# Homosexuality and Christianity, Part 20075



## Bob Hubbard (May 31, 2011)

subtitle: "picking and choosing the law to suit your fancy."

A recent discussion that resulted after a FB posting generated more debate on the alleged Christian Bible condemnations of homosexuality.  What follows are some of my comments. Other things touched on are Old Testament laws, and what the New Testament does and does not negate.



> One other question. Since there is NO ban in the Christian Bible against Lesbians, why can't they get married?
> 
> If there is such a ban, please point it out.
> Leviticus 18:22 does not address it.
> ...





> Cursing your mom, punishment?
> Death by stoning!  Leviticus 20:9
> 
> Eating Buffalo Wings is Forbidden!
> ...





> Also, see Deuteronomy 14 for more ok and not ok  food instructions.  No pork. So any Southerner who likes them a good  BBQ, better be eating Beef Ribs, cuz if they're slathering on the rub on  some good ol piggie, theysa gunna burn in heel!
> Deuteronomy 14:8
> 
> So,  my last visit to Smokin Bones locked me in for a hot fire dip I guess.   That's ok.  It'll still be cooler than that damn sauce.





> Now, 1 argument I've heard is that the New  Testament negates the Old Testament. But if that's the case, the NT  doesn't touch the topic of homosexuality really. Not in the Gospels.   There are at best 2-3 references, and those depend on which translation  you read.  So...... ??





> Deuteronomy 14:8 "The pig is also unclean;  although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to  eat their meat or touch their carcasses. "
> 
> So, no piggie.
> Also 14:9 and 14:10 tell me no shrimp, crab or lobster. Now to deny ...me the joys of eating water bug covered in hot melted butter...well that's just sinful that is.
> ...





> "It is only in Romans 1:2627, 1 Corinthians  6:910, and 1 Timothy 1:811 that there may be references to  homosexuality.2 The paucity of references to homosexuality in the New  Testament suggests that it was not a matter of major concern ei...ther for Jesus or for the early Christian movement. "
> 
> Romans 1:26-27
> 26  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women  exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
> ...





> My point here is, the NT does not negate the OT.   But a number of sections of the OT (such as the clauses on certain  foods, personal grooming habits, and where to take a crap) are ignored  today without question, deemed 'outdated'. So, I can...  safely ignore the scant anti-homosexual clauses in the same way and  still, if I wanted to, call myself a Christian. Which I don't. Wish to  or do so.
> 
> There is also of course the definition of 'sodomy',  which varies from state to state, with at least 1 US state still making  it illegal (with jail time and fine I might add) for your legal wife to  engage in ********. It's also still illegal in Texas to buy a rubber  dicky but not to elect one as President.  Strange disconnect there.





> BTW (and anyone else interested in Bible studies)  http://www.biblegateway.com/  great resource to quickly compare various translations.  25 different English editions available.



opening the floor.


----------



## granfire (May 31, 2011)

maybe you should not put dietary things up top....I didn't get past pork...I am having a serious bacon habit ATM....


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 31, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> opening the floor.


 
The OT and the NT are either taken as literal stories or allegories. If you think they are allegories then you have no issue with the contradictions, if you are literal, then you need to justify the contradictions to your own satisfaction and to no one else.

We all know fried foods are bad for us, but we eat them. We all know exercise is good for us, but we neglect it. 

Whatever aids one to get through life happily and without interfering in the lives of others, is fine by me. Believe in whatever you want, divine spirit, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, totems, or the flying spaghetti monster. 

Not a one of us are getting out of this alive anyway,


----------



## Blindside (Jun 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> subtitle: "picking and choosing the law to suit your fancy."
> 
> A recent discussion that resulted after a FB posting generated more debate on the alleged Christian Bible condemnations of homosexuality.  What follows are some of my comments. Other things touched on are Old Testament laws, and what the New Testament does and does not negate.
> 
> opening the floor.



I am guessing you aren't going to get alot of takers on this one.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 1, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> The OT and the NT are either taken as literal stories or allegories. If you think they are allegories then you have no issue with the contradictions, if you are literal, then you need to justify the contradictions to your own satisfaction and to no one else.
> 
> We all know fried foods are bad for us, but we eat them. We all know exercise is good for us, but we neglect it.
> 
> ...


I think you are hitting on an interesting point. When the Bible was written, the family was everything. This live and let live mentality did not exist. You either got with the program or not. The nots tend to get sacrificed to the gods, or turned away. These were different times.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2011)

Blindside said:


> I am guessing you aren't going to get alot of takers on this one.


Possibly. My focus is less to rehash the 'homo' argument, and more so use this as discussion fodder.

Hey, it's at least a topic that doesn't include Obama, Bush, The TSA or Islam.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 1, 2011)

I though that th artcle was pretty good> I have to agree with the basic premis that while it`s a sin, homosexuality isn`t worse than any other sin. The Bible tells us there`e no such thing as big sins or little sins, just sins.That`s just us wanting to justify our behavior by saying "At least I`m not as bad as that guy".I guess some folks will say I`m the ultimate contradiction in terms. I`m a conservative Christian, and I take the whole "Don`t complain about the dust in your brother`s eye until you remove the beam from your own eye" thing pretty seriously. I still think homosexual sex is a sin, but so is speeding and cheating on your taxes. And I`ve got enough of my own weaknesses to overcome that I can`t see bitching about someone else`s unless they ask me for an opinion. And even then, we`re all commanded to hate the sin and love the sinner. As always, your milage may vary.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

David43515 said:


> I have to agree with the basic premis that while it`s a sin, homosexuality isn`t worse than any other sin.



Yes. Homosexuality is regarded as a sin by _some Bronze Age people_. Two passages earlier in Leviticus 20 it says:     Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."  I don't see all these faithful Christians killing their kids _per a real god's command_. 

Religious people cherry pick verses they like to promote, and sweep_ the other things their god said_ under the rug. 
It is humorous to watch people squirm when you bring up the OT. So much baggage in their for them. The NT is definitely an improvement over the OT, but there's still plenty of stupidity in the NT too.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 1, 2011)

The problem I see is people keep quoting Levitical law for the Hebrew people (or others of the Jewish faith) and trying to say that Christianity doesn't follow it.  Correct, Jesus only gave two commandments.  While some Christians still follow some Jewish practices, it is not a requirement, nor did Jesus ever say it was.  In fact, Jesus took all of the laws and commandments and summed them up into two

1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Love God with all your heart, mind and soul (Matthew 22:37-38)

Understanding levitical law is a different thing and must be put into context.  If you look at most of the prohibitions that seem strange it is because of health practices of the time, or ways to differentiate themselves from neighboring peoples/religions

Now to look at some "weird" laws that were mentioned.  I always see someone throw out the "blended cloth" crap, and really it is a big strawman argument.  Back then they didn't have blended fabrics like we due today where they are homogenous blends that look like one type (rayon or polyesters).  Would you put a wool patch over a cotton garment?  

Testicle checkers in your church as prescribed by law?  Well, not applicable today because women can enter the church.

Tattoos, again religious practices of their "pagan" neighbors.

Cutting your hair?  Talking about egyptian religious practices that required it's worshippers to shave their heads.  Trimming the ends of your beard?  Again, talking about cutting it flat across the bottom like the sumerian priests.

Remember, the Hebrews were God's chosen people to show the rest of the world the way.  They had many rules to help them set themselves apart.  Since Jesus sacrificed and there is no longer "Jew or Gentile", then laws making the seperation would also be moot.

Laws regarding food were also replaced and noted by Paul that there were not clean and unclean animals.  If you look at all the prohibitions, they are animals that if not prepared properly will make you very sick.  Just don't read the animals prohibited, read all the prohibitions about preparing food and handling food, and handwashing etc.  Even to spots on your skin etc.  When you have a lot of people in close quarters, you can't take the risk of infectious disease so you would isolate those people until you could figure out if it was infectious or not.  With today's medical care and food knowledge, we know how to take care of these things and again the Jewish law becomes moot on this point.

So to me, it is not a "picking or choosing" of the laws, it is a personal understanding of what type of law it is talking about.  Is it talking about spiritual matters/sinful behavior or matters of governing.  As Jesus said, "It is not what a man puts into his mouth that makes him unclean, it is what comes out of his mouth that makes him unclean" (paraphrase)


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The problem I see is people keep quoting Levitical law for the Hebrew people (or others of the Jewish faith) and trying to say that Christianity doesn't follow it.  Correct, Jesus only gave two commandments.  While some Christians still follow some Jewish practices, it is not a requirement, nor did Jesus ever say it was.  In fact, Jesus took all of the laws and commandments and summed them up into two



He also said: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth  disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will  by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18

Your argument, while essentially correct, also ignores the fact that many Christians use Mosaic law as an argument for why this or that is a sin.  The point that Bob and others are making is that you can't go all in on the Mosaic law that impeaches people you don't like, but ignore or explain away Mosaic law that is inconvenient to you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

The argument is the classic argument from hypocrisy.

Your argument can be simply restated as _"Christians are hypocrites, therefore any claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality is invalid."_

The problem is that the two are not linked.  Christians **are** hypocrites, and sinners.  But that does not change the biblical condemnation of homosexuality.  It exists regardless of whether or not it is observed.  You can't make it not be there just because many people disregard other prohibitions.

This is reinforced later in the thread with the old argument that Christians pick and choose which biblical laws they will follow, therefore they have no moral authority to cite any laws whatsoever.

This is ridiculous on it's face, for a number of reasons.  

The first reason is easily demonstrated (and sorry, Bob, but I'm going to drag Islam in here).  Islam is commonly condemned by those who hate or dislike the religion and those who believe in it by pointing out the terrible laws that are present in the Koran and insisting that if they are indeed Muslims, they *must* be performing these acts, or they are actually in favor of them being performed even if the modern world and laws constrain them.  Well, which is it, folks?  Either you condemn religious for obeying prohibitions by the letter, or you condemn religious for *not* obeying prohibitions by the letter.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either humans are capable of picking and choosing which laws to obey, or they are not.  Choose one, but don't argue the opposite later.

The second reason is that such hypocrisy can be used for virtually any argument.  Most of you exceed the speed limit, change lanes without signalling, fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs.  Clearly, you do not follow the law.  You pick and choose which laws you will follow.  By your logic, then, you may not hold an opinion that people ought not to rob banks because bank robbing is against the law - you don't obey the law yourselves, so you have no right to hold an opinion based on it.

Clearly, you *do* have the right to be for or against something based on its legality, even though you yourself are a hypocrite.  Therefore, the argument from hypocrisy is a logical fallacy.

The argument from hypocrisy also serves to shift the focus.  Notice that we're not discussing whether homosexuality is a good or a bad thing.  We're not even talking about whether or not it is condemned by the Bible, which is the ostensible subject.  Instead, we're talking about the fact that the Bible is full of contradictions, silly dietary restrictions, and those who do not follow the rules found in the Bible, every jot and tittle, are therefore hypocrites and therefore ought to utterly reject any Biblical basis for their personal opinion on homosexuality.

These kinds of arguments boil down to a couple of core statements:

1) You are not entitled to feel the way you feel because the Bible is a lie.
2) You are not entitled to feel the way you feel because you are a hypocrite.
3) You are not entitled to feel the way you feel because the laws encapsulated in the Bible are archaic (or silly, stupid, ancient, etc).

None of them address the core issues.  Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?  It does.  Is a person allowed to cite the Biblical injunction against homosexuality as their reason to be against it?  They are.

That's pretty much it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> None of them address the core issues.  Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?  It does.  Is a person allowed to cite the Biblical injunction against homosexuality as their reason to be against it?  They are.
> 
> That's pretty much it.



The argument isn't really about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality.  We all know it does.  The argument isn't even really about the Bible.  The argument is directed against the Christians who cite one law while ignoring or worse justifying the ignoring of others.  If Jesus discarded Mosaic law, why is homosexuality still wrong but eating shrimp isn't?  If Mosaic law is binding, why do you ignore most of it?  The argument is about the arguments people make from the Bible, not the Bible itself.

This is also sharpened by David's point that all sins and sinners are equal in the eyes of God, an old theological point from Christianity.  "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  Thus, your point about speeding while condemning bank robbers makes perfect sense from the human conception of justice, but doesn't make sense from the divine conception of justice as explained in the New Testament.  None are righteous.  Remove the plank from your own eye first.  He who has not sinned cast the first stone.  And so forth.  Condemning the immorality of others while ignoring your own is very much against Jesus' words.  Thus it makes sense to bring this up to those who condemn homosexuality while ignoring their own sins and breaking of the Law, the new Pharisees if you will.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I think you are hitting on an interesting point. When the Bible was written, *the family was everything.* This live and let live mentality did not exist. You either got with the program or not. The nots tend to get sacrificed to the gods, or turned away. These were different times.
> Sean



I'm not a biblical scholar, Sean, but I recently read that wasn't the case at all. Our idea of family didn't really evolve until well into the 16th century. Most of the bans against homosexuality,contraception and abortion happened as a response to the Anabaptist movement.

Historically speaking, much of the hate in the bible is the result of political manipulations relatively late in life. 

Which is my main issue with your point, Bill. If your _faith_ tells you homosexuality is unacceptable, that's your right. But don't point at a millenia-old, five times translated, severely politically compromised document and say it tells you to hate somebody.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 1, 2011)

Lots of room over here on the atheist side of the island boys & girls....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Lots of room over here on the atheist side of the island boys & girls....


Or pagan.    Though it's getting harder and harder to find virgins these days for the annual BBQ and sacrifice. The geeks at MIT are getting scared.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The argument isn't really about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality.  We all know it does.  The argument isn't even really about the Bible.  The argument is directed against the Christians who cite one law while ignoring or worse justifying the ignoring of others.  If Jesus discarded Mosaic law, why is homosexuality still wrong but eating shrimp isn't?  If Mosaic law is binding, why do you ignore most of it?  The argument is about the arguments people make from the Bible, not the Bible itself.



Not true.  I agree that this is a very interesting discussion to have, but it's not the one we're having.  Instead, Bob has used it as a wedge to open the issue and point out the contradictions in the Bible and the hypocrisy of those who disobey it's apparently-silly rules, and to extrapolate that they therefore have no moral leg to stand on when they claim homosexuality is defined in the Bible as a sin.

Bob said it himself when he opened the thread, _"subtitle: "picking and choosing the law to suit your fancy.""  _Since he opened the thread, the discussion is about what he said it is about.  As much as I agree with your statements above, I do not agree that this is what Bob is saying here.



> This is also sharpened by David's point that all sins and sinners are equal in the eyes of God, an old theological point from Christianity.  "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  Thus, your point about speeding while condemning bank robbers makes perfect sense from the human conception of justice, but doesn't make sense from the divine conception of justice as explained in the New Testament.  None are righteous.  Remove the plank from your own eye first.  He who has not sinned cast the first stone.  And so forth.  Condemning the immorality of others while ignoring your own is very much against Jesus' words.  Thus it makes sense to bring this up to those who condemn homosexuality while ignoring their own sins and breaking of the Law, the new Pharisees if you will.



But none of this changes the rules.  If speeding and bank robbery are against the law, and I speed, it certainly makes me a hypocrite (speaking strictly) if I speak out against bank robbery because it is against the law.  But it does not change either law.

And let's not pretend we don't understand the nature of the attack.  People have opinions.  They base them on all sorts of things, from logic to science to religion to peer pressure to just plain old personal preference.  The attack is on religion as a valid reason for a person to hold an opinion, not on the opinion.  The essential take-away is _"You are not allowed to feel that way based religion because...,_" followed by _"your religion is bunk,"_ or _"you are a hypocrite,"_ or _"the Bible is full of contradictions."_  No one who is not religious and enters into the argument regarding the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is interested in a parsing of Mosaic versus NT law, nor of the finer points of Theology.  They see the flaws in the people who claim religion as a reason for their anti-homosexual belief, and they use it as a hammer.  It's not a valid argument, and I've pointed out why.  The point here is not religion; the point here is invalid logic.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> None of them address the core issues.  Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?



Yes, this is the question. If someone asks me this, my response is:  " Yes it does "  My question to them now is:  " So what ?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not true.  I agree that this is a very interesting discussion to have, but it's not the one we're having.  Instead, Bob has used it as a wedge to open the issue and point out the contradictions in the Bible and the hypocrisy of those who disobey it's apparently-silly rules, and to extrapolate that they therefore have no moral leg to stand on when they claim homosexuality is defined in the Bible as a sin.
> 
> Bob said it himself when he opened the thread, _"subtitle: "picking and choosing the law to suit your fancy.""  _Since he opened the thread, the discussion is about what he said it is about.  As much as I agree with your statements above, I do not agree that this is what Bob is saying here.
> 
> ...


Actually, there's a lot of questions around my OP.  So there's room to wander a bit.

"  If Jesus discarded Mosaic law, why is homosexuality still wrong but  eating shrimp isn't?  If Mosaic law is binding, why do you ignore most  of it?  The argument is about the arguments people make from the Bible,  not the Bible itself."

This is one part of my question.
Another are the differences in translations, some which drastically change the meaning of sections.

And Bill, you're correct, it is a hammer. But the counter hammer is the one where people pick and choose what to cite, while being woefully ignorant of the work as a whole, it's meanings and reasonings, etc.

Also, I think someone who is telling me that being gay is a sin, better not have a mohawk, a skull tattoo and be gnawing on a bbq pig rib with a copy of Sleezy Ridher sticking out of his polyester blend overalls.  I might have to stone him for heracy or something. (The hippies had it right...everyone must be stoned. They just found a non-violent way to do so. )  

There's also the whole "lets dip our bullets in pig blood and shoot terrorists" crowd who is ignorant that the 'pig unclean' argument also can apply to Jews and Christians too. 

Then there's the does the old test apply to Christians question. Some say yea some nay. If it's nay, why is it even included in the book?  Etc.

So, idea foder.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> He also said: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18
> 
> Your argument, while essentially correct, also ignores the fact that many Christians use Mosaic law as an argument for why this or that is a sin. The point that Bob and others are making is that you can't go all in on the Mosaic law that impeaches people you don't like, but ignore or explain away Mosaic law that is inconvenient to you.


 
What is the context of that verse and where does it come from?  It is from Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount", if you quoted the next verse, you would note that Jesus is criticizing the religious leaders of the time because they follow the "letter of the law", but not the "spirit of the law".  Jesus ALWAYS taught from the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.  Jesus and/or his disciples were criticized for not following Jewish "law" while he was alive, for example, not washing hands in the ceremonially prescribed manner or doing "work" on the Sabbath.

Jesus (and most Christians) understand the purpose of the old law.  It is to have a better relationship with God and as a spiritual path.  Laws that have to do with Israel as a kingdom, or for members of the tribe of Levi, or agricultural laws for Israel do not apply to us today.  It is NOT a matter of picking or choosing as I said in my previous post, it is understanding the differences between the spiritual laws and the "housekeeping" laws.

On the other side of the coin, name some spiritual laws from the Torah that Christians don't keep or think are wrong?  Again, not the housekeeping laws due to poor hygiene or poor food management.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 1, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I'm not a biblical scholar, Sean, but I recently read that wasn't the case at all. Our idea of family didn't really evolve until well into the 16th century. Most of the bans against homosexuality,contraception and abortion happened as a response to the Anabaptist movement.
> 
> Historically speaking, much of the hate in the bible is the result of political manipulations relatively late in life.
> 
> Which is my main issue with your point, Bill. If your _faith_ tells you homosexuality is unacceptable, that's your right. *But don't point at a millenia-old, five times translated, severely politically compromised document and say it tells you to hate* *somebody*.


 
The Torah has remained consistant from it's earliest versions that have been found.  Are there some that were made with that purpose, yes.  But, those are not the norm and the original intent is still known and can be translated.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes, this is the question. If someone asks me this, my response is:  " Yes it does "  My question to them now is:  " So what ?"



That is a perfectly reasonable question.  Frankly, to me, the answer is _"so nothing."_  I am aware that it is condemned.  If I am asked if the Bible considers it a sin, I say _"yes."_  That's all.  Does not keep me awake at night, I'm not out marching with signs or trying to get laws changed.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

*Theist*:   Homosexuality is a sin because God says so.
*Atheist*:  Interesting. What evidence can you show me that this _supernatural agent _exists?
*Theist*:  :idunno:
*Atheist*:  So why should I take this _law_ from this _supposed_ supernatural agent seriously?
*Theist*: Because it's in the bible!
*Atheist*: Dude, you have to demonstrate that this supernatural agent exists first.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> On the other side of the coin, name some spiritual laws from the Torah that Christians don't keep or think are wrong?  Again, not the housekeeping laws due to poor hygiene or poor food management.



Well, I think many Jews would strongly disagree about your characterization of "housekeeping" laws vs. "spiritual" laws.  They are one and the same in big parts of the Jewish community.

There is also a definition problem.  How do we know that the ban on (male) homosexuality wasn't "housekeeping" at the time?  Who decides what is what?  IIRC Jesus never condemns homosexuality, that is left to Paul - who also had views on the roles of women that Jesus did not seem to exemplify and that most Christians nowadays disagree with.  So if Paul was wrong on women, might he not be wrong on homosexuality?  

As for your question, Christians ignore many of the "spiritual" laws of the Torah.  The creation of graven images of God is rampant among Christians (not the iconoclasts, however).  The misuse of God's name in curses and similar is rampant.  Nearly all Christians don't keep the Sabbath in the prescribed manner, and in fact Christians have been observing the wrong Sabbath day for centuries (it's actually Saturday).  That's three of the 10 commandments right there.  Christians also ignore essentially all of the Mosaic law on the proper conduct of worship (albeit some for practical reasons which the Jews also share).  You can't claim that the conduct of worship isn't "spiritual".  There are probably others, but that's a few.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually, there's a lot of questions around my OP.  So there's room to wander a bit.



Since we are wandering, consider this.  I am a professing Christian, but that may or may not be the reason I hold certain opinions regarding the behavior of others.

In other words, I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.  That may inform my own opinion, or it may not.  And if it does, it may be the entire reason I hold a particular opinion, or it may only be part of the reason.

The argument from hypocrisy leveled at Christians with regard to their opinions on homosexuality assumes that all Christians have only one basis for their opinions and beliefs.

Do **you** have only one source for your beliefs and opinions?  Well, neither do I.  I'd be willing to bet that most Christians (and non-Christians) are not that one-dimensional either.

Frankly, I think that's where we get a lot of our prejudices about _'them'_.  We all know how _'they'_ are.  Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, insert any word you like to mean 'them'.  Take their book, or their rules, or something you've read that you think they believe, and insist that if they are indeed (Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc), then they MUST believe (insert some behavior or attribute that you dislike).  People are often a bit more complex than that, and seem to be rather not interchangeable.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is a perfectly reasonable question.  Frankly, to me, the answer is _"so nothing."_  I am aware that it is condemned.  If I am asked if the Bible considers it a sin, I say _"yes."_  That's all.  Does not keep me awake at night, I'm not out marching with signs or trying to get laws changed.



I would imagine that most Theists have this stance as well. 

Here's an interesting question:
The Bible says:  " Thou shalt not kill " and " Thou shalt not steal " Why should I take *those* seriously either? 

Seriously


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> The Torah has remained consistant from it's earliest versions that have been found.  Are there some that were made with that purpose, yes.  But, those are not the norm and the original intent is still known and can be translated.



Thanks for that. I'm not as familiar with the history of the Torah and its translations. But the OT -- and thus the most commonly available version of the Penteteuch (sp?) has suffered the same degradation as the rest of the Christian Bible.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 1, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I'm not a biblical scholar, Sean, but I recently read that wasn't the case at all. Our idea of family didn't really evolve until well into the 16th century. Most of the bans against homosexuality,contraception and abortion happened as a response to the Anabaptist movement.
> 
> Historically speaking, much of the hate in the bible is the result of political manipulations relatively late in life.
> 
> Which is my main issue with your point, Bill. If your _faith_ tells you homosexuality is unacceptable, that's your right. But don't point at a millenia-old, five times translated, severely politically compromised document and say it tells you to hate somebody.


So the Sib Kinship system was created in the 16th century? They taught me different in college, but it was community college; so, you could be right........ Not. Our views on homosexuality may be modern, but survival of the tribe was a priority... honest.
sean


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In other words, I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.  That may inform my own opinion, or it may not.  And if it does, it may be the entire reason I hold a particular opinion, or it may only be part of the reason.



Fully agreed.  People are complex.  In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings.  After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.  

I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.

That does open such a person up to this argument though.  If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply.  In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced.  Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> *Theist*:   Homosexuality is a sin because God says so.
> *Atheist*:  Interesting. What evidence can you show me that this _supernatural agent _exists?
> *Theist*:  :idunno:
> *Atheist*:  So why should I take this _law_ from this _supposed_ supernatural agent seriously?
> ...



Oh, good, a straw man!  Can I play too?

*Theist:* Demonstrate to me that I am not legally allowed to hold an opinion based on a belief in an entity I cannot prove exists and the rules I think that entity promulgated.
*Atheist:* You are free to believe anything you like, of course.  You're just wrong.
*Theist:* Then this is what I choose to believe, whether you think it is wrong or not.  Demonstrate to me that I cannot vote my conscience based on my (wrong to you) beliefs.
*Atheist:* You are free to vote as you wish, of course.  It's just illogical that you would do so.
*Theist:* Then we have nothing to discuss, really.  I'll believe as I wish and vote as I wish.
*Atheist:* But your opinions are based on illogic!
*Theist:*  So what?  Freedom means I don't have to adhere to your logic, nor you to mine.  But we all have to obey the law, and we vote for the society we want to live in, regardless of our reasons for wanting it that way.

We can play this game all day.  At the end of it, though, is this.  We live (in the USA) in a society that is secular, but within a framework of laws enacted by men and women who vote as they believe society should be ordered.  Their religious beliefs or lack of same can and do influence their vision of the society they want to live in.  If a certain percentage of religious believers of one sort gain secular authority, expect the rules of that society to reflect those beliefs to the extent not prohibited by the Constitution.  That is the way our secular society runs.  It is not run by the rules of logic, or by the rules of science, or by what one can and cannot prove to be true.  It is run by people who hold beliefs, some logical and some not.  

Your recourse is to work to change those laws by education of others and by voting.  Arguing that their beliefs are based on a non-existent being is a non-starter.  You won't convince them, and nothing forces the law to disregard the opinions of the religious voter.

Point out that religion is illogical, and based on the existence of a being that cannot be proven to exist?  Great fun, I suppose.  The point?  I don't see one.  People will not suddenly clap their hands to their heads and say _"Oh my goodness! I've been hoodwinked!"_  Judges will not strike down laws because the people who voted for them were religious and not atheists.

But look at the bright side.  When atheists are the majority, then society will tend to be ordered more to your liking.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I would imagine that most Theists have this stance as well.
> 
> Here's an interesting question:
> The Bible says:  " Thou shalt not kill " and " Thou shalt not steal " Why should I take *those* seriously either?
> ...



Seriously, this is a continuation of the logical fallacy I already pointed out.  The law says I cannot speed and I must stop at all stop signs.  And it says I should not rob banks.  If I don't take stop signs seriously, why should I take laws against robbing banks seriously?

It's not an interesting question.  It's an attempt to disprove the validity of an opinion by pointing out that the person who holds it is a hypocrite.

Al Gore flies on polluting jets all around the world.  Al Gore is against global warming.  Obviously Al Gore is a hypocrite.  That means global warming isn't real.  It also means Al Gore is not allowed to be against it.  See the fallacy?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Fully agreed.  People are complex.  In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings.  After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.
> 
> I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.
> 
> That does open such a person up to this argument though.  If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply.  In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced.  Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.


No matter what religion you are, Abrahamic or not, parents, for the most part, have that 'White Picket Fence' vision for their children.
Sean


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Seriously, this is a continuation of the logical fallacy I already pointed out.  The law says I cannot speed and I must stop at all stop signs.  And it says I should not rob banks.  If I don't take stop signs seriously, why should I take laws against robbing banks seriously?
> 
> It's not an interesting question.  It's an attempt to disprove the validity of an opinion by pointing out that the person who holds it is a hypocrite.



No. Sorry for not being clear.  I was actually interested in 'why to take those seriously' as well. Nothing to do with 'homosexuality. My point was only that:

I understand that most Theists probably do not care if someone is gay or if someone eats pork or whatever. They do take homicide and theft seriously though. Why?  Many would probably say, 'God commanded it (or something)"

And I'm saying they get those viewpoints from _elsewhere_. Not any holy book.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Fully agreed.  People are complex.  In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings.  After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.



Homophobia appears to be a norm in most of human history. It is (and I do not use this in a pejorative manner) deviant behavior, in that it deviates from the norm, and most of human history is replete with examples of deviations from the norm being taboo.  Please note that I am not arguing that it ought to be taboo or that it is right that people felt this way in the past, but rather that it historically has been for most of known human history, with some interesting exceptions.



> I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.



I would not disagree with you; people tend, I think, to rationalize their beliefs if they find that conscious examination of those beliefs reveals logical inconsistencies even to themselves.



> That does open such a person up to this argument though.  If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply.  In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced.  Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.



Agreed again.  But there is an assumption, and I think an incorrect one, that if a person is a Christian and they hold an opinion against homosexuality, then they base that opinion on the Bible.  Perhaps they do.  Perhaps they do not.  Perhaps it is more complex than that.  So attacking the Bible or the logic thereof is not really effective.  Consider also the incongruity of the Atheist attacking the logic of a set of rules in the Bible, when they admittedly think the entire thing is untrue anyway.

There is also an assumption that if one is a Christian, one holds an anti-homosexual opinion at all.  I run into a similar false assumption myself all the time.  Because I am in favor of radical immigration reform, it is assumed by many that I am a liberal or a Democrat.  The arguments leveled against me are against my presumed political orientation, which I do not have.  Again, people are more complex than that; you can't make an assumption that since a person professes Christianity, they are therefore anti-homosexual.

One cannot even draw the conclusion that a person holds a particular opinion with reference to homosexuality itself based on other beliefs they may hold; for example, same-sex marriage.  It is often assumed that those opposed to same-sex marriage are a) anti-homosexual and b) Christian.  Those assumptions may or may not be true, and crafting arguments tailored to those assumptions would be ineffective in the extreme.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No. Sorry for not being clear.  I was actually interested in 'why to take those seriously' as well. Nothing to do with 'homosexuality. My point was only that:
> 
> I understand that most Theists probably do not care if someone is gay or if someone eats pork or whatever. They do take homicide and theft seriously though. Why?  Many would probably say, 'God commanded it (or something)"
> 
> And I'm saying they get those viewpoints from _elsewhere_. Not any holy book.



I think that is a complicated issue that may be impossible to unravel.  Our society, although nominally secular, is based upon historical precedent that stretches back to religiously-based societies and the inter-mixing of 'God's Law' and "Man's Law' can hardly be told apart in many ways.  Taboos against homicide violate both.  Historically, the taboo predates Christianity, and indeed any religions we know of today, by a bunch.  So which is the core reason for our belief that it is 'bad' and not to be done?

I will wimp out here and say I do not know.

Do many claim their basis for the belief that murder is bad is found in the Bible?  I'm sure they do.  I'm not sure it matters; we hold it as a nearly-universal taboo regardless.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hey, it's at least a topic that doesn't include Obama, Bush, The TSA or Islam.


 
Just give it some time.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 1, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Just give it some time.


It did give me the idea to start a thread titled, "Obama, Bush, TSA, Islam, and how they relate to Homosexuality"


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh, good, a straw man!  Can I play too?
> 
> *Theist:* Demonstrate to me that I am not legally allowed to hold an opinion based on a belief in an entity I cannot prove exists and the rules I think that entity promulgated.
> *Atheist:* You are free to believe anything you like, of course.  You're just wrong.
> ...




That's right. If someone like Fred Phelps mentions how there is a supernatural deity that created the universe, and this deity condemns a species named Homo sapiens if they partake in homosexuality. 

I totally support his freedom of expression. I also support our *right* t_o make fun of him_



Bill Mattocks said:


> So which is the core reason for our belief that it is 'bad' and not to be done?


I think it has to do with the evolution of the brain, in many species. Not just us.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> That's right. If someone like Fred Phelps mentions how there is a supernatural deity that created the universe, and this deity condemns a species named Homo sapiens if they partake in homosexuality.
> 
> I totally support his freedom of expression. I also support our *right* t_o make fun of him_
> 
> I think it has to do with the evolution of the brain, in many species. Not just us.



I have no disagreement here, but I'm not at all sure that the former was originally your point.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 1, 2011)

I've gotten into this before...it's boring.

The New Testament translations that use "homosexuality" are misrepresentations of the Greek-I've said it here before, look for yourselves-it's boring.

Jesus was the "new light," and the "new covenant." While some say he came to affirm the law, and some to replace it, it doesn't really matter. As Punisher73 so aptly summed it up, a "good Christian" loves God, and loves their neighbor as _themselves_ (implying that they love themselves).

I always tell Chrisitians that they should follow and act on everyhthing Jesus said about homosexuality:_*which is absolutely NOTHING.*_ :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I've gotten into this before...it's boring.
> 
> The New Testament translations that use "homosexuality" are misrepresentations of the Greek-I've said it here before, look for yourselves-it's boring.
> 
> ...


I did base some of my arguments on what you posted previously.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually, there's a lot of questions around my OP. So there's room to wander a bit.
> 
> " If Jesus discarded Mosaic law, why is homosexuality still wrong but eating shrimp isn't? If Mosaic law is binding, why do you ignore most of it? The argument is about the arguments people make from the Bible, not the Bible itself."
> 
> ...


 
For me personally, I will paraphrase Paul, "I work out my faith with fear and trembling".  I look to Jesus' two commandments as a Christian.  Love your God with your all, and love your neighbor as yourself.  
"Should I" or "Shouldn't I" do something is examined through those two lenses.  I will look to the Gospels to see what Jesus had to say about it, and then to Paul to see how he viewed things.  I read the Old Testament only for the stories of faith and God's plan and hand throughout history.  I believe that Jesus made a new covanent and I am not under the "old law". 

As to the question about picking and choosing laws...yes and no.  I follow what I believe to be "right" in that it passes three criteria.  1)  Does it negatively impact my relationship with God?  2)  Does it negatively impact my relationship with someone else? 3)  Does it impact how another person may view God's love?

Using homosexuality as an example, if I go out and tell every person who differs from my opinion how wrong they are and how IMO they are going to hell.  I violate my #3.  They aren't going to learn God's love by my judgementalism, they have enough other people showing them hate.  If they are seeking my opinion and ask it, I will give it and state why.

I could be wrong about my whole approach, but then that's between God and I.  When I stand before Him, he will ask the same question that Jesus asked Peter.  Do you love me?  Did you feed my sheep?


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

me, I am still hung up on the bacon....went to the store and forgot to buy any


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> As to the question about picking and choosing laws...yes and no.  I follow what I believe to be "right" in that it passes three criteria.  1)  Does it negatively impact my relationship with God?  2)  Does it negatively impact my relationship with someone else? 3)  Does it impact how another person may view God's love?



Interesting way to look at it. 

But that would be using some human reason to establish what is right and wrong. Not the bible.  Doesn't that go against the idea of an _objective morality_ established by the testaments? Do you disregard the OT entirely ( their laws )?

Of course, I believe that we get our morality through Evolution. In the same way monkeys, tigers, fish etc. don't just go around killing each other (within species), we don't either. For the most part, of course.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 1, 2011)

Most people do not believe the bible to be a literal work.  They only want to take the pieces they believe as literal.  So a person can understand that selling girl children really isn't okay, but when it comes to being homosexual God says it is a sin!  It is just more of people justifying thier own personal beliefs and calling it religion because they can't come up with real answers.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 1, 2011)

I'd like to know exactly why homosexuality is a sin. according to the religion. What's wrong with it. If my karate brown belt buddy, who is a lesbian, wants to live with her gf, exactly how does that hurt me? or anyone else for that matter??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 1, 2011)

These are different questions.



Blade96 said:


> I'd like to know exactly why homosexuality is a sin.



The Christian Bible often does not explain why a person is not allowed to do something, or why it is bad, just that they are forbidden to do it or that it is bad.  I'm sorry, but there are not always explanations.



> according to the religion.



According to the book itself, depending on the translation in question.



> What's wrong with it.



You'd have to ask God that, if you're a believer, and if not, then there is no one to ask.



> If my karate brown belt buddy, who is a lesbian, wants to live with her gf, exactly how does that hurt me? or anyone else for that matter??



I don't see that it does.  But I'm not God.  I didn't write the book.  That's why they are different questions.

Who said homosexuality was a sin?  God did, if you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Men did, if you don't believe that God caused it to be written.

Why did they say it was a sin?  You'd have to ask them.  I have no idea.  I can say that historically, homosexuality has been a taboo in a lot of societies, even before Christianity.  There have been exceptions.

What's wrong with it?  Again, not my question to answer.  Ask God if you believe.  If you don't believe then I guess you'd have to look to mankind to answer the question.  There are some who feel it is a danger to our society.  Probably many more who do not.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 1, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I'd like to know exactly why homosexuality is a sin. according to the religion. What's wrong with it. If my karate brown belt buddy, who is a lesbian, wants to live with her gf, exactly how does that hurt me? or anyone else for that matter??



Well, I don't think there is a reason why. It is part of the bible, and it is 'an abomination to god'. That's it. It doesn't matter if they are evil or nice or whatever.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I'd like to know exactly why homosexuality is a sin. according to the religion. What's wrong with it. If my karate brown belt buddy, who is a lesbian, wants to live with her gf, exactly how does that hurt me? or anyone else for that matter??



Some Christian theologies hold that God's model for human sexuality is embodied by a married man and woman at least open to producing children.  Anything that deviates from that model is by definition a corruption of God's master plan and example, and thus sinful.  That doesn't explain why some get so bent out of shape about homosexuality in particular, but that's the theology at least.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2011)

Had a discussion with a friend. It went kinda like this:
(Note, summarizing and condensing).
====
The origin of man went like this:
God was bored, so he took a week off work and created the earth, lots of animals, and finally man who he named Adam. 
God saw that Adam was a bit lonely, so he created woman to keep him company in the busy job of walking around the Garden.
Her name was Lilith.
Lilith was a bit too much for man, so she got tossed, and Got knocked Adam out for a bit.
Being short of cash and raw materials, God took a rib from Adam and used that to make Woman 2.0 whom was named Eve.
Adam and Eve then spent some time working at wandering around the garden, until one fateful day when a serpent (who some say was the devil, some Lucifer, others God playing a big prank, but also the icon of a competing faith at the time possibly cast as the bad guy here) suggested that Eve eat a forbidden fruit (which is commonly called an apple, though might be a pomegranate or even a fig).
After eating the super fruit, she then tricked Adam into eating it too, beginning the tradition of women tricking a dumb male into eating something he shouldn't.
Then then realized they were naked, and as K'Mart hadn't been invented yet, immediately made fig leaf undies to hide with.
God, confused at this wanted to know what was going on, and when finding out how stupid his creation had been, kicked them out of paradise and promptly went to reread the instructions on where that smarts bit should go.

Once kicked out of paradise, these 2 idiots then begat 2 more idiots.
Eve being part of Adam, these were the first 2 red necks in recorded history.
After a while, Cain kills his brother Able, and is again cast out, and wanders the world until he starts a family of his own. With whom, the story isn't clear. 
God may have felt sorry for this loser too and found some spare mud, knocked him out and took a couple of vertebra, or something else. We don't know.

But we do know that all humanity can trace back to a couple with brain damage and inbreeding.

And this is how we get todays American political parties.

===

The actual conversation was much longer, and had more funny parts (often stolen from Bill Cosby and Sam Kinison). It also got into much deeper aspects of Genesis, and origin myths in general.

What's my point?
You can take the Bible (Any bible) as an accurate history OR you can take it as written oral histories, passed down from generations, influenced by previous religions with massive distortions introduced over time. The main point is however to illustrate "This is what is good and bad, and this is how you should live in order to be a good person".

Understanding the 'why does the book say this' is important. As has been indicated, historically there -were- reasons for many things in there. Health codes, legal codes, civil laws codified, and so on.  Why the couple of prohibitions against -male- homosexual activities? (Note it's almost always the male-male thats condemned. The women get much lighter punishments, etc). Well, looking at the codes around them, it could be that it was because 2 guys can't create life, and life was important. It could be that it was considered 'unclean'. It could be that 'anal tearing' was life threatening. I could speculate a lot, it's not too clear and several stanzas are of questionable translation. What I am certain on is that 3rd century Christians spent a lot less time thinking about it than 20th and 21st century ones do.


And please, take my recounting of biblical history as a tongue in cheek recount, and not intended to offend. Thanks.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 1, 2011)

Because it is different from the "normal" and for some people that equates into something bad or "sinful."


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Because it is different from the "normal" and for some people that equates into something bad or "sinful."



well, normal is only that what you don't know well anyhow...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> So the Sib Kinship system was created in the 16th century? They taught me different in college, but it was community college; so, you could be right........ Not. Our views on homosexuality may be modern, but survival of the tribe was a priority... honest.
> sean



Absolutely true, but tribe is different from "family" as meant when people cite the "family values" that homosexuals erode by wanting to form families. The nuclear, two-adult family is a very new idea in human history....and not including room for homosexuals is even newer.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Interesting way to look at it.
> 
> But that would be using some human reason to establish what is right and wrong. Not the bible. Doesn't that go against the idea of an _objective morality_ established by the testaments? Do you disregard the OT entirely ( their laws )?


 
No, I don't rely just on human reason, I use the Bible to see right and wrong, it's the gray areas that may not be specifically spelled out that I use the "rule of 3".  I don't disregard the OT completely, I just don't believe that as Christians we are under the OT law as Jews are.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 1, 2011)

I think I'll stick with 'For 1900 of the last 2000 years the Bible has been a great instrument of control of the masses used by the church'

It makes my head hurt a hell of a lot less than the ongoing discussion.


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

Scott T said:


> I think I'll stick with 'For 1900 of the last 2000 years the Bible has been a great instrument of control of the masses used by the church'
> 
> It makes my head hurt a hell of a lot less than the ongoing discussion.



Yes, I am sure the many crusades were well worth it! :lfao:


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 1, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Thanks for that. I'm not as familiar with the history of the Torah and its translations. But the OT -- and thus the most commonly available version of the Penteteuch (sp?) has suffered the same degradation as the rest of the Christian Bible.


 
That's why we use the Hebrew text for serious study. And THAT has not changd in millenia.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 1, 2011)

For the record, homosexuality is not a sin. A particular sexual act is a sin.


----------



## David43515 (Jun 2, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> For the record, homosexuality is not a sin. A particular sexual act is a sin.


 
That`s an important point.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> For the record, homosexuality is not a sin. A particular sexual act is a sin.



I thought the rub of the matter (no pun intended) was that pretty much anything two homosexuals want to do together, sexually speaking, by nature includes that sexual act...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

@ Bill

I agree that "The Bible Tells Me So" is sufficient justification for your personal moral beliefs. But since that attitude obviously affects policy in the United States -- policy that negatively affects the quality of life for citizens who aren't hurting anybody -- I think we're justified in asking for a little more.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 2, 2011)

So if a gay couple were not Christians, but some religion that had no issues with gays, why wouldn't it be okay for them to marry?  I mean if they aren't hurting anyone and religion is not state doctrine.  That's not the case though, Christian religion has become state doctrine in many instances and even people who would like to see the government stay out of the personal affairs of its' citizens think it is okay for the government to be involved in this.

I could understand if there was demonstratable harm of gay couples being recognized by the state.  There just isn't.  If anything having committed gay couples is a positive thing both for the gay community and society at large.  It isn't really about what is good and right for society though.  It is about one set of people forcing thier beliefs upon others.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> @ Bill
> 
> I agree that "The Bible Tells Me So" is sufficient justification for your personal moral beliefs. But since that attitude obviously affects policy in the United States -- policy that negatively affects the quality of life for citizens who aren't hurting anybody -- I think we're justified in asking for a little more.



You may be justified in asking, but you're not going to get it; and you certainly may not demand it or require it.

A qualified voter is a qualified voter.  The current qualification to vote is being of age, being a citizen, and not being otherwise restricted by such things a prior felony conviction.  You don't have to justify your vote to me and I don't have to justify mine to you.  

If enough 'Christians' vote a certain way that their opinion becomes the law of the land, as long as it does not infringe on civil liberties (Constitutional issues), then it is the law, and that's pretty much that.  

Fair?  No.  Even and just?  No.  It's our Representative Republic and that is how it works, though.  You may not require of me that I justify my belief system before voting that way - nor may I require it of you.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2011)

You are confusing two different issues.  One is 'gay' and the other is 'marriage'.



WC_lun said:


> So if a gay couple were not Christians, but some religion that had no issues with gays, why wouldn't it be okay for them to marry?



For a variety of reasons that have little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion at all, including the fact that the institution of marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman in the USA.

One can favor 'gay rights' and have no religious objection to gay marriage and still not support the idea of state recognition of same-sex marriages.  They are not necessarily the same thing.



> I mean if they aren't hurting anyone and religion is not state doctrine.



First; religion is not state doctrine, but religious people still vote, and they often vote based on their religious beliefs.  That is not the same thing.  A theocracy is rule by religion.  A democracy that is made up of mostly Christians is not a theocracy, but it will have laws that are driven by Christian voters.

Second; you cannot assert they are not 'hurting anyone'.  That would be your opinion.  Others have other opinions, equally valid.



> That's not the case though, Christian religion has become state doctrine in many instances and even people who would like to see the government stay out of the personal affairs of its' citizens think it is okay for the government to be involved in this.



Christian religion can become state doctrine anytime the majority vote for a law based on their Christian beliefs and it does not infringe on civil liberties.  This is how our government works.  I think a lot of people do not understand this.  No, we are not a government run by religion.  But we have voters who are allowed to vote as they will, and that means if they want to vote based on their religion, they do.  You may not like it, especially if they are in the majority, but that is how our system of government works.



> I could understand if there was demonstratable harm of gay couples being recognized by the state.  There just isn't.



With all due repect, sez you.  Others see it differently.



> If anything having committed gay couples is a positive thing both for the gay community and society at large.



Again, no offense, but sez you.  Others disagree.



> It isn't really about what is good and right for society though.  It is about one set of people forcing thier beliefs upon others.



All government is one set of people forcing their beliefs on others.   It is either majority rule or minority rule.  Which would you prefer?  Either way, someone is going to feel they are being forced to live by someone else's rules.


----------



## granfire (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You are confusing two different issues.  One is 'gay' and the other is 'marriage'.


but both have huge overlapping issues





> For a variety of reasons that have little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion at all, including the fact that the institution of marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman in the USA.


The only chink in your armor! 
Considering the historic influence of the leading casts over the 400 years in the new world, the religious influence in these matters can not only be not denied, it is unmistakably obvious:
Inquisition and Puritans...owe...and religion has nothing to do with our traditions?



> One can favor 'gay rights' and have no religious objection to gay marriage and still not support the idea of state recognition of same-sex marriages.  They are not necessarily the same thing.


I suppose it is possible. But usually the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are those of religious nature. 





> First; religion is not state doctrine, but religious people still vote, and they often vote based on their religious beliefs.  That is not the same thing.  A theocracy is rule by religion.  A democracy that is made up of mostly Christians is not a theocracy, but it will have laws that are driven by Christian voters.


True enough



> Second; you cannot assert they are not 'hurting anyone'.  That would be your opinion.  Others have other opinions, equally valid.


No more or less than a hetero couple. 
State the damage they do. I am sure we can find enough examples of the opposite, along with the damage done by tradition couples.





> Christian religion can become state doctrine anytime the majority vote for a law based on their Christian beliefs and it does not infringe on civil liberties.  This is how our government works.  I think a lot of people do not understand this.  No, we are not a government run by religion.  But we have voters who are allowed to vote as they will, and that means if they want to vote based on their religion, they do.  You may not like it, especially if they are in the majority, but that is how our system of government works.



True enough, but usually when state doctrine is crafted after the ideas of an ideology driven group, civil liberties of those not in the group are generally infringed upon.
That's what we have safeguards in place for thankfully. But some are slow to catch on.





> With all due repect, sez you.  Others see it differently.








> Again, no offense, but sez you.  Others disagree.


I know, I should have snipped that.... 





> All government is one set of people forcing their beliefs on others.   It is either majority rule or minority rule.  Which would you prefer?  Either way, someone is going to feel they are being forced to live by someone else's rules.



Ahhh, but again safeguards! So the minority is not thrown under the bus in favor of the majority. Ingenius frame work that constitution is!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> but both have huge overlapping issues



Of course they do.  So does nearly everything.




> The only chink in your armor!
> Considering the historic influence of the leading casts over the 400 years in the new world, the religious influence in these matters can not only be not denied, it is unmistakably obvious:
> Inquisition and Puritans...owe...and religion has nothing to do with our traditions?



First, I did not say that religion has nothing to do with our current traditions.  I agree with you that it does.  However, you say that as if that fact makes it incompatible with disagreeing about the traditional definition of marriage.  Long before there were Jews and Christians, there were marriages.  And they were one male and one female to the largest extent.  The fact that we can find evidence of tiny fractions of populations where some other arrangement was the norm only shows that the norm itself was indeed one male and one female.  So by 'tradition', I do in fact mean pretty much all of human history to the extent that we can determine.  

Second, regardless of how we came to our current definition of marriage - whether by recent religious influence or simply by the tradition of all of human history - here we are.  Marriage in the USA has meant one man and one woman since we began as a nation.  Some argue (and I am one of them) that asking for same-sex marriage is not about the rights of homosexuals to be together, but about the redefinition of a traditional union, one which is at the core of our society. 



> I suppose it is possible. But usually the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are those of religious nature.



Again, I agree with you that quite often they probably are.  I would follow that up with 'so what'?  Again, people have the right to make voting decisions based upon anything they like, including their religious beliefs.



> State the damage they do. I am sure we can find enough examples of the opposite, along with the damage done by tradition couples.



I won't state the damage they do, because that would be silly.  I have an opinion and a vote, and so do you.  I believe that same-sex marriage does damage to society. I don't have to prove it, it's not up for debate, and there is no trial by which if I lose, I don't get to feel that way or vote that way anymore.  Again; you seem to want my opinions and my vote to be based on some standard you set - for example, if I state the reason I feel that same-sex marriage damages society and you scoff at it, then I lose and can't vote that way anymore.  It doesn't work that way, so I won't engage in that sort of thing.



> True enough, but usually when state doctrine is crafted after the ideas of an ideology driven group, civil liberties of those not in the group are generally infringed upon.
> That's what we have safeguards in place for thankfully. But some are slow to catch on.



That is why we have a Supreme Court.  That is their job.  The people vote without concern for whose rights they are infringing on - why should they care?  I mean anyone, not just on this issue.  If I think pot-smoking is a bad thing, I'll vote against it.  If that's violating someone's inalienable right to blow a doobie, too bad, so sad.  I don't know and I do not care.  Nor should I have to.  My responsibility is to vote for the society I want, not the one you want or the one that is fair, righteous and just.  The Supreme Court's job is to ensure that the laws my vote helps create don't infringe on the rights of others, and I, as a citizen of this nation, have agreed that this is proper.  If I vote against pot, and the Supreme Court says people have a civil right to toke away, then there it is.  But it is not prior restraint on me.  I vote for what I want.  I do not care what you or anyone else wants.  Why would it be any other way?



> Ahhh, but again safeguards! So the minority is not thrown under the bus in favor of the majority. Ingenius frame work that constitution is!



I think you misunderstand the Constitution.  The Constitution does not care one whit about the rights of the *minority*.  It only cares about the civil rights of *citizens*.  Majority, minority, it doesn't matter.  If the majority vote to make it mandatory that everyone pull up their damned pants, and the Supreme Court does not find a civil liberty right being infringed, then that's the law.  There will be a minority that is upset by this - and that is just too darned bad.  Minority does not mean you get special rights.  Minority means you get the same rights everybody else gets.  If you do not have a 'civil right' to do thus and so, then too bad if you're the minority.

I really think a lot of people in the USA think that the job of our government is to make things fair for everyone.  It's not.  Our laws are not fair and they're not supposed to be fair.  They are supposed to be applied to everyone regardless of majority or minority status, and they can't infringe on our civil liberties.  That is all.  If the minority gets it's panties in a bunch, well, it sucks to be them.  That is how it works.  No fair at all; too bad.


----------



## granfire (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I won't state the damage they do, because that would be silly.  I have an opinion and a vote, and so do you.  I believe that same-sex marriage does damage to society. I don't have to prove it, it's not up for debate, and there is no trial by which if I lose, I don't get to feel that way or vote that way anymore.  Again; you seem to want my opinions and my vote to be based on some standard you set - for example, if I state the reason I feel that same-sex marriage damages society and you scoff at it, then I lose and can't vote that way anymore.  It doesn't work that way, so I won't engage in that sort of thing.


ah, the chinc in your armor is showing again. 
Well, it is your _opinion_, true enough. And it is your porogative to vote according to this.

However, I demand that law makers base their decisions on _facts_. and as such there has to be proof that there is damage done to our society by establishing a legal framework for a life union between same sex couples. 
Society has probably taken a bigger hit by single parents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> ah, the chinc in your armor is showing again.
> Well, it is your _opinion_, true enough. And it is your porogative to vote according to this.



It would be a chink in my armor if I were attempting to convince others to vote the way I do or to feel the way I do.  If I can't explain my reasoning, if it can't stand up to debate, then I don't have much hope of getting others to vote the way I'd vote.

But I'm not trying to convince anyone.  I vote the way I vote.  As you said, it's my prerogative.  As yours is to you.



> However, I demand that law makers base their decisions on _facts_. and as such there has to be proof that there is damage done to our society by establishing a legal framework for a life union between same sex couples.



You can demand that all you like.  Let me know how that works out for you.  About all any of us can do is vote for the people we think will best represent our desires, and to directly vote for those things put before us according to our own principles and beliefs.

Let me put it this way; what will you do if your elected law makers refuse to base their decisions on facts?  Not vote for them again?

Besides, you use the word _'facts'_ when you should be saying _'the opinions I prefer and refer to as facts'_.  There are no provable facts on either side of the same-sex marriage debate with regard to the damage or non-damage it would do to society.  There are only opinions.  I don't choose to debate the topic, but I also don't capitulate that you have facts on your side and I don't.  We simply have different opinions.  What you regard as fact, I see as your opinion, and vice-versa.



> Society has probably taken a bigger hit by single parents.



Again, sez you.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 2, 2011)

Ignoring the Old Test for a moment here.



> "It is only in Romans 1:2627, 1 Corinthians  6:910, and 1 Timothy  1:811 that there may be references to  homosexuality."



I'll focus on this bit.


> Romans 1:26-27
> 26  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their  women  exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
> 27  In the  same way the men also abandoned natural relations with  women and were  inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed  shameful acts with  other men, and received in themselves the due  penalty for their error.



26 above says that -women- started performing 'unnatural sex acts'.
But, what does this mean?  Does it mean they started screwing sheep? Went lesbian? 
Or just decided that 'missionary' was boring and wanted to do some 'cowgirl' and 'doggie'?  It's not specific.

AH! A clue
27 hints that it was girl on girl action. But again, it says 'shameful acts', without specifics. Was it 2 guys hugging, or bear banging? What eas the 'due penalty' they 'received in themselves'?  Is this the first reference to AIDS? Anal tearing? Hemorrhoids?  It's not specific.


Well, lets try another translation:

Worldwide English (New Testament) 


> 26That is why God left  them to do the wrong things they wanted to do. Their women left the  right way for women and did things that are wrong for women to do.   27Their  men also left the right way with women. They wanted to have sex with  one another. They did wrong things with other men. Their own bodies were  punished because of the wrong things they did.


26 is only about sex if you think it. It could be about women wearing pants and getting jobs as CEO's. Or it could be condemning dominant women in control in the bedroom.
27 This is clearer, but in what way were their bodies punished? Again it doesn't say, and the following text doesn't either.  

American Standard Version (ASV)


> 26 For this cause God  gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use  into that which is against nature:   27  and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned  in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness,  and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was  due.



26 could be lesbianism, it could mean girl on top wearing spurs.
27 again more emphasis on guy-guy action, still vague as to what the received punishment was.

Amplified Bible (AMP)


> 26For this reason  God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading  passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an  unnatural and abnormal one,
> 27And  the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set  ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing  shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies  and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their  wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.



26 again, same
27 again same

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


> 26Because of this did  God give them up to dishonourable  affections, for even their females  did change the natural use  into that against nature;
> 27and  in like manner also the males having left the natural  use of the  female, did burn in their longing toward one  another; males with males  working shame, and the recompense of  their error that was fit, in  themselves receiving.



To me, this is just gibberish.

Reading this and in fact all of Romans 1 it's vague as to what this punishment received was.


----------



## granfire (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It would be a chink in my armor if I were attempting to convince others to vote the way I do or to feel the way I do.  If I can't explain my reasoning, if it can't stand up to debate, then I don't have much hope of getting others to vote the way I'd vote.
> 
> But I'm not trying to convince anyone.  I vote the way I vote.  As you said, it's my prerogative.  As yours is to you.
> 
> ...




LOL the chink being that any other subject matter your mind is laser sharp, arguments on point.

When it comes to matters of religious tradition, such as abortion and same sex marriage/homosexuality, you resort to 'opinions', your argument becomes non exist.

Where you normally find facts, you don't in this case. 

It's your achilles heel.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You may be justified in asking, but you're not going to get it; and you certainly may not demand it or require it.
> 
> A qualified voter is a qualified voter.  The current qualification to vote is being of age, being a citizen, and not being otherwise restricted by such things a prior felony conviction.  You don't have to justify your vote to me and I don't have to justify mine to you.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, legislation due to religious beliefs alone is routinely struck down when called into legal question. For a law enacted because of those beliefs to be valid, you have to show harm to something other than your own sensibilities.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 2, 2011)

The Bible also says murder and theft are wrong, should we feel free to murder and steal because some people eat shellfish and wear clothes of two different threads?


----------



## fangjian (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> The Bible also says murder and theft are wrong, should we feel free to murder and steal because some people eat shellfish and wear clothes of two different threads?



What do you mean?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What do you mean?


Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 2, 2011)

Actually in all cultures recorded in history murder was considered a serious offence. Even when isolated human societies, for the most part but with some exceptions, develop, quite similar moral codes emerge: murder &#8211; wrong, adultery &#8211; wrong, protect the family/tribe &#8211; good, helping others- good, Disco &#8211; wrong.

It&#8217;s in our genes

But as we gave our morality to religion, it&#8217;s only logical it would be written down in our ancient religious texts. We don&#8217;t need it written down in a book to know right from wrong.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?



Morality is rooted in our biological evolution.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 2, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Morality is rooted in our biological evolution.


Uh, no.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Uh, no.



Where are you suggesting it comes from then? 

Homosexuality also comes from our biological evolution. Everything does. I know I was making a blanket statement, and not talking also about other factors, but...


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Uh, no.


 
So we get our morality from religion?

So does that mean without religion we'd be all be savages?

Christianity is about 1/3 of the population of the world, so the other 2/3's are savages?

The Hebrew religion has been around for maybe 3000 years, Christians for 2000 islam for 1300 or so. 

Modern humans have been on the earth for 150 000 years, maybe longer, does that mean until modern religions were formed we were not capable of morality, it took a religious text to tell us right from wrong?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 2, 2011)

Science and morality.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?



Just the laws that aren't also supported by the reasonable working of a just society. Murder and theft are wrong because they hurt people. Not keeping kosher isn't illegal here because if you eat bacon, the only person you hurt is yourself...unless you count the pig.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 2, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Just the laws that aren't also supported by the reasonable working of a just society. Murder and theft are wrong because they hurt people. Not keeping kosher isn't illegal here because if you eat bacon, the only person you hurt is yourself...unless you count the pig.



Keeping kosher isn't the law because the majority of people like to eat pork.  If the majority thought that pork was unclean and should not be consumed under any circumstances, there is nothing in our laws that would stop such laws from being passed.  I suspect they would pass constitutional muster as well; no one's rights are being infringed.

The harm or lack of harm a thing does has precious little to do with its legality.  The only thing stopping us from making eating pork illegal is that most people like to eat it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Keeping kosher isn't the law because the majority of people like to eat pork.  If the majority thought that pork was unclean and should not be consumed under any circumstances, there is nothing in our laws that would stop such laws from being passed.  I suspect they would pass constitutional muster as well; no one's rights are being infringed.
> 
> The harm or lack of harm a thing does has precious little to do with its legality.  The only thing stopping us from making eating pork illegal is that most people like to eat it.



That's simply not true. Employment discrimination laws, for example, are in place precisely because the majority will of the people infringes on personal rights/freedoms without adding to the public good. Most of the improvements in rights to consensual sex have derived from judges finding the original laws invalid despite majority public opinions. They did not derive from a vote that reflected a change in majority public opinion. Ditto for what anti-discrimination progress we've made. 

The framers of the constitution were aware of the risk of "tyranny of the majority" and wrote protection against it into the law of our land. It's just that in some cases, the majority is so overwhelming it takes us a century or more to spot the tyranny.


----------



## granfire (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Keeping kosher isn't the law because the majority of people like to eat pork.  If the majority thought that pork was unclean and should not be consumed under any circumstances, there is nothing in our laws that would stop such laws from being passed.  I suspect they would pass constitutional muster as well; no one's rights are being infringed.
> 
> The harm or lack of harm a thing does has precious little to do with its legality.  The only thing stopping us from making eating pork illegal is that most people like to eat it.




I suppose the pork issue (such a small part of kosher livin) has rather practical reasons:

Pigs are omnivorous. As such the meat is often contaminated with bad stuff that make you sick. People still can get sick from undercooked pork.
the fatty meat does not keep well in the heat, and pigs don't run well (actually pigs are onery to a fault and I suppose not easy to keep for nomadic people) 

Same as practices that don't result in baby making - they go strictly against the 'be fruitful and multiply' 
I think we have established enough people n this planet that we can do away with that. 


also, adultery is only an issue if you need to proof male lineage. So it's a thing a patriarchy needs. There are still plenty of small tribal pockets that have lady's choice in term of spouses. If the man is a bad kisser he will not be invited back to 'the Flower Room'


----------



## Carol (Jun 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Science and morality.



LOVED this.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 2, 2011)

People constantly confuse "Morals", "Ethics" and "Values".

Morals come from religion, while ethics are based on society. Values define you.

Or as 1 person elsewhere put it:


> Morals is judging based on religion and opinion.
> Ethics is what the society expects of you when judging
> Values is the behavior or action that defines a person



A Christian might be against killing for example because they were taught in Sunday School that it's a sin.
An person in an society might be expected not to kill because there is a law against it.
An American might be against it due to a belief that 'the good guys don't kill'.

Same result, 3 different reasons why.


Overly simplifying here.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> People constantly confuse "Morals", "Ethics" and "Values".
> 
> Morals come from religion, while ethics are based on society. Values define you.



Interesting way to put it. However I will add:

from Wiki:
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).


In the above definition, this _sense_ has biological evolutionary roots.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 3, 2011)

Carol said:


> LOVED this.  :asian:




Here's part 1 of a debate w/ Matt Dillahunty on morality (while we're on the subject). 
[yt]Vlhk7KJdil0[/yt]


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the majority thought that pork was unclean and should not be consumed under any circumstances, there is nothing in our laws that would stop such laws from being passed.  I suspect they would pass constitutional muster as well; no one's rights are being infringed.



The Lemon Test defines the criteria which any law must pass not to infringe upon the Establishment Clause:


The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
Requiring the nation to keep kosher, despite the feelings of the populace, would definitely violate at least 1 prong of the test.

Extrapolating further, all legislative actions must have a secular legislative purpose to be congruent with the Constitution as defined by the USSC in _Lemon_.  It doesn't matter what the feelings of the populace are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> That's simply not true. Employment discrimination laws, for example, are in place precisely because the majority will of the people infringes on personal rights/freedoms without adding to the public good.



It is true, and you just demonstrated it.  _"...are in place precisely because the majority will of the people infringes on personal rights/freedoms..."_

Not, however, 'because' the majority will infringes on civil liberties.  ONLY IF the majority will does so.  Being the majority does not automatically imply that someone's rights are being infringed.  That's what the Supreme Court does, it establishes if a given law does infringe.  If it does, then yes, it's rejected as unconstitutional and the majority does not get their way.  If it does not infringe, then the majority's law stays the law.  Infringement on civil liberties is the key - not whether or not the 'majority' is the reason for it.



> Most of the improvements in rights to consensual sex have derived from judges finding the original laws invalid despite majority public opinions. They did not derive from a vote that reflected a change in majority public opinion. Ditto for what anti-discrimination progress we've made.



Yes and no.  Some changes came about as the result of new laws being passed.  Some came as a result of new amendments to the Constitution being added.  And some came about because the SCOTUS ruled that a given law was an unconstitutional infringement on an existing civil liberty.  In no case did the SCOTUS rule that a law was unconstitutional because it was unfair, mean-spirited, or just plain evil, even though it was in compliance with the Constitution.  The key is always existing civil liberties.  Those may be seen by different Supreme Courts in different eras in different ways - but they are not making it up as they go along, or trying to accomplish fairness.  Fairness, being reasonable, being nice or kind - they have NOTHING to do with it.



> The framers of the constitution were aware of the risk of "tyranny of the majority" and wrote protection against it into the law of our land. It's just that in some cases, the majority is so overwhelming it takes us a century or more to spot the tyranny.



Nope.  That's completely wrong.

They addressed the _'tyranny of the majority'_ by introducing the concept of a representative republic, which gave the vote to the elected officials that we elect by direct vote, except in the case of the President (Electoral College).  Nearly every state also has a direct vote or plebiscite process by which state laws and even state constitutions can be changed by the direct vote of the citizenry; I'd wager that if you vote in the US, you've seen such ballot measures yourself; that's direct democracy, and it is perfectly legal.

All of these have to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny if challenged and if the SCOTUS or lower court grants cert to the case and agrees to hear it.  If the law is challenged, then the court in question decides two things (typically).  Whether or not the law represents the actual Will of Congress (in the case of federal laws) and whether or not the law infringes on any existing civil liberties.  For example, the recent 2nd Amendment case that determined that the anti-gun laws in the city of Washington DC were unconstitutional infringements.  They ruled that they were indeed unconstitutional and struck them down.  They did NOT consider whether it was the 'tyranny of the majority' that caused the law to exist, nor did they consider such concepts as fairness, niceness, just treatment of all citizens, etc, etc.  None of that matters at all in legal terms.

The fact is, the majority can create a law (either directly by plebiscite or by persuading their elected officials to vote for it) that makes someone else miserable.  For example, making eating pork illegal.  If the law is challenged, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the defense would have to prove that there is some civil liberty that is being infringed by denying people the right to eat pork.  I frankly can't think of one, but that would be the question for the SCOTUS. Not that it was or was not 'tyrannical' or the result of some unfair oppression by the majority.  Majority oppression is PERFECTLY LEGAL as long as no civil liberties are being violated, and by civil liberties I am not talking about "it makes me unhappy" or "it makes me feel bad."  I'm talking about the Bill of Rights and amendments to it.  If it isn't there, then your rights are not being violated.  That is a case of 'too bad, so sad'.

This is the point I was making, though.  Many people have a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system of government actually works.  The majority is perfectly entitled to run roughshod over the minority, so long as they are not violating one of the civil rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.  Look at Blue Laws.  Left-overs from a day when people didn't think anyone should work on Sundays.  Many of those laws are being changed or removed from the books now; most people just don't feel that way anymore.  But they are perfectly legal.  You don't like not being able to buy beer on Sunday.  Too bad for you!  Yes, you're being oppressed.  Tough cookies.

Take a look at this for an example of religious law informing civil law in the USA. Canada has actually taken a more enlightened look at this than the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law



> Blue laws often prohibit an activity only during certain hours and  there are usually exceptions to the prohibition of commerce, like  grocery and drug stores. In some places blue laws may be enforced due to  religious principles, but others are retained as a matter of tradition  or out of convenience.[1]



It's still illegal to buy beer in some states on Sunday or on the day elections are held.  Can't buy a car on Sunday in some states.  All legal.  All based (originally) on the religious majority enforcing their tyrannical will on the minority.  But it infringes on no civil liberties.  That is proof positive that the SCOTUS does not declare laws unconstitutional because they oppress a minority of the people.  If you're oppressed, you have the right to vote to change it.  If you can't muster a majority to overturn it, you're just out of luck.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The Lemon Test defines the criteria which any law must pass not to infringe upon the Establishment Clause:
> 
> 
> The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
> ...



That wasn't the argument I advanced (government imposes kosher law despite public opposition) but your point is well-taken.  However, I again must call attention to the fact that in the case you noted (and others like it), it has been determined to be an infringement of an existing civil liberty (1st Amendment, Establishment Clause).

But take anything at all as an example.  The public (in Cincinnati, for example) doesn't like pornography and they have strict laws regarding it.  Other communities have a different concept of what is and is not pornography.  So one could say that the majority in Cincy are oppressing the minority who like them a good porno movie or magazine.  Legal?   Absolutely.  No one's civil liberty is being restricted.

And it's the same everywhere in the USA.  If a law is going to be found unconstitutional, it has to be because it violates the Constitution.  Not because it's unfair, or wrong, or evil, or oppresses the poor minority.  Only if it infringes on civil liberties.

The people, either directly or through the expression of their elected representatives, get to live the way they want - which mostly means the majority get their way.  Yes, there are safeguards put in place to ensure that the majority (for example) don't get to decide that the minority should be put to death or have their property confiscated or be forced to convert to some particular religion.  Those are good safeguards to have!  But they are all in the Constitution.  There is nothing about being nice, kind, decent, or wonderful to people.  We can make laws that are perfectly obnoxious and perfectly legal, and if the minority it affects negatively doesn't like it, too bad for them.  So long as the Constitution is not being infringed, they have to eat it.

If the majority decide they don't like pork and don't think it should be legal to sell or eat, (and the reason is not an infringement on the Establishment Clause but simply because they don't like it, even if their personal beliefs are also kosher), then it's the law.  There is nothing that prevents it from being so.  _"But it doesn't hurt anyone"_ is not a valid reason for a law to be overturned, and in fact that reason is never one given by courts when they overturn laws.  It's just not a legal basis for turning over a law.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill M I have no idea what you are talking about.

Its been legal for homosexuals to get married in my country for some time now. I don't see my country falling apart because of it. 

Gaysgetting married is NOT a danger to society. Or to you, or me.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jun 3, 2011)

You do have to remember though, not all of our rights are enumerated in the constitution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Bill M I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Its been legal for homosexuals to get married in my country for some time now. I don't see my country falling apart because of it.



China has a practice of bashing unwanted baby girls on rocks.  I don't see it destroying their country.  But I also don't want it to be legal in mine.

I don't know what it does to your country.  I don't know what it would do in mine.  But I have my opinions about it, and I'm entitled to both have them and to vote that way.



> Gaysgetting married is NOT a danger to society. Or to you, or me.



Sez you.  All due respect, I don't agree.  I would never accept your 'proof' and you would never accept my 'proof'.  Opinions are like that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

SFC JeffJ said:


> You do have to remember though, not all of our rights are enumerated in the constitution.



Absolutely correct.  All of our rights are not enumerated. In fact, that's a most excellent thing indeed, and unique (as far as I know) to the USA.  I love this part of our Constitution!

However, what *is* enumerated is a list of rights upon which the federal government (and by extension for some of them, the states) may not infringe.

In other words, you may have a 'right' to juggle cats.  But the government is not forbidden from infringing on that right.  Since there is nothing stopping the government from infringing, they may pass laws making cat-juggling illegal, and there is nothing you can do about it.  Do you have the right?  Sure!  But the government is allowed to infringe on it - so long as it does not infringe on a civil liberty listed in the Bill of Rights (and amendments) as a prohibition.  In other words, you have lots of rights, but only a fairly small number of rights upon which the government may not infringe.  The rest of them are fair game to infringe away.

So if a challenge is mounted and the SCOTUS grants cert, then the question will be decided on the basis of what the government is or is not forbidden to do, not on what you have the right to do.  No one can say at the outset that the SCOTUS will or will not find a given law to be an infringement on a civil liberty.  If we could, there would be little point in passing laws that we were 100% certain would be struck down.

But again, if the law in question does not violate civil liberties, then that's pretty much all there is to it.  Laws do not have to be fair, just, decent, kind, or non-oppressive to others.  They only have to be legally enacted and withstand legal challenges that may come along.

No one goes to court and challenges the legality of a law because it infringes on a right that is not written down.  You may indeed have that right - you probably do - but the only Constitutional challenges the courts here are challenges based on the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights and Amendments.  _"I have the right to jump and down and the state says I can't do it anymore!"_  Well, too bad.  Unless you can argue that your right to jump up and down is actually an expression of free speech; then you might have a chance.  If they see it that way.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sez you. All due respect, I don't agree. I would never accept your 'proof' and you would never accept my 'proof'. Opinions are like that.


 
A potential danger to US society, how? How would the marriage of gay people be of greater detriment to US society, then their non-marriage? The gay population would still exist regardless. What is the fear?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 3, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> A potential danger to US society, how? How would the marriage of gay people be of greater detriment to US society, then their non-marriage? The gay population would still exist regardless. What is the fear?


The groom would wear a nicer dress than the bride.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is true, and you just demonstrated it.  _"...are in place precisely because the majority will of the people infringes on personal rights/freedoms..."_



Correction: "because the majority will of the people has potential to infringe." The law of our country (which seems to be your point) specifically protects me from your opinion if my behavior is harmless. We don't universally uphold that law yet, but the trend has been aggressive since the 1970s or so.



> Not, however, 'because' the majority will infringes on civil liberties.  ONLY IF the majority will does so.  ......



Well, yes. Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it's wrong. Which is why we sometimes have to ask the majority for more than "The Bible Tells Me So" if they want to restrict the freedoms of others. The _Lemon_ ruling also brought up is another good piece of support for that.





> Yes and no. ...Fairness, being reasonable, being nice or kind - they have NOTHING to do with it.



Never said the laws changed from fairness, etc. Just that the laws have been changed. Because the laws of our land protect us from a majority (like christians) that holds an opinion that can harm a minority (like homosexuals).






> Nope.  That's completely wrong....



I think your major point here was that the majority can vote a law into effect, and thus we're wrong in asking for your motivations in doing so.

However, a law that's in effect is only half a law. Legal scholars and working lawyers understand that a law isn't taken seriously until it's survived its first legal challenge. That's how our system works. And our system is designed, among other things, to prevent a majority-passed, overly restrictive, law from surviving the test of the courts.

While you're correct in the details of how laws are created, you seem to be ignoring (I know you can't be unaware of this) that SCOTUS and lesser court review is how those laws get changed...and that the fact that changes for the past several decades are overwhelmingly in favor of personal freedom in the face of majority assumptions such as racism, sexism, distaste of miscegination and employer discrimination for sexual preferences. 

That's the law of the land. 




> This is the point I was making, though.  Many people have a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system of government actually works.  The majority is perfectly entitled to run roughshod over the minority, so long as they are not violating one of the civil rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.  Look at Blue Laws...



Look at Jim Crow laws. Look at teaching evolution in schools. Look at bans on abortion. They were left-overs from a less civilized age. They're gone now because they are illegal under our Constitution. Changed when our system became aware that the opinion of the majority was improperly and illegally restricting the freedoms of a minority.

As those who aren't Christian continue to increase their level of visibility in the American political dialog, we see more and more situations just like that...where the checks and balances inherent in our system find places where the majority assumption is unconstitutional.

Just because it takes us a while to realize something is unconstitutional doesn't make it somehow "more legal." It's still illegal and it's still wrong. And the laws of our country still forbid it, even if that forbidding isn't currently being enforced.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The groom would wear a nicer dress than the bride.


 
You know for the life of me I'm trying my damndest to come up with a funny reply, and I just can't.....

One point to Bob!


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2011)

The U.S. Naval Academy had no issue with honoring the same-sex spouse of a  Marine....because they were married.

http://www.suntimes.com/3526027-417/ketterson-academy-naval-usna-fliszar.html




> The memorial coordinator asked about his relationship to the deceased. Ketterson said that John Fliszar was his husband.
> 
> 
> &#8220;They were always polite, but there was this moment  of hesitation,&#8221; Ketterson recalled. &#8220;They said they&#8217;re going to need  something in writing from a blood relative. They asked, &#8216;Are you listed  on the death certificate?&#8217; &#8216;Do you have a marriage license?&#8217; &#8221;
> ...


----------



## fangjian (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sez you.  All due respect, I don't agree.  I would never accept your 'proof' and you would never accept my 'proof'.  Opinions are like that.



Why not? If someone can show me evidence of _anything_ I would definitely love to see it. To be reasonable, I don't think one should have anything that is completely _dogmatic_. 

(My above comment doesn't just pertain to gay marriage, but to *everything*. But for the issue of gay marriage, maybe it _would_ be corrosive to society and I am just ignorant of the evidence)


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> China has a practice of bashing unwanted baby girls on rocks.  I don't see it destroying their country.  But I also don't want it to be legal in mine.
> I don't know what it does to your country.  I don't know what it would do in mine.  But I have my opinions about it, and I'm entitled to both have them and to vote that way.
> Sez you.  All due respect, I don't agree.  I would never accept your 'proof' and you would never accept my 'proof'.  Opinions are like that.



Oh please tell me you're not comparing gay marriage with murdering baby girls......

And, yep, sez me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> A potential danger to US society, how? How would the marriage of gay people be of greater detriment to US society, then their non-marriage? The gay population would still exist regardless. What is the fear?



You're asking me to engage in a debate that I will not engage in.  It is enough that I believe there is a danger.  I do not have to explain it or to get you to agree.  I am not trying to convince you of the danger, I am explaining that I have the right to believe there is one.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 3, 2011)

My personal opinion is that if you are going to infringe upon the rights of others then yes, you should show demonstratable proof that the action of gays being married puts society at risk.  That he bible says it is wrong does not qualify. Otherwise you are soporting a law because of your bias.  We've overturned these laws before and will continue to do so, regardless ifit make people uncomfortable or not.  Remember, at one time interacial marriages were viewed in much the same light.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Correction: "because the majority will of the people has potential to infringe." The law of our country (which seems to be your point) specifically protects me from your opinion if my behavior is harmless. We don't universally uphold that law yet, but the trend has been aggressive since the 1970s or so.



I cannot think of one law, one court case, or one cite that supports your statement at all, let alone 'not universally'.



> Well, yes. Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it's wrong. Which is why we sometimes have to ask the majority for more than "The Bible Tells Me So" if they want to restrict the freedoms of others. The _Lemon_ ruling also brought up is another good piece of support for that.



Our law is not concerned with which side is right.  It can be right, wrong, or indifferent.  It does not matter.  All that matters is that it was legally passed into law and that it passes Constitutional muster, which as I keep saying, addresses only the civil rights of citizens, not who is right and who is wrong.  "The Bible tells me so" is perfectly as valid as "The Koran tells me so" or "My toaster tells me so" so long as no civil rights are being violated.  As pointed out by the "Lemon" ruling (by the way, read the whole thing, it is being abandoned by the Supreme Court as a valid test anyway), if the purpose of the law is to espouse a particular religion, then it DOES violate civil rights - the 'Establishment Clause' of the 1st Amendment.  However, if the eating of pork were to be banned simply because the majority voted that way - even if they did so because they were all orthodox Jewish and Halal-observing Muslims - then it would NOT be illegal, because the purpose of the government is not the establishment of religion, but simply the majority will that pork be banned.



> Never said the laws changed from fairness, etc. Just that the laws have been changed. Because the laws of our land protect us from a majority (like christians) that holds an opinion that can harm a minority (like homosexuals).



I'm going to say it again.  The laws of the USA do not protect anyone from majority rule.  They do not.  There were not designed to do so, and they do not do so.  NOT AT ALL, NOT EVER.

The government is denied the right to infringe on certain rights.  That is all.

As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights (and amendments) do not impact the rights of homosexuals at all, except in as much as they have the exactly the same rights as everyone else does.  But they do not have protections specifically enumerated in various amendments, such as those extended to racial minorities.

There are federal laws which do afford protections to homosexuals (or rather, to all regardless of sexual orientation) such as the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which the OPM has interpreted the word 'conduct' to mean sexual orientation.  However, this is not a law that was forced by a minority.  It was passed into law just as nearly every other law was; it was voted into existence by Congress.  By a majority of Congress.

Congress could just as easily repeal that law.   All it takes is a new bill to do so, and enough votes to pass and if required, overcome a Presidential veto.  There is nothing anyone could do to stop it.  There is no requirement that the majority not trample all over the rights of homosexuals.  You keep stating that there are legal protections because the minority has to be protected from the majority - it's simply not true, it's fantasy.  The law exists because the majority wanted it that way and for no other reason.  If the majority changes its mind, then the law will change and homosexuals will be out of luck when it comes to federal hiring.



> I think your major point here was that the majority can vote a law into effect, and thus we're wrong in asking for your motivations in doing so.



Not at all.  I'm saying that I am not trying to convince anyone that my point of view is the right one, or the one they should have.  Since I'm not trying to convince you to see things my way regarding same-sex marriage, I am not going to hold my reasons up to your scrutiny.  It would accomplish nothing.  You'll tell me I'm wrong, and I'll continue to think I'm right.  If I wanted to debate same-sex marriage, I would do so.  I don't want to debate same-sex marriage.  I want to point out that majority rules, so long as civil rights are not being infringed, and that the fact that the 'majority' wants it that way has zero to do with whether or not it will be allowed to stand.  The minority has no legal rights to be protected from the majority unless their civil rights are being infringed upon. Just because they are the minority is a case of too bad, so sad.



> However, a law that's in effect is only half a law. Legal scholars and working lawyers understand that a law isn't taken seriously until it's survived its first legal challenge. That's how our system works. And our system is designed, among other things, to prevent a majority-passed, overly restrictive, law from surviving the test of the courts.



I'd like to see you tell that to an attorney.  All laws are laws, and if you break one, you'll find out how seriously it is taken.  The fact that it hasn't been challenged in court yet (or ever in the case of most laws) has nothing to do with whether or not it is enforced.



> While you're correct in the details of how laws are created, you seem to be ignoring (I know you can't be unaware of this) that SCOTUS and lesser court review is how those laws get changed...and that the fact that changes for the past several decades are overwhelmingly in favor of personal freedom in the face of majority assumptions such as racism, sexism, distaste of miscegination and employer discrimination for sexual preferences.



Cite one case that did not find a civil right being infringed.  ONE case would be sufficient.  SCOTUS does not find laws unconstitutional for generic 'personal freedom' reasons.  They either find that a civil right is being infringed (one which the government is prohibited from infringing upon) or they find the law constitutional. Exceptions would be where a law has been considered 'void for vagueness', when Congress has been too generic describing the law itself.



> Look at Jim Crow laws. Look at teaching evolution in schools. Look at bans on abortion. They were left-overs from a less civilized age. They're gone now because they are illegal under our Constitution. Changed when our system became aware that the opinion of the majority was improperly and illegally restricting the freedoms of a minority.



They were struck down as you said - because they infringed upon civil liberties.  Not because the courts felt that the majority were oppressing the minority.  While it is true that the majority was oppressing the minority, that fact by itself had nothing to do with it.

Imagine if that was the actual reason.  Using your example, the majority could never create laws - only the minority - unless someone, somehow, agreed that in this particular case, the majority was 'right'.  What an unworkable system that would be.  And would that be the society you wanted to live in?  Only the minority get to decide what laws are?  We have elections, but only the person who gets the least number of votes holds office?  We vote for laws, but the losing side gets the law their way instead of the other way around?

Majority rules.  Unless there is an infringement on civil liberties, such as Jim Crow laws, bans on abortion, and so on.  Yes, they are remnants of a less civilized age, but this is important - THAT IS NOT WHY they were overturned.  They were overturned because they infringed, not because they were not civilized.  'Civilized' is not a requirement.  Majority rule and compliance with civil liberties is.



> As those who aren't Christian continue to increase their level of visibility in the American political dialog, we see more and more situations just like that...where the checks and balances inherent in our system find places where the majority assumption is unconstitutional.



As America becomes more agnostic, we see laws change because they represent the will of the new majority.  Don't you see, you are proving my point over and over again.  Yes, the laws are changing.  Not because we are more enlightened. Not because we're right and the people in the past were wrong.  Not because we're good and they were bad.  Not because the minority is now having their rights respected over that of the majority.  The majority still wins.  It is just that the constituency of the majority is changing - again - which it has always done and will continue to do.  As the majority changes, so do the laws that the majority get to have.  Majority rules.  If the majority are Christians, then expect to see Christian influences on the law.  If the majority is not Christian, or (more likely) they are professing Christians but do not believe in a Christian basis for secular law, then expect to see a non-Christian influence on our laws.  That is how it works.  You don't agree with your words, but your examples are all exactly what I am saying.  Majority rules - always, so long as civil rights are not infringed.



> Just because it takes us a while to realize something is unconstitutional doesn't make it somehow "more legal." It's still illegal and it's still wrong. And the laws of our country still forbid it, even if that forbidding isn't currently being enforced.



No, they don't.  Everything that is not forbidden is permitted.  Period.  Name one person who has ever been arrested or prosecuted for violating a law that has not yet been written.  Name one person arrested or prosecuted for violating a law that exists now, but did not exist when they did whatever act they did that is now illegal.

And let's not confuse 'wrong' with 'illegal'.  "Wrong and right" are morals.  Our system of laws is not about wrong and right.  It's either legal or illegal.  We may, as human beings, try to make sure our laws are also moral.  But it is not a requirement.  No law was ever overturned because it was 'wrong'.  Only because it was incorrect based on other reasons.  Morality has no place in the discussion in a Constitutionality case.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You keep stating that there are legal protections because the minority has to be protected from the majority - it's simply not true, it's fantasy.  The law exists because the majority wanted it that way and for no other reason.  If the majority changes its mind, then the law will change and homosexuals will be out of luck when it comes to federal hiring.



Discriminatory Intent, of which Disparate Impact is a partial proof, has been held as a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by the USSC, notably explained in  _Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp_ (1977).  Thus "fairness" or "minority protection" is in fact a part of Constitutional law, apart from legislative acts like the Civil Rights Act.  It may or may not apply to any particular situation as determined by the Court, but the principle exists.

The 14th by the way, while the original language applies to the States, has been held to be binding on both the Federal and State level.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're asking me to engage in a debate that I will not engage in. It is enough that I believe there is a danger. I do not have to explain it or to get you to agree. I am not trying to convince you of the danger, I am explaining that I have the right to believe there is one.


 
I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?



I'm sorry that you're legitimately interested.  I am still not going to debate the reasons I hold an opinion on the matter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Discriminatory Intent, of which Disparate Impact is a partial proof, has been held as a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by the USSC, notably explained in  _Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp_ (1977).  Thus "fairness" or "minority protection" is in fact a part of Constitutional law, apart from legislative acts like the Civil Rights Act.  It may or may not apply to any particular situation as determined by the Court, but the principle exists.
> 
> The 14th by the way, while the original language applies to the States, has been held to be binding on both the Federal and State level.



Let's talk about the Equal Protection Clause, then.  It says:

_"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._"​In other words, if you have a civil right to X, all citizens have it.  You may not make a law which infringes on the right of this citizen while not infringing on the right of another citizen.  "Equal Protection" means just that - treat everyone the same.

This does not speak to the right of the majority to inflict their will on the minority, again, so long as no one's rights are infringed upon.  Blue laws are a classic example.  They are (or were) based on the popular concepts of religion at the time - that no one should work or do business (or drink, apparently) on Sunday, which Christians tend to consider the Sabbath or day of rest.  While some such laws were struck down because they infringed on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, many remain on various state books, and not because they've never been challenged.  They've remained because they do not infringe.  And as to 'Equal Protection', there is no group whose civil rights are being infringed while another's are not.  One group may claim Saturday is the actual proper Sabbath, another group may claim religious days of rest don't belong in secular law (I would tend to agree with that, on a personal note).  And they are free to try to change the law.  But it's been challenged and it is legal.  It does not take away a civil liberty from one group unequally - none may buy booze on Sunday for example, not just group X or group Y.  It's equal.

But again, consider what I've said.  Your own reply agrees with me - laws are valid regardless of how morally 'right' or 'wrong' they are UNLESS they infringe.  When courts throw out laws, they do so because they find that the infringement exists (in your example, Equal Protection), but they do NOT do so because the law in question is not nice, or unkind, or just plain wrong-headed, or created by the majority, from which the minority needs to be protected.  There simply is no such thing.

I have yet to read the court case that says _"We declare this law to be unconstitutional because it was created by the majority and therefore it is wrong."_  Whether the majority or the minority were behind the law's creation, it is constitutional or unconstitutional based on it's content, not on who was behind it, or if it is 'right or wrong' or other equally nebulous moral values.  People have moral values.  Not all of them are the same, but many are quite similar.  We may agree on a lot of things being 'right' or 'wrong'.  We may disagree on some things too.  But the law does not place weight on morality other than as expressed by the vote of the legislative body or the people directly.

Take the situation of same-sex marriage.  It's all over the place in various states.  In some, it is legal.  In some, it is not legal.  In some, there are laws specifically prohibiting it.  Each represent a vote - probably a majority vote - especially in the cases of direct plebiscites.   They're all being challenged in various courts, and the results see-saw back and forth.  Different judges or courts rule differently as to whether or not an existing civil liberty is being infringed by either allowing or refusing to allow same-sex marriage.  But in every case - every single one of them - the arguments that same-sex marriage is _"just the right thing to do"_ or _"it's just immoral and therefore wrong"_ are *not* considered as determining factors.  Lawyers may say that as a sound bite, or reporters might write that in an Op/Ed piece, or sign-wavers may wave signs that say that, but that's not what the court is going to consider.  It's legal - or not legal - based on the legality of the process that made the law itself (was the vote conducted properly, etc) and whether or not it infringes on a given civil liberty.  No judge is going to affirm or deny a law banning or allowing same-sex marriage because it is the morally right thing to do according to him or her.  Or even, getting back to the 'tyranny of the majority' question, if the law was created by the majority.  The fact that a majority voted for it does not mean it infringes on the rights of the minority.  It might infringe, but not because the majority voted for it, but rather simply because it infringes.  Would not matter how it came to be.  The fact that it was a majority is not significant.

The problem is that people on both sides of the argument simply refuse to see that - they see it as a _'right or wrong'_ issue.  That's fine for voting, but not fine for determining if the resulting law is legal or illegal.  Courts decide _'right and wrong'_ according to what the law says is right and wrong, if they find that the law is allowed to say that without infringing on existing rights.  Laws are _'right'_ if they are constitutional.  Moral values do not apply.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 4, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?



Me too but meh. i won't make bill do it. I have friends who don't like gay marriage. Think its gross or whatever. But....maybe gays think we're gross.


----------



## granfire (Jun 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Me too but meh. i won't make bill do it. I have friends who don't like gay marriage. Think its gross or whatever. But....maybe gays think we're gross.




LOL, I am not gay, but I think some couples are way gross! :lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2011)

I never understand why people get hung up about the food laws. Think of them as food hygiene rules such as you find in catering establishments, they are designed for a hot country without the wherewithal to keep things cold. It can backfire of course, when food poisoning broke out in pre Soviet Russia because of bad food hygiene and people died, the local Jews were killed simply because they were suspected of causing the outbreak, this was 'proved' because no Jews got ill. Kosher laws had made sure that the food was 'clean' or as we say 'kosher'. There is no, nor has there ever been, any obligation for non Jews to follow these rules so I don't see why people should  make a fuss over the eating or non eating of bacon, just watch out for swine fever. 
In the UK we've had gay marriage, gays in the military etc. etc. for a while now so it's considered normal, there's no ill effects. There's no reason why governments should poke their noses into peoples sexuality or love lives.


----------



## shinbushi (Jun 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> Yes, I am sure the many crusades were well worth it! :lfao:


It did get rid of a lot of excess knights.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 5, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This does not speak to the right of the majority to inflict their will on the minority, again, so long as no one's rights are infringed upon. Blue laws are a classic example. They are (or were) based on the popular concepts of religion at the time - that no one should work or do business (or drink, apparently) on Sunday, which Christians tend to consider the Sabbath or day of rest. While some such laws were struck down because they infringed on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, many remain on various state books, and not because they've never been challenged. They've remained because they do not infringe. And as to 'Equal Protection', there is no group whose civil rights are being infringed while another's are not. One group may claim Saturday is the actual proper Sabbath, another group may claim religious days of rest don't belong in secular law (I would tend to agree with that, on a personal note). And they are free to try to change the law. But it's been challenged and it is legal. It does not take away a civil liberty from one group unequally - none may buy booze on Sunday for example, not just group X or group Y. It's equal.


 
But the blue laws did infringe on rights. If all businesses were forced to be closed on Sunday, and observant Jews closed on Saturdays for religious reasons, they lost a day's business.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 5, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> But the blue laws did infringe on rights.



They don't, as evidenced by the fact that they are still around.



> If all businesses were forced to be closed on Sunday, and observant Jews closed on Saturdays for religious reasons, they lost a day's business.



That's not a civil right, that's a choice.

Some of the so-called 'blue laws' did infringe on civil liberties, especially where they tended to establish a state religion or even give that impression.  Others, such as no liquor sales or car sales on Sundays, bars have to close on election days, are still around, in force, and have withstood numerous legal challenges.  You can say they infringe on rights - but they don't according to the courts, and that is all that matters.

These remaining blue laws are a perfect example of my point.  The majority, even thought it causes problems for a minority (as in your example above), rules.  Yes, it causes problems.  Too bad.  It's perfectly legal.

And when the worm turns, and the majority is not religious, the laws will shift to favor the new majority.  And those who were the majority and are now the minority will complain that their rights are being trampled.  But if the court does not agree with their claim that a civil liberty is being violated, too bad for them.

Courts are not interested in what is fair.  They are interested in what is legal.  And laws do not have to be nice, kind, decent, moral, just, or respectful of the minority.  They only have to be within the bounds of the Constitution.  If the majority wants a law that just chaps your ***, and you have no civil liberty being infringed upon, guess what?

Not liking a law is not the same as having your rights infringed.  Being inconvenienced even in a major way, is not the same either.  The majority gets their way, and that's how the US system of government was designed to work.


----------

