Leaving the community

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious)
that
had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

These people all had religious beliefs.

Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

You presume a lot if you are trying to tell me what I think. Yes, these
people had religious beliefs in the sense that I was using the term.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

These people all had religious beliefs.

Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right
and
proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
Judaen/Christian tradition are religions. Perhaps he draws the line at the
Hindu
pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

I do not draw the line there.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed,
the
outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
society have, including their lives.

You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.

No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
basically religious.

Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There
may even be
some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion.
And if
thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It
also
encourages theft, and the government hates competition.

Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good
parasite
(symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host
healthy.

So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
are legalized?

Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
are legalized?

Other than the usual cost of marriage, no. There's nothing special about
gay marriages that make them any worse than any other marriage.

Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

All depends on the taxpayer, I'd guess.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
hold that belief.

Fortunately for me, and lots of other people, as humans we agree that being
happy is a good goal, and thus being peaceful and safe is also a good goal.
Very few people are happy when they are not safely at peace with other
humans.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, humanity can progress intellectually,
technologically, and economically fastest if we aren't wasting time trying
to kill each other.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
marriage?

A general belief in non-discrimination is sufficient to justify allowing
homosexual marriage.

Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay.

Suggest all you want, it ain't true. Homosexuals make up a very tiny
proportion of our population. Plenty of corporations already extend
"partner benefits" to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, and it has
not made any sort of noticeable dent in the bottom line.

There's no "major cost". Any potential "minor cost" hypothesized can easily
be offset by further hypothesizing by a "minor benefit". (Economic benefit
to eliminating a discriminated-against group, for example).

I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups.

Funny. I wonder if the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights
to blacks. Or to women. "Gosh, you never know WHO ELSE will want the same
thing!"

There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships

So, let them. What do I care?

, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous.

Spouse abuse and incest is already illegal, and occurs with frightening
regularity in marriages currently allowed by law. As you also point out,
abuse and incest already happens in "marriages" not legally sanctioned. How
do you know that making such marriages legal won't allow them to be more
public, and provide greater legal standing for spouses who are abused.

Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

Oh, please. Let them try. A person's sexual orientation isn't anywhere
close to the same difference that exists between a child and an adult. We
have plenty of laws that discriminate against children, and generally for
good reason. You're just being absurd now.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before.

You pretend to know the law better than those judges? Uh, sure. Nice
fantasy world you live in there.

Whether you agree with them or not, judges generally do their best to follow
the letter of the law. If ever there was a canard being thrown around, it's
the "activist judges are changing the law!" panic attack the religious right
is having. I haven't looked as closely at the other states, but in
Washington the two decisions made already (by two different judges!) made
very clear the letter of the law they were following. State constitutional
protection against discrimination is a very strong foundation on which to
base the decisions.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful.

I can?

If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

Widespread violence? Civil disorder? Disrespect and politicization of the
judicial system? You're on a trip, man. Other than a handful of
whacked-out fundamentalists who mind-bogglingly believe that it's okay to
kill full-grown adults, but not blastocysts, what violence and civil
disorder are you talking about? They are a mere blip on the radar compared
to other public safety issues, like gang violence, sexual predators, and
even terrorist attacks like OK City and 9/11.

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

Seriously, dude...give me some of what you're taking. I gotta see what the
fuss is all about.

Most people, even the evangelicals and fundamentalists, if homosexual
marriage were legalized, would get over it. The rest of us already do a
host of other crap they think dooms us to hell anyway, and it's not like by
preventing gays from marrying, they prevent them from having sex (well,
maybe it prevents the fundamentalist gays from having sex...I dunno). If we
can get past suffrage for blacks and inter-racial marriage, a few
homosexuals getting married isn't going to doom the country. Not even
close.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

--
Bob Noel