Question for anti gay marriage people.

[Nigerius Rex]

It means the government cannot cannot adopt a state religion or force religious views onto you. It doesn't mean that the state should reject all religious principles or deny their teaching or practice in public places or institutions.

https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

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

So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state whereas a political group or senator drafting a bill that the Christian community wants to force onto non Christians (like the anti gay marriage people) should be.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state

Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion.  That's for another thread though, I suppose.  Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.

[Seventh Son]

So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state

Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion.  That's for another thread though, I suppose.  Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.

Pretty much this. 

[Nigerius Rex]

So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state

Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion.  That's for another thread though, I suppose.  Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.

What side of the spectrum you fall to is irrelevant to the big picture, using the separation of church and state as the only reason for the rejection of religion from anything government related is invoking its meaning and purpose incorrectly.

[Quadrochosis]

Maybe I am mistaken, but to me, seperation of church and state is the Legislature deciding what is best without using religious ideals. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if I was mistaken.

The term was used by Thomas Jefferson in some of his letters, and it appears nowhere in the Constitution.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state

Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion.  That's for another thread though, I suppose.  Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.

What side of the spectrum you fall to is irrelevant to the big picture, using the separation of church and state as the only reason for the rejection of religion from anything government related is invoking its meaning and purpose incorrectly.

I'm not speaking in a broad sense, I just believe as a scientist myself that there's literally no place in the science classroom for religious beliefs.  This has less to do with separation of church and state as much as it has to do with teaching good science.

Also, does it really matter that the Wall of Separation isn't in the Constitution?  It's still an extremely important principle that many people (including myself) hold very dear.  If we keep religion out of government, then government stays out of religion.

[GuineaPig]

The "Wall of Separation" is held quite dear in Canada.  It's a bad idea for a politician to discuss religious matters; it'll lose them more votes than it gains them.  More or less the opposite from the States, even though we have no formalized separation of church and state in our constitution.

But I agree with SeaWolf.  The reasons for rejecting intelligent design have less to do with any constitutional arguments than they do with the fact that it's simply not science.

[bosk1]

Regardless of whether or not you believe that should or should not be the ideal, that is not what "separation of church and state" means.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Regardless of whether or not you believe that should or should not be the ideal, that is not what "separation of church and state" means.

Perhaps you could define it then, for us? You'd know better, being a lawyer and all

[bosk1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

[Fiery Winds]

I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.

[Nigerius Rex]

The "Wall of Separation" is held quite dear in Canada.  It's a bad idea for a politician to discuss religious matters; it'll lose them more votes than it gains them.  More or less the opposite from the States, even though we have no formalized separation of church and state in our constitution.

What we need to be concerned about as far as the establishment clause is a government ever trying to establish a state religion. Everything else is out of the realm of the establishment clause.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.

Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion

[j]

I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.

Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion

I think that's what he was trying to say, that the way the phrase is used oftentimes today is clearly far removed from its original intended meaning.

-J

[Fiery Winds]

I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.

Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion

I think that's what he was trying to say, that the way the phrase is used oftentimes today is clearly far removed from its original intended meaning.

-J

This.  I can imagine the public outrage of people citing "separation of church and state" if a church service were held in the Capitol today.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

As long as the Capitol is made available for other faiths to worship in as well (Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with it myself.

[hefdaddy42]

As long as the Capitol is made available for other faiths to worship in as well (Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with it myself.

Even if it weren't, it still wouldn't be a violation, AFAIK.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You're probably right.  To be honest, I probably still wouldn't have a problem with it in that case.  As long as it doesn't officially endorse that specific religion as the state religion.

I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue.  Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it.  Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?

If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches?  I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue.  Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it.  Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?

Many gay marriage opponents are religious (at least nominally), and use their beliefs as their reasoning.  But not all gay marriage opponents are religious, and I have heard arguments against it that have nothing to do with religion.  Therefore, it is not a church vs. state issue.

If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches?  I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.

Sounds fine to me.  But good luck on getting that passed.

[Fiery Winds]

I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue.  Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it.  Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?

Many gay marriage opponents are religious (at least nominally), and use their beliefs as their reasoning.  But not all gay marriage opponents are religious, and I have heard arguments against it that have nothing to do with religion.  Therefore, it is not a church vs. state issue.

If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches?  I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.

Sounds fine to me.  But good luck on getting that passed.

This.  Once you give anything to the people (power, money, or in this case, terminology), it is nearly impossible to take it away. 

[Vivace]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?

I'm not against it being illegal. I have no say in that legistlation. I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural. A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication. When a man and woman couple they create life. When a man and man couple or woman and woman couple, no life is created nor is a human built to have sex with the same sex human. Seriously, why doesn't anyone think of man having their penis up another man's asshole as unnatural? Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature. I am not saying that any homosexual is delusional or evil. All that I am saying is that the idea of homosexualty cannot be substantiated in human nature and I would love to hear someone actually substantiate it.

I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world. I this was so then you could trace homosexuality through a family line much the same I can trace heart problems or hair color. To me it's a tendancy that happened very early in life. I seriously doubt we are born with some tendancy towards the same-sex. I find that ridiculous.

Oh by the way, this entire argument was constructed without a single mention of religious dogma.

[GuineaPig]

Wow.

[El Barto]

A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication.

And this is a bad thing why, exactly?  You didn't directly refer to your religious beliefs, but they're all over your post.  Humans do countless things for no other reason than to obtain our jollies.  Some of us find sex quite enjoyable, with nary a thought towards procreation.  The only reason to object to such a thing is religion.   I also enjoy riding roller coasters and watching football with a cold beer in my hand.  Strangely, bible thumpers have never harassed me for my heathenish fondness for those hobbies. 

[El JoNNo]

I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world.

Than you disagree with biology and are just as bad as the evolution nay sayers.

[soundgarden]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?

I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural.

Completely and utterly wrong.  Homosexuality is as natural as birds which can fly backwards.  It may appear to be unnatural due to the fact that the act which mirrors copulation does not result in progeny.  

What if human females ate their mate after sex.  Would you then call it unnatural and label all praying mantis unnatural?  Its rare and unusual, but by no means unnatural.  What if a human male decides to have a harem of wives and violently guards them against other males.  Would you find polygamy unnatural?  Well many humans do, but it is a mainstay of the natural world.

And indeed, as species come closer to exhibiting intelligence and social cultures (ie, dolphins and bees) homosexuality is even more prevalent.

(It would have been better if you DID bring in the god argument, I can buy that religious folks see humans as innately superior to animals and thus above all animalistic instincts, nevermind how deluded and pretentious this idea is)

[ack44]

Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature.

 I agree that homosexuality isn't "natural" in that it isn't supported by natural selection like most other desires and pleasures are. But why does this matter? There are many other loopholes to have your body provide you with chemical rewards, for example MUSIC.

[Adami]

You're assuming it's not natural, because you assume the only point to any sexual interactions is to produce off spring. In that case, oral sex, masturbation or sex between two people who can't have children is unnatural. As would be sex during certain times of the month.

[Seventh Son]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?

I'm not against it being illegal. I have no say in that legistlation. I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural. A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication. When a man and woman couple they create life. When a man and man couple or woman and woman couple, no life is created nor is a human built to have sex with the same sex human. Seriously, why doesn't anyone think of man having their penis up another man's asshole as unnatural? Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature. I am not saying that any homosexual is delusional or evil. All that I am saying is that the idea of homosexualty cannot be substantiated in human nature and I would love to hear someone actually substantiate it.

I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world. I this was so then you could trace homosexuality through a family line much the same I can trace heart problems or hair color. To me it's a tendancy that happened very early in life. I seriously doubt we are born with some tendancy towards the same-sex. I find that ridiculous.

Oh by the way, this entire argument was constructed without a single mention of religious dogma.

Just because no religious dogma was mentioned in your post doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired by it, which if definitely seems to be. I'm not going to go in a long rant attacking your beliefs (Even though I think you are very strongly in the wrong) because I don't really like to do that. I'll just ask you a couple of questions.

1. Is it immoral to have sex for reasons other than procreation at any point in time? To add to that, if someone is biologically unable to procreate, is it immoral for him/her to have sex?

2. Why is homosexuality illogical (I find your usage of that term in this context interesting)? I can understand the "The bible says so" response to it being immoral (Again, I disagree with it, but whatever). If someone desires homosexual relations, both emotionally and physically and does not harm their partner or anyone else in the process, how is this illogical? Is it illogical to pursue happiness?

[73109]

I should have never made this. Threads like this get me pissed. I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck. Can this get locked?

[Seventh Son]

I should have never made this. Threads like this get me pissed. I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck. Can this get locked?

But I want to see his reply 

[73109]

I just can't stand the bigotry. There is simply no good reason to ban gay marriage unless you feel it isn't religiously moral, and...GAH!!!!!!

I CAN'T EVEN ARTICULATE MY OPINION WITHOUT WANTING TO KILL SMALL KITTENS!!!

[73109]

Ariich convinced me to keep this open. Talk amongst yourselves. I'm out of this one.

[SovereignDream]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually            and they can suppress their            urges?

Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe gay acts are, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. Gays would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!

[bosk1]

I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck.

Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that.  Where can I find this information?  I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.

[Seventh Son]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually            and they can suppress their            urges?

Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe               is, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one.               would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!

1. So being unable to reproduce means you are an unnatural abomination? There are people who are straight that are biologically unable to reproduce, are they suddenly disgusting? I'm straight but I can't stand kids and have no desire to have any either. Am I an abomination?

2. Why would it suddenly be horrible? Are you implying being homosexual means you are automatically a bad parent? To add a point, what if a child is homosexual living under the roof of two straight parents? I personally think that's the fault of neither party myself. The child in question might feel miserable if the parents were pushy about forcing a particular sexuality on that child (regardless if he/she was straight or gay). If the parents were open-minded and supportive, then I don't think it would be awkward at all.

3. Wait.... what? So being ridiculed by society that isn't even a big deal automatically turns you into a serial killer?! Do you have ANY clue what you're saying here? Your entire argument is nothing but "I don't like gays because they are unnatural because they can't reproduce! And since they are unnatural, they are terrible people!"

I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck.

Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that.  Where can I find this information?  I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.

Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't homosexual sex count as sodomy? I know for a fact that its illegal in some states (At least I keep thinking it is), but it is kind of off-topic. No offense numbers.