract.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Some cultures believed in arranged marriage, some believed in selling your kids, that does not have much barring on the currant topic. If you want to argue for a purely secular marriage, and you have no religious feelings in the matter, no matter if you call it "Marriage" or "Domestic Partnership" in the legal system should make no difference as long as it is the same for all.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Comment removed
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
The ceremony might have been religious, but the act was one to sell the girl. Even though you go to church today to get married, there is a religious ceremony and civil acts. That's the civil act that is, and have always been important to the eyes of the society. The ceremony, it left it to whatever religion or cult you took part of.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
This is the legal act that was necessary to give right for a certificate of marriage. If marriage was a religious affair, you wouldn't find it in the list of fundamental rights of your country but at your church.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Very good explanation of the law on this video.
watch?v=1OeYg3MbKx4
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
While the video you point out is interesting, I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. I am not fighting against rights for gays, I am offering a solution that gives equal rights to all and still supports the 1st amendment.
and I still have no idea why you are obsessing over the whole "sell your daughter" thing, seriously... if you want to pick a fight do it with someone who would try to defend selling your daughter, or discrimianating against gays. that is not me.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I know that. I've watched your video. Though the slavery thing was meant to explain the real purpose of marriage, even though religious convictions made them being practiced by religious leaders, which was to sell the daughter. I don't think you want to discriminate against anyone. What I think though is that the reality of marriage being a religious really is far more ambiguous than what churches pretend.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Then again, marriage is a fundamental (civil) right. Why not simply go for citizens' rights instead of wanting to accomodate both sides? Fundamental rights must be fulfilled while religions must be accomodated if and only if it doesn't infringe human rights.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
The answer to that is simple my friend, religious freedom is also a fundamental right in this nation. Keeping the name marriage could eventually open up religious institutions to lawsuits for refusing to provide a basic service that they currently perform (marriage) to people legally entitled to that service (gays) this would in effect cause a constitutional crisis in which two fundamental rights are in conflict. By changing the legal term you avoid this.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
You have freedom of religion, just like you have freedom of speech. Though it does by no mean say that these religions have any rights other than what the society gives organisms with no lucrative motive. The freedom of choice is made on a personal basis. So while people have the right to choose their religion, religions themselves don't have the right to impose their values onto the society. They may make requests for accomodation. These accomodations must not though infringe over human rights.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
Because if it was the case that religions could request any accomodation, or worse, rights, that would give them the right to infringe human rights, then the Phelps family could request to be able to stone gays and soldiers to death.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So in other words, it is not because one has the fundamental right to associate to a cult that it means that religious institutions have any right over society.
montrealpsycho 3 years ago
not sure why this was marked as spam, but I will move on to your other post
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
This is win. I have nothing to debate on.
Dextear 3 years ago
This is close to the exact same arguments I've always made. I generally called it being "joined" instead of a "domestic partnership." Kind of borrowing the word from a "joint" bank account, I didn't want to have a real strong label on it.
Let the government handle the laws, let the people handle any sort of commitment or love ceremonies they wish to conduct.
MotionFur 3 years ago
The only problem with this argument is that it is not practical. The christian right would raise quite a storm if this seriously came under consideration.
SpeedyBruin 3 years ago
The guy in the video is whining. WE VOTED, AGAIN, AND THEY LOST.....AGAIN. there is only one side that is behaving badly and you know it.
sirjames45 3 years ago
The majority has no place dictating morality. Every time it does it results in discrimination, and restrictions of liberties.
Oh and you won with 52%, that's a drastic decline from the first vote held. Could it be that people change their minds? Hmmmm?
marcus033090 3 years ago
So, the minority dictates to the majority? This HAS been happening for a while. And it is ALWAYS the leftist minority doing the dictating.
sirjames45 3 years ago
No, on issues of morality nobody has the right to dictate to the other. This is a matter of equality under the law, and the majority is objecting for "moral" reasons. Also, do try to remember that America is not a purely majoritarian system. We have minority rights and protections.
marcus033090 3 years ago
Sirjames45,
I would point out that even you have to accept marcus033090s point about majority vs. minority rights
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
You have told me that you are a Calvinist and Calvinists are a small percentage of Christianity in general. I support your right to follow the Calvinist doctrines however In a strict majority rules world, Calvinists would have to simply abide by what the majority of Christians believe.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I do not doubt the sincerity of most Calvinists I have meet, however I do disagree with much of their doctrine, I may do a video on that in the future. But just because we disagree does not give me the right to force my belief on you. Just as when you disagree with the practice of homosexuality that is fine, but you do not have the right to give (or take away) equal protection under the law.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I disagree. The right does plenty of dictating of its own. One example is gay rights in California. Religious people have decided that there will be no marriage for gays there.
The problem with America these days is unrealistic blame-games played by both the right and the left.
Anytime you see someone using a word like "always," you can be sure they are not thinking clearly or honestly.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
So now voting is "dictating"? I must at this point remind you that the emperor has no clothes. Can anyone remember the great plea for Gay marriage in the 60's? NO? the 70's? the 80's?
but SUDDENLY in the late 1990's it appeared as the NUMBER ONE DESIRE of sodomites!! That is because it ain't real. It is a chess move by the radical left to LEGITIMIZE sexual perversion. WE...have all traditional Americans on our side, YOU have uh, well, let's see who is left in the closet...Oh! PEDOPHILES!
sirjames45 3 years ago
Well, I do believe opinion polls suggest that most people in California did not want the ban.
However, they should have gotten it together to out-vote the people they don't agree with, so I'll bring up a different example.
Teaching ID in schools - or even the notion that there's some scientific "controversy" about evolution. There is none.
Creationists are a minority even among Christians. There is no sound reason for them to pressure schools to teach ID, yet they do.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Or terms like "radical left."
Americans don't know what the "left" really is, since in reality there are about half a dozen in the whole country.
Anyone who's the least bit more liberal than Reagan gets slapped with the label "radical left" so that their adverseries don't really have to think things through or know what they are talking about.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
And I'll say it once again.
Beware the person who argues using terms like "always."
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Or terms like "radical left."
Americans don't know what the "left" really is, since in reality there are about half a dozen in the whole country.
Anyone who's the least bit more liberal than Reagan gets slapped with the label "radical left" so that their adverseries don't really have to think things through or know what they are talking about.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Radical left: Demanding sexual perversion be taught as normal to public school children-demanding socialist policies, (i.e. taking money away from those who earn it, and giving it those who don't) voting for laws that violate the 2nd amendment- demanding ONLY Darwinianism be taught in public schools-voting for freedom FROM religion-appeasing foreign enemies, and generally being anti-American. I would say about 20% of the adult population in the USA.
sirjames45 3 years ago
1) I assume by "perversion" you're referring to homosexuality. In our culture, it is indeed becoming seen as "normal." Kids know this whether they hear it in school or not.
2) I agree! We should not give any tax breaks or bail-out money to people who've ruined business & already get 500K a year!
4) I'll give you this one. I'm pro 2nd Amdmt.
5) Only evolution by natural is supported by the evidence. ID can be taught in church.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
[make that "evolution by natural selection"]
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
"Tax breaks"? yes, you are a lib! We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the ENTIRE world, and you are fine with that? show me where in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to have a monopoly on Schools, or even where it is ANY of their business.
sirjames45 3 years ago
6) Freedom from other people's religions (including yours) is the American way. Get used to it.
7) Not sure what "appeasment" you're refering to, but we probably disagree on that point.
8) Leftists care as much about their country as you do. They just disagree about what America needs, that's all.
9) 20%, Radical Left? That's a lot. If you consider that another 30% or so are garden-variety liberals, well, that's half the USA! Your fellow countrymen!
America: love it or leave it!
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
The Constitution says, "freedom OF...religion", not freedom from religion. America is not some amorpheous blob that can be shaped anyway a leftist want it to be. America is an experiment in LIMITED government, designed for a people who will GOVERN THEMSELVES by the Ten Commandments. If you are a socialist, then you are NOT American in your view of government!! You may have citizenship, but you are an enemy of this nation nonetheless.
sirjames45 3 years ago
1) Looking at the Bill of Rights, here in my lap, it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof"
Hmmmm. Nothing in that passage (or any other in the Constitution) that denies freedom from religion for those who wish it.
2) Please point to the place in the Constitution where it states that we are to govern ourselves by the Ten Commandments.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
3) Assuming you are using the word Socialism properly, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The US Government has historically nationalized property and distributed it as it has seen fit. Much of our railway system was built this way. Our national parks were formed this way. And a 2005 Supreme Court ruling (a pretty conservative court, too, I might add) upheld the practice.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
Ours is in practice a Social Democracy. Though somewhat less socialist than other Western countries, it has never been purely laissez-faire and has, like all advanced societies, become even less so since the 1880s.
Just because you personally hate something does not make those who have a better understanding of it enemies of the nation.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
4) I would like to know where you get your comparative information concerning tax scales for various countries. If we do in fact have the second-highest tax rates for corporations, yes, I am fine with it, since they seem to need us to bail them out occassionally.
5) What makes you say the government has a "monopoly on schools?" My daughter goes to a private Christian school, without interference from the government.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
1. worldwide-taxdotcom 2. you are PAYING for the public school whether your children go there or not, even though your private school does a better job. I am glad that you are able to send your daughter to a private Christian school.
sirjames45 3 years ago
Thanks for the link - I'll check it out.
Yes, I pay school taxes - and gladly. I believe in education and wish it for every child.
But even if I weren't concerned about that, I would recognize that absolutely no good could come, for my neighborhood or my nation, if the government did not provide schools to those who cannot afford a private one.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
In places where governments do not provide education for all children, swarms of them enter either into the workforce, driving down wages and creating terrible poverty - or into a life of systematized begging and/or crime, making life very unpleasant for everybody.
This is *exactly* why America adopted a public education policy in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
typo!
make that "systemized"
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
EyeLean,
You know that I respect you, and I love hearing from you in my channel, even when we disagree. I like that I can always count on you to have an interesting and respectful argument. However that being said, I have to tell you that in this case, I think that you are fighting a lost cause when it comes to sirjames45
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
The common ground is the Homosexuals have TOLERANCE in society. They will NEVER get more than tolerance, and they are demanding EVERYTHING as if they are equal to people who are not sexually perverted.
sirjames45 3 years ago
Your problem here seams to be that you think that because you are not sexually perverted as you say, that you are somehow superior to others. As a Christian you my not struggle with homosexuality, however you are far from perfect, and in Gods eyes sin is sin.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Look, Homosexuals HAVE tolerance. That is as far as they can go, and you can see that for militant leftists, it is not good enough! They have about 15% of Characters on TV played as gay. They have movies, parades, etc, and notice, for the militant gays, it is STILL not good enough! They want ALL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS applied to them! That will NOT happen.
sirjames45 3 years ago
Because if America has learned anything from history, it's that not everyone deserves civil rights.
marcus033090 3 years ago
the only people in the US, who do not have civil rights are babies in the womb. The ultimate civil right is the right to LIVE.
sirjames45 3 years ago
That's a strawman. It has nothing to do with this situation.
marcus033090 3 years ago
I would say to that stay tuned, I will do a video about abortion soon enough.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I look forward.
marcus033090 3 years ago
Sexual perversion will NOT be given a legal status. In the Old Testament we see Sodomites becoming militant and horribly evil. And GUESS what we see today............my how things have changed.
sirjames45 3 years ago
You are entitled to your opinion, but this channel is not for trolls.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I listened to your video, and you left out some HUGE points! I am a Christian living in America and therefore I KNOW what militant leftists do.
The SECOND we make gay marriage legal, they will FORCE companies to give pensions to the survivor of a gay marriage. They will SUE, and SUE and SUE, and threaten to sue, ANYONE who would they could over any issue they could.
sirjames45 3 years ago
I am a Christian in America as well my friend, and while I understand that you strongly disagree with homosexuality based on the idea that it is in fact a sin, our nation is built on the idea that all persons are to be treated equally under the law.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Then we must not legitimize Sexual perversion. The second we do, the socialist laws will used to force us to support sin. Just like our tax dollars already go to pay for abortions, making gay marriage legal will force those who are against it, to PAY for the costs. If the liberals had not already made this nation partially socialist, then maybe it could be allowed. Have a government ceremony for secular marriages, and a Christian one for Christians.
sirjames45 3 years ago
How on earth could gays make you pay for their marriage? The only way this could happen is if all marriages were payed for by the government, but this is an outrageous assumption.
marcus033090 3 years ago
Gays became militant in the Old testament? Wow, you either found some new documents or enjoy twisting the message of Sodom and Gomorrah...
marcus033090 3 years ago
So, you consider an entire city of sodomites, demanding to gang rape visitors, NOT militant?
sirjames45 3 years ago
Sodom was destroyed for a plethora of sins, the biggest ones being greed, and idol worship, not homosexuality. The "gang rape" was an act of cruelty and humiliation, and it happens again in the Bible in another city, the only reason that this particular case holds any kind of relevance is because the angels happened to be male... You should also take note that EVERY man in the city was there, and it's outrageous to think that every man was gay, and wanted to rape the angels for enjoyment.
marcus033090 3 years ago
I think that Marcus033090 makes a good point about the financial end of things while I do not support Gay Marriage as it currently stands (you already know my position on this) I do not see any attempt to make Gay Marriage paid for by tax money. If it were, than traditional marriage would have to be as well.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I would also point out that there are many sins that are legal and sometimes encouraged by the government, many Christians feel that gambling is a sin, yet they generally do not raise a fuss about the lotto that almost every state has. The reason is simple, having something legal is one thing, but dictating to the Church is another, that is the whole point of my position on Gay Marriage.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
With all that said, your videos are quickly becoming some of my favorites on Youtube!
I must applaud your logical, rational explanation of Biblical text, but also the United States Constitution as well.
I just want to thank you for making the videos that you have made thus far. They have provided great insight into questions that I have asked myself.
ixsikxwitxit 3 years ago
Thank you!
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I agree with your assertion in the video, and have in fact proposed said assertion to people in the past. However, my results were not nearly as good as yours; most people felt that I was simply playing semantics, but I guess that really addresses one of the larger issues at hand within this subject: the government is currently defining a religious institution.
In this video you did a great job explaining the problem, and addressing the constitutionality of the term "marriage".
ixsikxwitxit 3 years ago
*starts slow clap*
I beleive you've pulled together a thought that has been bouncing around in the minds of aetheists and those of varying sexual orientations, as well as people who just beleive in seperation of church and state and gay rights.
Very well composed, bravo!
NotRlyMatthew 3 years ago
Thank you very much, so if you are not really Mathew, who are you? :)
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I like your take on this, Michael. Good work.
GeraldWatercrest 3 years ago
Thank you.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
This was Jesse Ventura's solution too. I whole-heartidly agree with you. It solves the problem completely. The one thing I would add is that people who are currently married should get grandfathered in as in a civil union. Also this solves the divorce problem for churches, now you can disolve the civil union and churches don't have to recognize divorce if they don't have to. People need to think outside the box here.
TimKilgore 3 years ago
Agreed, and I did not know that about Jesse Ventura, my level of respect for him just went up a notch.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I thought about this too and before seeing this video some times and frankly, I completely agree. Five stared and favored.
Mastikator 3 years ago
Thank you!
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
It really doesn't matter what the Bible said. If the Bible said "It's okay to be gay" I wouldn't want it used as part of this issue anyway. This is America, a secular nation. The Bible can say kill gays or it can say love gays, I really don't give a shit. The bible has no place in legislation.
liveyoungdiefast91 3 years ago
bunch of gay fags
akhomich 3 years ago
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however this channel is not for trolls.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I agree to that to some extent, but it becomes very problematic when trying to determine exactly who makes the correct interpretation.
In some parts, the Bible labels homosexuality as a sin, while in other, celebrates everyones equal rights and equal value under God.
Since it's not up to state or government to decide who reads it the "right way", the only thing they can do is to determine what is moral and fair on society's terms, and religions would have to accept and adapt to that.
Fig075 3 years ago
Hi RR!
While I strongly believe in religious freedom, I also believe that this should include an equal amount of responsability. Where secular law strive toward equality, old religious law carries a significant amount of bigoted baggage.
A society that promotes equality and sets up laws against hate speach, while at the same time tolerates the very same, as long as it wears a mask of faith, is sending an inconsistent message that in itself is hateful to gays, doesn't it?
Fig075 3 years ago
If one misunderstand the Bible, it is very true that you can pull from it some terrible things. However that being said anyone who thinks that the Bible endorses hate of any kind does not 'get it' in its entirety.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
Marriage is not strictly a religious institution, never has been. Either way a religion isn't forced to recognize a marriage that goes against its beliefs. Therefore gay marriage does not violate any religious rights, especially since some religions allow gay marriage. The easiest solution I can see is to just allow gay marriage, changing the word would cause a lot of confusion.
tigershark1988 3 years ago
Prop 8 was not on marriage. It was on the idea of putting Gay marriage into the minds of children during school hours.
invaderzim007 3 years ago
I thought you were really dropping the ball in the first half, but wow, I think you really pulled it together with insighfulness. That was beautiful.
DanielJGreenJr 3 years ago
Thank you, I did kind of stumble around for a bit... but I think I made my point.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago
I fully endorse cross-stomping, that symbol of death has been used to oppress people for far too long, it belongs in the dust bin of history and the respect people have for it needs to fade away. Perhaps if they see that a person can show utter disrespect for it and not immediately receive a Zeus style lightning bolt, they'll realize it isn't magical.
bmcguire80 3 years ago
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however this channel is not for trolls.
RationalRoundtable 3 years ago