rcarter2 :

You have to have some base of morals.

Look at the Spartans, they believed that stealing was just fine, In their scociety, If you were caught
stealing, then you were punished, not because stealing is wrong, but because they weren't clever enough
to avoid getting caught.

Atheists believe that Stealing is wrong (well, most of the time) because it infringes on another individuals rights.

If you want to bring everything down the basics of the universe then here is what morals really are.



     The entire universe is made up of blocks. These "blocks" can be rearranged according to the laws of science.
Humans consist of many blocks put together to create a complicated individual. And some of these humans have taken
a few blocks and built a tower. This tower is actually information stored in the brain. This "block tower" spell out the morals
recognized by the individual. but here is the thing.

That tower is artificial.

It only exists in the mind of the one who built it, it is not permanently engraved with everything else in the universe.
Hence, all morals are artificial, they can be rejected by any other person for any reason simply because they disagree.

You can decide that it is morally acceptable to steal, because the foundation of you tower is vastly different from everyone else's.

Even the idea of human rights is not permanently engraved in the universe, the idea of human rights is just another tower among many.
There is no such thing as human rights.

Sword legion : That is where commonality has to take place. I'm not saying there is such thing as a perfect system. One thing about this world is that you have many societies to choose from. Sure, you can come up with a society where stealing is okay as long as you can get away with it (where I assume being caught is a sign of weakness, resulting in the punishment). But if that is the society you wish, go live there. In this society, we preach equality among our citizens. That is one of our fundamental principals. Those who choose to live here do so expecting to be given equality. Some may want to steal. Some may want to murder. Some want to rape. They may not like that those things will get them in trouble. But there is one thing about laws against those acts that follows our equality principal. Those laws apply to everyone. Not everyone will like it, but it is something that applies to EVERYONE. That is equality. Outlawing gay marriage in a society that preaches equality amongst citizens is a a hypocrisy from those who support it and a spit on the face of those it affects. This is no different than flat out saying "You are a lesser citizen. You are not equal to us".
Sure, one's 'tower', as you put it, will not be the same as another. What one's tower sees as a human right is not the same to another tower. On a perspective like that, there is no natural human right. But when you live in a society, your tower is not standing alone, but is a part of what makes up an entire city (sticking to the metaphor). When these towers decide to make up a city, non 'natural' human rights are decided. Our city decided equality would be the human right for everything that is a part of the city. But in this case, the moment one thing comes up that doesn't fit individual buildings, all of a sudden the decision of equality means nothing. This country is willing to preach one thing, and turn its back on it when that thing includes something they personally don't like. If you don't want to live in a country meant for true equality where laws apply to everyone, this isn't the place for you.

@ rcarter2.

As to the tax issue,I find that in marriage you can claim a dependent. So only if both of the partners work do they get a tax break. Evan so with multiple wives you can only claim one dependent. So the tax issue would be closed for multiple wives.

Addressing the point about the founding fathers not being christian. It dose not really mater wether they were or were not. The point of my statement would agree with Sword Legion,that without the constitution  being considered a religious document,it holds no merit over what morality is,and therefore you cannot base a argument on it. Since without the document coming from a "higher power" it can carry no more merit than what I say in passing,thus we find that if I want to kill someone for being gay,you cannot say whether its wrong or right.

"I'm not saying we have crimes that are victimless. No
arguments (except plural marriage as not one of those victimless
crimes). But I never said I agreed with every law. I think that many
victimless crimes should be looked at and reconsidered. It isn't that
nobody is saying anything about those ones. I am just specifically
curious about this one since this is a clear example of forcing one's
religion on others, which is against what this country was truly founded
upon." -Rcarter2


It is impossible to have a country without a dominating religion. Look at any country and tell me they don't have a dominating religion ( I mean one religion that laws stream from). In the case of the USA,the dominating religion is "statisum". (Statisum :The belief that all morality streams from the current state leaders).

I would like to add a new point to this argument.

'One thing about this world is that you have many societies to choose from." -rcarter2

By this admission you are saying that if there are minority that don't like the laws,they can leave. Now there is something like 3% of people are homo/bisexual. So why should we change our laws to accommodate them,but not change them to accommodate murderers? Since there are far more murderers than mono/bisexuals people. Not that murders are the same in your mind. But the point is why should we change? If you are gay,go somewhere else (not a insult its my opinion).

Viktor Von`stah : We would change the law because it interferes with the fundamental law of equality. You fail over and over again to recognize equality is the fundamental law that this country is founded upon, and it is the principal that those who outlaw gay marriage claim to praise and uphold. It is hypocrisy. If they want to outlaw gay marriage, they should just outright and say what they are saying, which is "Anyone who does not follow our religion is below us, therefor is unequal".

As for your argument about the homo/bisexual minority. There is no reason for the 3% to have to leave by my logic. We are NOT changing laws to accommodate them. We are changing our law to recognize them as equal citizens. We do not change the law to accommodate murderers because that is a law that applies to EVERYONE. If anything, if we legalized murder, THAT would be an accommodation to murderers. Keeping the law how it is is not because it applies to every person, so it is equality. Now, if it is the country's decision to change the fundamental principal that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, then I will agree with you that those who want a gay marriage should go to an area that allows it. But the fact is, even the ones who are against gay marriage still claim they live in a country of equal opportunity and treatment. As long as they still want that as the fundamental principal of our country, they are disobeying that principal by outlawing gay marriage.

rcarter2 :

You are talking about "the fundamental law of eqaulity"

I think that that is a block tower that you made yourself.
Even the very idea that we all ought to be equal is from your and other people's block towers.

Just because the majority wants it doesn't make it right.

"Sure, you can come up with a scociety where stealing is okay as long as you can get away with it."

If 92% of Americans want to use a similar moral system as the Spartans regarding stealing then it is morally ok to you?

How about if 92% of Americans want the right to murder or marry bacon strips?

Sword legion : You are a prime example of what I am talking about. This isn't a matter of what I think is right and wrong. The principal of equality isn't a block I made up. It is what our country is founded on, and it is what almost every American claims to be one of the fundamental structures of our country. My issue is not that I think it is okay, and others don't. My issue is that most of those who vote against gay marriage also claim they live in a country of equal treatment and opportunity. It is hypocritical. As long as we are willing to say we believe in equality in this country, voting against gay marriage is directly against that belief.

As for your examples of bacon strip marriage, legalized stealing, murder, etc. It holds no merit. You seem to get the impression that this is all about what I feel is right and wrong, and that is a mistake on your part. No, I don't think marrying bacon strips is right. But if there were some case where that became legal, it should be legal for everyone. It shouldn't be a rule like "Only men can marry bacon. Only those who don't dye their hair can marry bacon. Etc." I might not agree with it, but at least there is no hypocrisy if the same 'bacon marriage laws' applied to EVERYONE.

As for stealing and murder, no, I don't think those are right either. But in a country that claims equality amongst citizens, theft and murder laws have to apply to EVERYONE. Now, if it were legal, I would leave.

But all of that is pointless for this thread. You are COMPLETELY missing the entire point here. I am not talking about what is right and what is wrong. All I am saying is that if you live in a country that states that all men (citizens) are created equal, then every law must be applied the same for everyone. You and Viktor Von'stah are constantly making arguments that make this about what I think is right and wrong. This is NOT about one individual's morality. Both of you need to get that through your heads. Neither of you has made a SINGLE argument as to why every law shouldn't apply to everyone. You keep bringing up murder, theft, etc. But all of your examples are laws that already apply to everyone, so why bring them up? I will say this one more time just to make sure you both remember, because you apparently need it repeated 50. The point of the thread is that:
Every American law should apply to every American citizen.

I would appreciate it if you and and Viktor can stick to the topic of this thread.

I will not pretend I am sticking to the point very well,I apologize for this.

"This isn't a matter of what I think is right and
wrong. The principal of equality isn't a block I made up. It is what our
country is founded on, and it is what almost every American claims to
be one of the fundamental structures of our country." - rcarter2

So the men who founded this country have more right to say wheat's moral than me? How is that equality? You are talking about "fairness" which does not exists,it is one of those blocks that sword legion is talking about. This brings me to my end point;that there is no argument against gay marriage without the bible,but neither is there any argument against any other crime with out the bible.

So in closing I once again apologize for not sticking to the point of the thread,but I also wish to expose the lack of thought in making the thread.



Goodbye and God's speed.

rcarter2 :

The idea of fairness is just a block tower you and many others uphold.

I think that by the same type of fairness that you want to have, bacon marriage should be legal as well.

Or we can get our morals from the Bible.

I'm going to have to agree with Viktor Von'stah.

I won't lie but I found what you said about bacon marriage hilarious.

"Don't mess with homeschoolers."

Right, you totally showed rcarter with your bacon marriage.
Both of you, when you really look at it, have ONLY used religion still, not politics. If you read the title reeeeaaaallllllyyy closely, I think it says "political standpoint".

Gay Marriage being legalized does not create a victim. It does not hurt others, it's not forcing you to have a gay marriage, and it's frankly none of your business when it comes to who marries whom.

Murder creates a victim. It hurts people. Stealing causes a victim too, being the ones who are selling the things. These are bad things.

Forcing others to conform to inequality garbage because a book says some invisible guy in the sky says gay marriage is bad, when the only "proof" of said guy is the book (and in return, the only proof the book is "true" is because said guy says it's true--- In the book), is in all actuality, bad.

Not everyone believes in the same religion. Not all religions have the same belief. Our founding fathers were mostly non-religious and even FLED FROM ENGLAND for this very reason. So, why should we still follow your rules?

You want a religion controlled government? Head over to the middle east, see how fun it'll be then. While they are different religions, in the end, you'll have the same results.

Now, on a political side, what are some actual arguments? Most I've heard is "I don't want my tax money going towards it", because lolreligiousbackground. Well, I can say the same for the churches. I don't go there, I don't believe in their 'cause', and I frankly don't like them. Is that enough to make it stop? No. Why? It infringes the first right, "Freedom of Religion/Press/Speech/etc". If you think gay marriage isn't protected by any amendments, then you surely haven't checked them. Look up the 14th. I'd explain, but that'd only be spoonfeeding you stuff you'll ignore in the end (Though I'm sure you won't look it up in the first place).

"So the men who founded this country have more right to say wheat's moral than me?" ~ Victor
No. You have "Freedom to Peacefully Petition" and vote. But for the most part, the founders of something tend to make the underlying rules. If you make a vase and say "do not touch", can I throw it on the ground?

Also, the 'bacon marriage' argument is total garbage. Marriage should be BETWEEN HUMANS, not humans and animals, not humans and food, and not humans and items (Though people have married cars, buildings, and even a DS. But gay marriage is totally wrong and stuff. Makes sense).

Though, I'm sure this post was a waste. I'm confident that it'll be mostly ignored and disrespected, so I'm not really anticipating any (worthwhile) replies.

If I may use a final goodbye too?

"The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose"

Sword legion : Can't say I get what you mean by "Don't mess with homeschoolers". You 'schooled' me 0% in this thread. If anything, all you did was show that you don't even know how to debate a topic. You don't know how to show evidence, you don't know how to make relevant arguments. All your arguments say is pretty much "My religion right, so that trumps you".

Since Victor won't be back here, I won't summon him, but this to anyone who reads his last post. You don't need the Bible to have morals. The Bible itself is important and teaches a lot of positive things, but it isn't required for morals. People have had morals and laws long predating the Bible. He argues that it is not equality to let a group of founders determine what morals are set for him. But this is just yet again him denying what equality is. This country (and our founding fathers) were about treating all citizens as equals. Viktor states that isn't fair for him to have to follow. By saying that, he is saying he believes that laws should apply differently to specific people (i.e- those who follow the Bible and those who don't). By saying there are no arguments against other crimes, he YET AGAIN shows that he has no understanding of the fact that in this country, laws are to apply to everyone. That is the argument against other crimes. Sure, there are no 100% agreeable arguments when it classifies what is a crime or not. But when the criminal law applies to everyone, that is at least equality.

MegaRevolution1 : But remember what Viktor said. Victims aren't bad unless the Bible says it is bad. I mean, everyone's view of negativity of murder all stems from the Bible's view on it. I mean, that moral didn't exist before the Bible. So that is pushing religion on others......... Jeez. I find it laughable that they seem to think all morals stem from the Bible. Like the Bible was the first religious document to set morals. They keep saying everything I brought up is just a 'building block' that is individually based. But they failed to recognize is that their religion would be just another building block in that pointless metaphor, therefore shouldn't have anymore influence than any other block. I would have liked to see you post what you said would be pointless, but I understand why you don't. This is a case where you can't show certain people that there are other religions, lifestyles, and viewpoints that should have as much respect and light as theirs. Sad and self centered really. That is why even though I still read the Bible and pray, I have left organized religion. Too many people who are really no better than those who led the Crusades. But anyway, I wouldn't get upset with them. Instead, be happy they 'argued' in here. I was actually wanting this to happen here. Sure, they think they 'proved' something here. They can tell everyone around them that 'homeschoolers are awesome' with this. But I wanted posts like that just to show everyone how empty the other side of the argument is. It's a power trip for control, is what it is. This is a gaming thread, so it isn't like anything will come of this, but it will me just that many more people of the younger generation that will see what the other side of the argument is truly like.

Viktor Von`stah :

"So the men who founded this country have more right to say wheat's moral than me?"

It is a parents job to teach morals, not the state. When morals are imbued in law you get things like state enforced dress code or laws on who you can talk to (middle east).
Are you suggesting we should model ourself on the great and prosperous bastions of chivalry, integrity and pacifism that is the middle east? its funny how they have all these moral laws and yet tend to kill each other more. And since Judaism, Christianity and Islam all stem from the same god, and in fact have many, many, many of the same practices, its funny how you think with Christianity it would be different.

Laws are to protect rights. While i would say killing is morally wrong, its also ethically wrong, and ethics are where laws should stem from. Not an individuals belief. That's up to the individual to adhere to.
not the state.

[
"neither is there any argument against any other crime with out the bible."

Sword legion :
If 92% of Americans want to use a similar moral system as the Spartans regarding stealing then it is morally ok to you?
]

And yet, Sparta and Rome were some of the most advanced nations of their time. And at said time, they were not christian. While my and your ancestors were running around in rags bashing each other over the heads with sticks, they were building cities, courts, laws, security, and frankly, they spread it to all the other country's around them. Heck, without Rome, none of you would even be christian. Rome spread the idea of law through Europe, you couldn't just do what you wanted, there were consequences, and you were punished for theft, murder, rape. Again, still not christian. And when they became christian, did they stop expanding and killing?
Did they hell.
I think you'd be surprised at how much of the bible is influenced by the Romans, as opposed to the Romans by the bible. Its worth noting that the Romans actually had no objection to a gay relationship either.
Right and wrong is hammered out in any society, because its mutually beneficial. Japan have barely any Christians, note the fact they are one of the most civilized nations in the world.

Also, bacon is dead. With marriage you need consent from both partners (well, maybe not in the middle east). I have never heard bacon consent to anything. Then again, i have never heard god tell me to condemn gays so maybe im the crazy one here. Do you often converse with bacon?
hmm, interesting.

Surely those on a block tower would be looking down on others. Since rcarter is talking about equality, and you are talking as though you are above gays, based on an unverifiable book, arguably you are on the block tower. The block towers home school needs a larger library i feel.

MegaRevolution1 :
rcarter2 :
thenumberone :

Look, you all talk about a victim, but even that concept is just a block on your tower.
The concept of a victim being bad is just a block on the tower.

we all have different towers so how can we know which one is truly right?
Even some atheists have realized this.

Morality can be whatever you want without God.
This goes for me and you. So I will take on God's law.

It keeps me from doing crazy things like legalizing bacon marriage.

I would think that if gay marriage is right then so is bacon marriage.
After all there is no victim. 

Even craziness is just another block.

That is my last post here. I don't see how you can legalize gay marriage but not bacon marriage.

Unless you want to say "Bacon marriage is crazy" and gay marriage isn't?
Of course you aren't allowed to say that Gay marriage is just crazy.

Who cares if bacon isn't alive. Not the person who wants to marry it.
The idea of your partner needing to be alive is just another block.

But it being crazy is pretty much the best reason to deny it.

A society without God can create any morals that they want.
Good and evil can be turned backwards. Crazy can be sane and sane can become crazy.

All of your morals can be changed and could be completely backwards.

And with that I'm gone.

Sword legion : I know you aren't posting here anymore, but I will at least point this out. The fact you are still referring to this building block analogy and talking about individual morality just shows that you still don't even know what the argument point of this thread is. It isn't about our concept or views on morality. This is all based on the fact that this country claims equal rights to all of its citizens. That means everyone is to be treated the same in the eyes of the law. So in a country that is supposed to have equal treatment of each citizens, it is not justified to deny marriage to an 'equal' citizen due to sexual preference. Your bacon marriage thing holds no merit to the argument. With this whole bacon marriage thing, NO citizen is allowed to marry bacon. So that is equal treatment, thereby following the main principal of our country. Your bacon marriage argument is yet another morality argument over 'is it right or is it wrong'. This is NOT a morality thing. This is pointing out that this country says all citizens are equals, yet it does not apply the same law to everyone. 

That is why your arguments have absolutely no merit in this because you are having a completely separate debate topic. There are threads debating this on a right and wrong view, but this is not one of them.

rcarter2:

At the risk of you "editing out my post" (I swear I DID read the thing!!!) I do want to draw attention to one little itty-bitty religious thing!!!!!!  PLEASE DONT EDIT MY POST TO DEATH!!!  lol    I will discuss some political reasons to hopefully vaccinate and protect my post from your edit-murder!  

Political reasons ---  Substantive due process-- The constitution does not discriminate based on race, because race is innate, or people are born with it.  When laws do discriminate based on race, courts will apply "strict scrutiny" or they will throw the law out as bad 99.9% of the time.  

Now, to apply substantive due process to gay marriage, I need to also apply some common sense.  I believe that if an issue is uncertain, we should give others the benefit of the doubt.  Thus, as long as it is uncertain whether being gay is innate or a learned/conditioned characteristic, we should give gay people the benefit of the doubt and treat it as an innate characteristic, apply strict scrutiny to the discriminatory law (e.g. Defense of Marriage Act aka DOMA) and throw it out.  

The harm principle = if you don't harm others, there is no legit reason for the government to take action to deprive you of liberty.  Thus actions to treat gay marriages as less valid than heterosexual marriages are not legitimate because gay marriages do no harm to anyone.  

The slippery slope argument against gay marriage is weak.  While yes gay marriage would probably become legalized before marrying horses becomes legal, keeping gay marriage illegal to guard against horse marriage is not a legitimate reason.  Gay marriage should be judged independently of the risk that it will pave a smooth road to horse marriage.  

Those are my best legal arguments, please let me share my religious thought!  I read the post I swear!  Reverend Mel White who can be found at melwhite dot org has some very very persuasive arguments that the Bible 1) is silent on homosexuality as we understand it today and 2) when taken as a whole promotes love, tolerance, acceptance and not bigotry (it's worth a read, if you find his website click on lgbt resources), so if people who do not read the rules of the forum post stuff about how the Bible says it is a sin and whatnot I think people should know that there is not a consensus among Christians that homosexuality is a sin, it just seems that way sometimes because bigots are really loud, obnoxious and they ignore or perhaps do not comprehend (cuz they're dumb) all the good arguments such as those from Mel White.  That is all  

bsnowotter : Since I am no longer a mod, I cannot edit other people's posts But I wouldn't have edited yours out. Not because it agrees with my view, but because your post wasn't some all out religious lesson. You clearly used most of your post to address the topic of the thread, and just put a small tidbit at the end. I'm fine with religious views here just as long as the thread doesn't turn into another religious debate. I don't see that starting with your post.