www.ditl.org

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to get married, full stop. Regardless of what gender or sexual orientation they happen to be.
Personaly, I say screw all this "they can have civil union status, but not marriage status". It was decided decades ago that "seperate but equal" is not good enough.

I know, I'm catholic so i understand the creation myth from the Cristian/Jewish/Islamic faiths

but what about the Hindu's or Buddhists that for one don't even believe in that God?

Lt. Staplic wrote:I know, I'm catholic so i understand the creation myth from the Cristian/Jewish/Islamic faiths

but what about the Hindu's or Buddhists that for one don't even believe in that God?

In America, other faiths don't matter.

I originally came from a country where religion and education were intertwined. We all said Christian Prayers in the morning, after lunch and when before went home. It was a Presbyterian School but publicly funded. The church was in the school's backyard. Even if you're Muslim or Hindu, you had to say prayers or go stand outside if you didn't want to praise another religious deity. That is what the principal said. "If you don't want to say Christian prayer, go stand outside until we're finished!"

That's one thing among many I love about America. Public schools can't force you to pray. Freedom from religion is so great. I choose when I want to find God. I love the "Separation of Church and State."

I love the principal, too bad we screw it up all the time

Nutso wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:If churches want the right to turn away anyone they want for any reason then they shouldn't get tax breaks from the government. No other private members clubs get to do that so I don't see why they should.

In the U.S., you have a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom to practice your religion, free from Government interference. The Government can't force a Church to accept another person's beliefs. It used to go the other way too. Now Creationism is a science taught in some Georgia public schools...

Penn & Teller Bullsh!t on Creationism

Do you not also have laws against discrimination, so which wins. If you go around refusing to employ coloured people because there coloured can they do you if you just say, well it's my religion. Surely they can.

IanKennedy wrote:Do you not also have laws against discrimination, so which wins. If you go around refusing to employ coloured people because there coloured can they do you if you just say, well it's my religion. Surely they can.

What was it Charles Napier said about that excuse?

Captain Seafort wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:Do you not also have laws against discrimination, so which wins. If you go around refusing to employ coloured people because there coloured can they do you if you just say, well it's my religion. Surely they can.

What was it Charles Napier said about that excuse?

Hmm, what did he say?

I legit don't know, either, and am curious.

His response to the Indian practice of widow-burning:

Major General Sir Charles Napier wrote:You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom; when men burn a woman alive we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build you funeral pyre. Beside it, my men will build a gallows. You may follow your custom, and then we will follow ours.

Captain Seafort wrote:His response to the Indian practice of widow-burning:

Major General Sir Charles Napier wrote:You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom; when men burn a woman alive we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build you funeral pyre. Beside it, my men will build a gallows. You may follow your custom, and then we will follow ours.

I love that quote.

Ooh, a very nice quote, there. Thanks.

IanKennedy wrote:

Nutso wrote: In the U.S., you have a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom to practice your religion, free from Government interference. The Government can't force a Church to accept another person's beliefs. It used to go the other way too. Now Creationism is a science taught in some Georgia public schools...

Do you not also have laws against discrimination, so which wins. If you go around refusing to employ coloured people because there coloured can they do you if you just say, well it's my religion. Surely they can.

Yes we have laws against discrimination based on gender or race. They pertain to Government funded facilities and the workplace, public or private. A businessman cannot refuse to hire someone who is capable because of his skin color, and the businessman cannot do so for religious reason. There are laws made to prevent that and provide equal opportunity in the workplace.

I must however, correct myself from above.

I said:
The Government can't force a Church to accept another person's beliefs.

This is true. However practices are another issue. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal in the U.S. This is/was a Mormon practice. Then in "1882 Congress enacted a statute which barred 'bigamists,' 'polygamists,' and 'any person cohabiting with more than one woman' from voting or serving on juries." To me this is clearly discrimination based on religion, taking away equal representations from the Mormons based on religious practices. However bigamy and polygamy have remained illegal in the U.S. and Mormons have adapted to the laws of this land.

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The bold part is called The Free Exercise Clause. In the past these laws were open to interpretation until it's more clearly defined by the Supreme Court. In 1878 the Court stated

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

So it's entirely feasible that the practice of barring gays from marrying in a particular Church may indeed come to an end someday. It depends on the the persons who interpret the U.S. Constitution and how they rule on a particular case. They've voted on and reversed themselves on different issues in the past.

I was wrong on the practices part. After all, no religion may practice human sacrifice. And Mormon men can't marry all the women they want to. Although until 1978, the Mormons did keep blacks from becoming ministers in their Church. It was their long held belief that blacks were descendants of Cain and inherited his sin, that led to the Mormon practice of disallowing their black members to ascend to ministers. So it would take some Supreme Court Justices who could clearly distinguish between banning of gay marriage by a Church as a belief or as a practice.

For good or ill, the "separation of church and State" must work both ways. No matter how much I disagree with a religion's tenets, the state has no right to legislate them (unless, of course, they infringe upon an outside secular legislation or harm or deprive another person.) In other words, if a religion has attacking minorities as one of its beliefs, then that would be outlawed under the laws against attacking people - not any law against that fiath specifically. However, if the Roman Catholics want to ban women from becoming ordained, then that is their right.

exactly laws enacted to protect citizens, or that serve a civil purpose, are good and aren't discriminatory against a religious orgonization even if the laws directly contridict religious doctorine.

However, laws cannot be enacted that stop a person from wholy practicing their faith should those faiths not cause misfortune to befall anyone else.

So it would take some Supreme Court Justices who could clearly distinguish between banning of gay marriage by a Church as a belief or as a practice.

The problem is that with Christians, who are the leading anti-gay voice over here, is that it is a belief that God damns all gays. They point out five central bibical passages that they interpret as saying that.

Lt. Staplic wrote:...They point out five central bibical passages that they interpret as saying that.

One of which is the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah; I've tried pointing out (usually to no avail) that the story is a condemnation of evil acts like rape and murder, and debauchery in general. The fact that they were all bi-sexual is a coincidence, and is unrelated to the wrath God brought down on them.

ya, there's a nother one from a letter from St. Paul to the Romans where he says something like:

Intamacy with a man of the courts will bring you no closer to God.

or something along those lines, people interpret it in that God is anti-homosexual, while what Paul was actually writing about is that being homosexual isn't holy in and of itself. Roman religion said that homosexuality would bring you closer to the Gods. Paul was simply saying that it wouldn't, not that it was a sin.