Uncle Sid, on Feb 28 2004, 08:50 PM, said:
Well, you see, it's not really an argument. It's simply the reality of being religious. No one is *ignoring* other people's beliefs, but if you don't assert your own beliefs, then the other person is asserting theirs.
I may have misinterpreted what you said, but I saw it as being presented as a reason why (some) Christians would vote against the legalization of gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like the only reason why you would say that.
And in terms of respecting other people's religions, it's one thing to say that everyone has the freedom to choose their own beliefs, but it's another thing entirely to have to act as though you thought those other beliefs are correct.
But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? No one's forcing anyone into a gay marriage, so what does it matter what those who *wouldn't* think? You (again, abstract "you") can believe gay marriage is a cardinal sin, but still allow those who would committ that "sin" to do so "at their own risk."
In other (and perhaps clearer) words, if the reason to vote against it is a matter of faith, how can you morally prohibit it for those *not* of that faith?
In this country, I accept that there are people who believe differently than I do. They have every bit the same right to vote for something as I do. If they win, then they win and the government works that way, if they lose, then they lose. Obviously, nothing keeps them or me from trying to get laws changed and etc, but voting and legislating how we steer our course.
Now, sometimes, the majority is dead wrong. In those cases, you may need to appeal to certain protections that are in something like the Constitution. The question then becomes whether what is claimed is actually a right. Then you have to play the delicate game of balancing minority wishes against majority wishes.
Agreed, but again I would bring up that gay marriage has utterly no bearing on anyone *not gay.* So, why deny them that right?
That'd be fine if there was any way to fully and completely seperate "secular" from "religious". Yes, you can seperate religious organization from secular organization, but do you tell people that their beliefs simply don't apply to government? That's sort of silly.
That's exactly what I didn't say. I specifically said that having religious motivations and morality was perfectly fine, just not enough for a secular decision. You can argue your point as long as you wish, but there should be secular reasoning to support your religious motivations. If there isn't, the issue should be constrained to religious organizations.
And I think it's also bogus to assert that people who consider their religion in politics are automatically going to generate a theocracy. This country was basically a Christian one when it was founded. The idea of tolerance and respect for others is a very Christian one. There is no reason that opposition on this one matter is going to cause the country to turn into Iran or the Kingdom of Falwell. That's just as absurd as saying that allowing gay marriage is going to turn people into gays. It confuses me more than a little that people who would laugh at the idea of marriage turning people gay take it completely seriously that suddenly we'll be living under the Inquistition is they fail to get gay marriage on the books.
I never said that would happen. There are far too many safeguards in place for the US to become that (although people like John Ashcroft still scare the bejeesus out of me regardless). All I'm saying is that according to the argument you presented, that's the inevitable conclusion. If everyone votes solely based on religious motivations, the only possible outcome is a theocracy.
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression
"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V