Conservatives (mainly Republicans, but some Dems): Marriage is a covenant recognized by the government as a building block of the family, and we believe that the best way--therefore, the only legally sanctioned way--to form a family is through marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, we must amend the Constitution to reflect this.
Liberals (mainly Democrats, but some GOPs): Don't amend the Constitution! That would amount to tyranny by the Federal Government on a matter that they shouldn't have jurisdiction. Let the states make their own decision on whom they want to allow to marry.
Moderates: Can't we all just get along?
I now propose a way in which we can all get along--a compromise, if you will. The problem with allowing the individual states to decide the issue of whom can marry is Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It reads:
quote: Article IV.
Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause is why my Virginia Driver's license is also valid in Texas. So is my marriage license.
In 1996, Congress passed (and Pres. Clinton signed) the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) which essentially exempted the states from being forced to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, I think it is likely this law will probably be judged to be in violation of the aforementioned section of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. I for one think that the law is unconstitutional.
So, what about the states in which the majority of citizens and legislature wish to allow only marriages between one man and one woman? If the DOMA is struck down, these states will be forced to recognize other states' marriage licenses, which reflect a different set of values.
This is why I propose a different sort of Amendment than the one which has been recently defeated in Congress. Rather than amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, why not simply amend it so that Article IV allows full faith and credit, except in the case of marriage. This way, the states really can decide what kinds of marriage are appropriate, without other states being forced to agree with them. True Federalism at work.
So, how about that for a compromise?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: My take on the gay marriage-debate.
Conservatives (mainly Republicans, but some Dems): Marriage is a covenant recognized by the government as a building block of the family, and we believe that the best way--therefore, the only legally sanctioned way--to form a family is through marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, we must amend the Constitution to reflect this.
Liberals (mainly Democrats, but some GOPs): Don't amend the Constitution! That would amount to tyranny by the Federal Government on a matter that they shouldn't have jurisdiction. Let the states make their own decision on whom they want to allow to marry.
Moderates: Can't we all just get along?
You leave out a lot of opinions:
People who believe the principles underlying the equal protection clause mandate recognition of gay marriage, or, to put it another way, that gay marriage is a human rights issue that requires national recognition.
People who believe it should be up to the states, with other states required to recognize them.
People who believe it should be up to each state using normal legal and political processes, with other states not required to recognize them. (This is what the DOMA implements).
People who think it should be up to state legislatures, not courts, and that other states should not have to recognize them. (This is what some versions of the marriage amendment implement, with the “civil union” v. “marriage” semantic argument resolved in favor of civil union.
People who think gay marriage should be banned nationally.
quote:I now propose a way in which we can all get along--a compromise, if you will. The problem with allowing the individual states to decide the issue of whom can marry is Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It reads:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------- Article IV.
Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This clause is why my Virginia Driver's license is also valid in Texas. So is my marriage license.
The license is a good example of why full faith and credit doesn’t mean what you think it means. A 16-year old with a license to drive in state A may not be allowed to drive in State Bwhere the minimum age is 17.
quote:In 1996, Congress passed (and Pres. Clinton signed) the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) which essentially exempted the states from being forced to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, I think it is likely this law will probably be judged to be in violation of the aforementioned section of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. I for one think that the law is unconstitutional.
This statement needs to be backed up. The last sentence quoted in section 1 carries a lot of weight. SCOTUS has ruled that adoptions from a different state do not have to be treated the same in probate proceedings as adoptions within the probate state. The P&I clause also does not mean what you think it means. Basically, it prevents discrimination against out of staters on many matters (although it allows different in-state and out-of-state tuition, and length of residency requirements for marriages and divorces, for example). The P&I carries no weight in this debate.
quote:So, what about the states in which the majority of citizens and legislature wish to allow only marriages between one man and one woman? If the DOMA is struck down, these states will be forced to recognize other states' marriage licenses, which reflect a different set of values.
This is why I propose a different sort of Amendment than the one which has been recently defeated in Congress. Rather than amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, why not simply amend it so that Article IV allows full faith and credit, except in the case of marriage. This way, the states really can decide what kinds of marriage are appropriate, without other states being forced to agree with them. True Federalism at work.
The DOMA is unlikely to be struck down, so this isn’t really a change.
quote:So, how about that for a compromise?
Not really a compromise, since it pretty much guarantees the status quo.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I seem to recall having been told that people who came to the United States from countries allowing polygamy, who already had multiple wives, were allowed to keep those multiple wives. If this is not a hallucination, why do people make such a big deal out of the full faith and credit clause being used to allow marriages they consider immoral, when such marriages are already allowed under vaguely similar circumstances?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
How does it guarantee the status quo?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I seem to recall having been told that people who came to the United States from countries allowing polygamy, who already had multiple wives, were allowed to keep those multiple wives. If this is not a hallucination, why do people make such a big deal out of the full faith and credit clause being used to allow marriages they consider immoral, when such marriages are already allowed under vaguely similar circumstances?
Two things, Icarus: First, according to this site, "The following are examples of reasons for which a refugee may not be admitted to the United States: ... * A person who is intending to practice polygamy in the United States"
Second, it's not a question of "allowing" the marriages, it's a question of legal recognition of the marriages. The two are related but not identical.
quote:How does it guarantee the status quo?
Because it's the practical effect of the laws we have now, which means there will be no widespread access to civil marriage for gay couples. So it's not a compromise.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is a problem with: "Full Faith and etc except in the case of marriage license".
Bob drives trucks. Bob gets married in Maine. Bob gets married in Illinois. Bob gets married in Texas. Bob may be in trouble by the women when they discover his other wives, but there would be no case of bigamy to be made against him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not true - full faith and credit is not needed to support a bigamy charge, because the crime can be defined as getting marrried when already married in this or any other state.
Definitions for purposes of criminal law can always be different than definitions for civil law.
Not that this makes the idea any better. Except maybe for giving people who take marriage rights for granted a taste of what it means suddenly not be married by crossing state lines.
Dagonee
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Because it's the practical effect of the laws we have now, which means there will be no widespread access to civil marriage for gay couples. So it's not a compromise.
But it does guarantee that the DOMA won't be struck down on constitutional grounds. Which, though you believe it is unlikely, is still possible. As far as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is concerned, while I personally don't think it should be applied to gay marriage, I admit I am uninformed of the legal arguments pro and con.
quote: Article 14. Section 1. 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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So it's actually less than a compromise - it takes a situation in which a law possibly might be struck down and which only one side wants, and makes it a permanent part of the Constitution.
How on earth is that a compromise?
And it certainly does make the status quo permanant, since the law still currently has effect. It keeps the status quo from changing.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag a good lawyer could argue that if the constitution specifically says Marriage is not recognized between states, any state or local law referencing marriage in another state is unconstitutional.
oooh, I just love argueing constitutional law for imaginary constitutional ammendments.
Here is a question. A Constitutional Amendment passes saying it is illegal for two people of the same sex to get married. My liberal church says it is our belief that love should be honored, no matter what two adults fall in love. If a minister performs a marriage ceremony for two men, which part of the constitution supercedes the other--the old amendment referencing freedom of religion, or the new amendment saying "You can't call that marriage."
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
It is a compromise because there is one side saying "ban all gay marriages" and another saying "let the states decide." The first side feels an Amendment is necessary rather than letting the states decide because of Article IV. The first side has to give up the notion that the government should require all states to ban gay marriage; the second group gets pretty much what they want, but makes it more permanent.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
You know, I never really understood why The conservatives are making a big deal about gay marriage. Is it a religion issue? What possible reason could they have other than that? In my opinion. if it is a religion thing, let the church deal with it. Religion and government cannot become this closely related in a country with many different religions. I can understand that one might think something is wrong based on their religion, but it doesnt' give you grounds to try and make it illegal. The church does not run things in America.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Here is a question. A Constitutional Amendment passes saying it is illegal for two people of the same sex to get married. My liberal church says it is our belief that love should be honored, no matter what two adults fall in love. If a minister performs a marriage ceremony for two men, which part of the constitution supercedes the other--the old amendment referencing freedom of religion, or the new amendment saying "You can't call that marriage."
quote: Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The government is not prohibiting the free exercise of your religion by banning gay marriage. Suppose your religion says that you must purchase large quantities of cocaine and give it to 5 year olds on school property. This is illegal, and even though your religion decrees it isn't, that doesn't mean you won't get arrested.
Also, the government isn't saying you can't call it marriage, it just isn't giving the couple a marriage license.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag a good lawyer could argue that if the constitution specifically says Marriage is not recognized between states, any state or local law referencing marriage in another state is unconstitutional
Unlikely, since full faith and credit wouldn't be required but would still be allowed under such an amendment. Besides, felonies in state A that are not felonies in state B will usually trigger B's felon registration laws, and this has been declared constitutional.
quote:oooh, I just love argueing constitutional law for imaginary constitutional ammendments.
Here is a question. A Constitutional Amendment passes saying it is illegal for two people of the same sex to get married. My liberal church says it is our belief that love should be honored, no matter what two adults fall in love. If a minister performs a marriage ceremony for two men, which part of the constitution supercedes the other--the old amendment referencing freedom of religion, or the new amendment saying "You can't call that marriage."
Technically, a newer amendment trumps an older amendment - it's why legislation enacted under the 14th can authorize suits against states and legislation enacted under the commerce clause can't.
BUT, in this case, the amendment would be speaking of legal recognition, and they would likely find no conflict with the first amendment. After all, not even Virginia is trying to stop religions from conducting religious-only marriages between gay people.
---------------------------------------
Brian, it's not a compromise. People advocating for gay marriage aren't saying "let the state's decide" because they're state rightists; they're saying that because they know there's no hope of getting the federal government to act.
You are advocating that the status quo be maintained. The status quo allows some form of gay marriage in exactly two states, with no other states recognizing it.
The marriage amendment won't ban gay marriage throughout the country - it will let the states decide, but it will arbitrarily reinterpret their constitutions to make sure it's the legislatures decision and get rid of any possibility of mandatory full faith and credit.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: It is a compromise because there is one side saying "ban all gay marriages" and another saying "let the states decide."
I think you are misrepresenting where the two sides of this debate are. I think one wants to ban it, and one wants it legalized everywhere, and letting the states decide potentially is a compromise, albeit one that is made difficult by the fuill faith and credit clause.
Thus, the compromise you are suggesting is actually between one extreme of the debate and the center, and therefore it favors the extreme that is opposed to gay marriage being legalized.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The government is not prohibiting the free exercise of your religion by banning gay marriage. Suppose your religion says that you must purchase large quantities of cocaine and give it to 5 year olds on school property. This is illegal, and even though your religion decrees it isn't, that doesn't mean you won't get arrested.
If the government passed a law making it illegal to conduct a marriage ceremony between two men, even without attempting to grant a marriage license, it would be struck down, probably unanimously.
Your example might be true, but it reveals nothing about the law of free exercise.
Dagonee
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
LD, the main argument that isn't based on religion goes thus: Society is built on the basic unit of the family, which is built on the idea of one man and one woman getting married and having children (or adopting them.) Though other family structures can work, this model of the family is the best way of raising the next generation, therefore the government should grant marriage privileges to those who choose to follow this pattern, in hopes of maintaining a stable society.
I need to go to bed, so I won't be posting again 'til morning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, I never really understood why The conservatives are making a big deal about gay marriage. Is it a religion issue? What possible reason could they have other than that? In my opinion. if it is a religion thing, let the church deal with it. Religion and government cannot become this closely related in a country with many different religions. I can understand that one might think something is wrong based on their religion, but it doesnt' give you grounds to try and make it illegal. The church does not run things in America.
Calling gay marriage "illegal" is not truly accurate. As has been said before, any religious group can marry any two people. No one will be fined, lose privileges, or go to jail if they do so.
What will happen is that the resulting union will not be recognized by the state, and the couple will receive none of the benefits, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations that the law grants to traditional marriages.
There are secular reasons for not extending civil marriage to homosexuals, although I don't think they're good enough reasons. And there are religious forms of marriage that would still be illegal if gay marriage is approved.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Though other family structures can work, this model of the family is the best way of raising the next generation..."
Except that the only evidence to support this claim is based on religious belief. So that kinda sends you back to square one, as all you're saying is "I THINK this is best, so therefore I'm going to ram it down your throat."
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Brian:
What does one gain by not giving gay couples their marriage licsences? It's almost like saying, "If you get married our way we'll give you benefits." Once again, we come back to belief. Not to rag on releigion. Just that I think in the governments case, decsicions should be made based on what is good for the citizens of the country and not based on beleifs of the people in government. I had more to say but I'm thinking too hard.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Why does the government need to recognize marriages at all? Clearly the "sanctity" of marriage is derived from religion. So why aren't all marriages simply performed and recognized by the religion that one belongs to? If its for economics then why would a homosexual marriage be any different from a heterosexual one? I think if what I said were the case that would really solve all the problems as people who are worried that the value of their marriage will be diminished will be able to get married by the religion that doesn't permit gay marriage and gays will be able to marry in their religion if it does condone gay marriage.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
newfoundlogic:
That was my second point to make. Your a theif! lol I was thinking about this whole topic for too long and i got confused so i stopped my last post short.
<---My favorite Graemlin in case anyone was wondering.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Someone agrees with me. Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
I agree. But it will never happen. Marriage is such a big part of life, that the government can't help torturing people with liscences and such. And also, for those without a religion, marriage under law is the only way to go.
[ August 26, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Little_Doctor ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It will never happen because regardless of what the first amendment says the majority of Americans will always think of the United States as a Christian nation, or if they're feeling politically correct, a Judeo-Christian nation. Of course people never include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or members of any other religion.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
As far as the people without religion are concerned I see no reason why they should put any value on that word, "marriage." But if they want just something official to say we're together and committed to each other and no one else and on top of that we want the economical benefits then I think the government should issue "civil unions" in the stead of marriages with civil unions being available to any couple and with the benefits of status-quo marriage. People married by their religion would also get those.
Note: I'm not so naive as to believe that this would ever come about or even that a significant portion of people on this forum would support it over the current system, but I do think it is the best solution.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If the majority of Americans think of this as a Christian nation, then it is a Christian nation. Not because the government says it is, but because the population says it is.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Um, no.
Thanks to our Constitution, this is not a "Christian Nation" unless the majority thinks so and takes steps to write this into the Constitution. As it stands now, all that comes from the "majority" of Americans thinking this is a "Christian Nation" is that we live in a secular nation full of citizens who poorly understand their own Constitution.
And from a linguistic perspective, the only thing ones acheives from calling something that which it is not is removing any real significance from the term which they are applying.
(For those who may not understand that last sentence: If you call a dog a tree, you do not turn the dog into a tree, you simply remove any significant meaning from the term "tree".)
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:As far as the people without religion are concerned I see no reason why they should put any value on that word, "marriage."
I'm sorry, you lost me here. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Mike. Allow me to insert a polite cough of my own. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl, that would give us have a Christan government, which we don't have, which nobody I know wants.
A nation with a Christian government is not the same thing as a Christian nation.
But I'll admit that I don't have a good definition of "Christian nation". There probably isn't a good definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I'll admit that I don't have a good definition of 'Christian nation.' There probably isn't a good definition."
Why not "nation with a Christian government?" That seems good enough to me. Under that definition, of course, America is not a Christian nation -- which, again, is just fine by my lights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All of which brings me right back to the legal system only recognizing civil unions for any two consenting, unmarried, not-first-cousin or closer adults.
Then people, through their religious or private ceremonies, can tack on whatever personal meaning for marriage they come up with.
This seems like the real compromise, because everyone gives up something but everyone gets something.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not "nation with a Christian government?"
Probably because a lot of people don't define our nation by its government, but by its people.
Dagonee
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Perhaps a good definition would be, a nation that upholds Christian beliefs, ideals, morals, and the Christian way of life.
However, I disagree that we have one, only because the word "Christian" is too generalized. There are many different Christian sects, and they often differ on their beliefs, ideals, and morals.
Not to mention the fact that we are also a nation of athiests, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus...etc.
I think if we were a Christian nation, the things that we are now fighting over (like gay marriage) wouldn't even be issues.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I know that a lot of the people I hear talk about it think of this nation as a Christian one because the founding fathers were Christian. They feel that the religious beliefs of these founding fathers did a lot to actually shape the Constitution. So, while the document is not overtly Christian, many people view it as inspired by the Christian God.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
um, actually many of the founding fathers were NOT christian, they were deists, as were many of the philisophical progenitors of our government's founding theory.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting. I don't know much about deism at all. I have only repeated here the beliefs I know some hold.
I know that the LDS belief is that the founding fathers were inspired by God as was Columbus and others who influenced what this continent has become. Their being deists would not change that belief.
[ August 26, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The great thing about belief is that it's unaffected by fact.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And how would you propose that this specific belief would be changed by that specific fact?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I think if we were a Christian nation, the things that we are now fighting over (like gay marriage) wouldn't even be issues.
Right, 'cause all Christians agree on those issues.
*snort*
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i'll try to tread lightly here, but... what??? like moses in the burning bush, or just sort of gave them the idea that it might be fun to start a country?
deism is sort of a halfway point between a christian monarchy and secular democracy - it posits a "clockmaker god" concept in which god created the universe as an intricately constructed and self contained mechanism and then stepped out of the picture to watch it "tick". it's sort of like half a cup of theism and half a cup of science, mix and let rise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure why there's a dichotomy between theism and science there.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: like moses in the burning bush, or just sort of gave them the idea that it might be fun to start a country?
More inspiration than a heavenly manifestation.
quote: deism is sort of a halfway point between a christian monarchy and secular democracy - it posits a "clockmaker god" concept in which god created the universe as an intricately constructed and self contained mechanism and then stepped out of the picture to watch it "tick". it's sort of like half a cup of theism and half a cup of science, mix and let rise.
Cool. That is a good, succinct explaination. So they believed that God left man to themselves and that we are responsible for making our world what we wish it to be.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I'm not sure why there's a dichotomy between theism and science there.
It might be because the Christian churches of the day (mostly Roman Catholic and Church of England, but others also) declared certain things that contradicted scientific discovery and took a very long time to accept the things that science discovered, like astronomy and evolution.
Of course, they don't have these problems (to a large extent) today.
[ August 26, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's no more fair to impugn religion for that than it is to impugn science because Gallielo was wrong about universal heliocentrism.
Dagonee
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Right, 'cause all Christians agree on those issues.
*snort*
That kinda was my point dkw. I would only call the US a Christian nation if everyone believed in the same type of Christianity. We don't, which is why we aren't that type of nation.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I agree that there should be no argument between science and religion. I was only stating that I unerstand why some feel that way.
Inasmuchas religion is about a search for truth, all scientific discovery is valid. Religious beliefs should always allow for "fact".
I might add that scientific observation is often incomplete and there is much that is as-of-yet unobserved. I have never seen a fact that has threatened my religious beliefs in any way.
[ August 26, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't think it has to be a religious issue. Morals can exist outside of religion. They are simple beliefs of what is right or wrong. Both my roommate and his best friend are atheists...so they share 'religious' beliefs (or the lack there of). His friend believes that it is immoral to have sex before marriage. Not because of god...or religion (since he does not believe in those things) but simply because he feels that it is wrong. My roommate on the other hand thinks you should sleep with as many girls as will consent. Not all moral beliefs are tied into a religious structure...and just because you are creating laws based on morals does not mean that you are legislating religion.
There are other laws on the books that are based on morals as well. Why can't you marry your sister? There have been societies in the past that have allowed it, but ours does not. If it should be legal to marry someone of the same sex, then why should brothers and sisters be prevented from marriage? You can make the argument about offspring that are genetically inferior, but homosexual couples cannot create viable offspring between them either. How about polygamy? If it is between consenting adults why should it be stopped. Again people try to make the argument that in some cases polygamy was not between consenting adults...but not every same sex relationship is between consenting adults. And there are many heterosexual marriages that are abusive, yet heterosexual marriage is obviously legal despite the many abuses.
Every society has a system of moral codes. Perhaps in some cases religion is involved...but not in all cases. Sometimes these moral distinctions don't make sense to outside observers...or even to all those who live in a society, but someone has to make those decisions. If a society wants to stop incest, they they will pass a law to stop it. If a society wants to stop murder then they will pass a law to stop it. If a society wants to stop same sex marriages, then they will pass a law to stop it. If the society wants to permit those things, then they will make those things legal. If you take out religion, I don't think either side can be 'right' it just boils down to moral preferences.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Excellent points, Lupus. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:If the majority of Americans think of this as a Christian nation, then it is a Christian nation. Not because the government says it is, but because the population says it is.
Out of curiosity, if the US is a Christian nation, does that mean that non-Christians are less American or not American at all? (This is not meant to be trollish, I really want to know.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Unfortunately, I think some Christians look at it that way.
That is, if I am to believe that humans wrote some of the emails I see being forwarded.
Isn't that at least in part why "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance? To distinguish the Christian Americans from the Atheist Communists?
[ August 26, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
What I think it all comes down to, is that religion and beleifs have a very strong influence on the way people make decsicions. I think that in the case of someone who is running a country, this can be a good or a bad thing (depending on the government). In the U.S. it is pretty much impossible to avoid this because most people have a religion that influences them. Our government today happens to have many christian participants. It is taking these religiosly influenced descicions to an extreme that we have to look out for. I havent decided for myslef if I think denying gay couples their marriage licenses is crossing the line. There are some points they make that don't seem to be religious issues.
[ August 26, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Little_Doctor ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:They are simple beliefs of what is right or wrong.
i have to take issue with this statement, not so much in that it is untrue (obviously, morality is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong) but about the possibility of believing in right and wrong absent some sort of theistic belief/value system. the concepts of right and wrong require some type of authority higher than onesself, some legitimacy outside of the individual. to say that something is intrinsically and morally right is to say that it is right for everyone because "right" is dictated by something (the natural order, god, goddesses, whatever). of course, there's the "right for me" argument, which essentially breaks down into enlightened self interest which i would not call a moral system as much as a method of living in harmony with whatever one defines as their environment.
i should mention that i'm agnostic, so if this bothers some of the athiests/agnostics here at least know that i'm not trying to belittle your moral system... Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow. I am impressed that an agnostic can admit this. Kerinin, you have impressed me today.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
It's been my experience that most non-theists either appeal to some sort of logic (e.g. utilitarianism) for the source of their moral systems or hold relativist moral codes. Or both, I suppose.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"he concepts of right and wrong require some type of authority higher than onesself, some legitimacy outside of the individual. to say that something is intrinsically and morally right is to say that it is right for everyone because "right" is dictated by something"
Depends on how you mean "dictated" by "something."
For example, I think right and wrong are based upon maximizing the ability of people to live together without serious conflict. If thats "dictated by something" then I agree with you. If not... then I disagree.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:I think right and wrong are based upon maximizing the ability of people to live together without serious conflict
i would argue that utilitarianism really isn't a moral system, in that it doesn't label things as right and wrong so much as it labels them beneficial and detrimental (to the stated goal of profiting the species as a whole). in the end this will inevitably degenerate into an argument about semantics and to what degree concepts of right and wrong are granted transcendency.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
<---My favorite Graemlin in case anyone was wondering.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)