Gay Marriage in Mass.

[Izumi Koushirou]

I will first state that my opinion will have some bias in it, as I am of the homosexual orientation.

In my opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling is that has all the legal backing in it. Nowhere in the constitution of Massachusetts or in the constitution of the United States does it specfically say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Secondly, since when is marriage a religious institution? From what I gather, marriage has existed for far longer than western religions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.m ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw ... 20304.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/findl ... ss.ruling/

[RavEMasteR]

I believe it should be allowed, for the simple reason of basic human rights. Homos are humans too.

[otseng]

I believe the question really would be, "Is homosexuality a sin?" If it is not, then homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If it is, then homosexual marriages should not be recognized.

[Corvus]

I believe the question really would be, "Is homosexuality a sin?" If it is not, then homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If it is, then homosexual marriages should not be recognized.

But the government doesn't legislate on sin, it protects the rights it recognises its citizens possess. Sin is a religious concept that does not belong in the vocabulary of the government.

The only laws I can think of off the top of my head that are based off sin are prostitution and sodomy laws, both of which really shouldn't be there because they don't harm either the individual or the community and occur at the expense of the individual. This is why these laws are usually repealed. They are victimless crimes.

[otseng]

But the government doesn't legislate on sin, it protects the rights it recognises its citizens possess. Sin is a religious concept that does not belong in the vocabulary of the government.

Why shouldn't the government legislate on sin? Ideally, I agree the government shouldn't. But, if people can't internally regulate themselves, then the government will regulate them.

What about murder? Isn't that a sin? And what about adultery and stealing? The government does play a role in legislating laws against sins.

[clue]

You can't have laws without some kind of moral foundation to work upon. If you don't believe this, then state a law that doesn't have a right v. wrong reason behind it. And when you bring right v. wrong into the equation, then what you have done is ... factored religion into it.

It might not be the religion that you agree with, but it is a religion nonetheless.

Take the recent Massachusetts ruling, for example. This is based on the humanistic religion that rejects anything supernatural and places the authority on the individual as the supreme being in determining his own destiny.

So, arguing that you can't legislate morality, religion, etc. is a losing battle, in my opinion.

[Corvus]

Murder.

It is a sin, but that's not the reason you aren't allowed to murder someone. In another post, I mentioned that everyone is born free, and being a part of a society means that some of those freedoms are taken away. Societies were created for mutual protection. It makes sense then that when one member of society murders another member of society, that the community should take retribution. That's not forcing someone into penance for a sin, otseng, that's punishing them for taking a way a part of the community. It's common sense.

If we lived in communes, we wouldn't need a law against stealing, obviously, because property would be held in common.

And what about adultery and stealing?

The US has laws against adultery? That's actually quite shocking. I really don't know why that's there. Sure enough, adulterers can hurt the cohesion of a community, but punishing them for it? That's shocking. I hope you don't stone them.

Stealing, however, isn't punished because it's a sin, it's punished because a person is appropriating something that doesn't belongs to them. The government recognises that its citizens have the right to private property and the right to keep it. If the government didn't act to protect its citizens, the citizens would act to protect themselves, or become vigilantes. It's one of the roles of government to protect. What it should protect the citizen from is a matter of contention. For example, the government can protect from a range like, "protection from harm(murder), protection of private property(thieving), protection from financial harm(unemployment benefits), protection from self (drug laws)... but should it cover protection from sin? Should the government stop you from being promiscuous? No. It can educate you as to the dangers, but it certainly can't stop you. Nor can they stop you from venting the seven deadly sins. They also can't stop you from disrespecting your mother and father, hating your neighbour, and doing any of that other stuff. It's simply not the role of government.

You can't have laws without some kind of moral foundation to work upon. If you don't believe this, then state a law that doesn't have a right v. wrong reason behind it. And when you bring right v. wrong into the equation, then what you have done is ... factored religion into it.

The law is based on ethics, not on morality or sin, which tend to be associated more with honour and religion, or endangering your soul and offending against god. The concept of right and wrong doesn't immediately point to sin. As I stated earlier, the government punishes people for the security of the community. Is it a sin to walk a dog off the leash in a park? No. But it's wrong. Why? Because it jeopardises the people or animals who are also utilising the park. That's the basics of law.

Moreover, although God was always pretty specific when he wanted something built for him, (Usually arks. He liked the word ark. The ark of covenant and Noah's ark.) that doesn't mean it's immoral to build something on your own land without council approval. But it is legally wrong. It's also wrong to live on public benches and loiter. Even littering is a fineable offense in some places. Another example of humanistic morality? No, these common sense laws are about protecting the interests of the community, and there are plenty of other examples in law.

So no, obviously not every law where there's a right and wrong has to do with morality or religion.

Take the recent Massachusetts ruling, for example. This is based on the humanistic religion that rejects anything supernatural and places the authority on the individual as the supreme being in determining his own destiny.

A religion? No, it's based on reason, which means it's more of a philosophical system. Basically, there's no constitutionally valid reason not to grant homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals. The government is doing its job of interpreting the law and making certain its citizens have equality - to the benefit of the community.

So, arguing that you can't legislate morality, religion, etc. is a losing battle, in my opinion.

Oh, you can. You can legislate anything. But it's not the role of government. And I would hesitate to call it a losing battle before you actually hear the other side of the argument.

[otseng]

The US has laws against adultery? That's actually quite shocking. I really don't know why that's there. Sure enough, adulterers can hurt the cohesion of a community, but punishing them for it? That's shocking. I hope you don't stone them.

You're right, there are no laws against adultery. I was too quick with the fingers.

Should the government stop you from being promiscuous? No. It can educate you as to the dangers, but it certainly can't stop you.

I agree that passing all the laws in the world won't stop people from doing wrong and hurting each other.

The law is based on ethics, not on morality or sin, which tend to be associated more with honour and religion, or endangering your soul and offending against god.

Though I find the topic of ethics, morality and religion very interesting (feel free to start a thread on it!), let me steer it back to homosexual marriages.

OK, how about let me rephrase my original statement and say that homosexual marriages should not be allowed cause it is bad for society, rather than simply classifying it as sin.

[clue]

The law is based on ethics, not on morality or sin, which tend to be associated more with honour and religion, or endangering your soul and offending against god. The concept of right and wrong doesn't immediately point to sin. As I stated earlier, the government punishes people for the security of the community. Is it a sin to walk a dog off the leash in a park? No. But it's wrong. Why? Because it jeopardises the people or animals who are also utilising the park. That's the basics of law.

Moreover, although God was always pretty specific when he wanted something built for him, (Usually arks. He liked the word ark. The ark of covenant and Noah's ark.) that doesn't mean it's immoral to build something on your own land without council approval. But it is legally wrong. It's also wrong to live on public benches and loiter. Even littering is a fineable offense in some places. Another example of humanistic morality? No, these common sense laws are about protecting the interests of the community, and there are plenty of other examples in law.

So no, obviously not every law where there's a right and wrong has to do with morality or religion.

A religion? No, it's based on reason, which means it's more of a philosophical system. Basically, there's no constitutionally valid reason not to grant homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals. The government is doing its job of interpreting the law and making certain its citizens have equality - to the benefit of the community.

Okay, we'll use your semantics.

ethics (as defined by Merriam-Webster) - the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

Right and wrong is still based on something, whether it be a philosophical framework or a religious framework.

My whole point is - why is your philosophical framework MORE VALID than my religious framework?? Because we live in a world where everything is relative now and anything goes, so long as the mainstream says it is? Why is that more valid than my saying that we don't live in world of relativisim? There are moral absolutes and one day, we will have to account for our actions.

That's why, in my earlier posts, I attempted to try and bring everyone back to the origin of these endless debates where nothing is resolved until you answer this one question first - Is there a God??

If there is, then we ought to see what He has to say about things. If there's not, then I wholeheartedly agree with you - everything is relative and your beliefs could be based on a cow jumping over the moon, for all it matters.

So, arguing that you can't legislate morality, religion, etc. is a losing battle, in my opinion.

Oh, you can. You can legislate anything. But it's not the role of government. And I would hesitate to call it a losing battle before you actually hear the other side of the argument.

Sure it is. The government legislates right and wrong/morality (they're intertwined, as the definition above suggests) all the time. Whether it's based on a philosophical foundation or a religious one.

But yes, I won't be so quick to dismiss the opposition next time.

[Corvus]

ethics (as defined by Merriam-Webster) - the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

I think where I see the difference is that morals usually has a connotation of good and evil (or sinful), rather than right and wrong. It would sound silly for me to say it's immoral to build a house without a building permit. But unethical? Yes, that sounds a little better. Really, you can't deny that each of those words has a separate context that we associate them with, which is why I use them differently.

Right and wrong is still based on something, whether it be a philosophical framework or a religious framework.

But being a country that stresses religious tolerance, and not endorsing any religion above any other, laws based on religious morality really shouldn't exist, unless the laws are present in order to protect your right to practice religous morality privately (or in public, but you know what I mean).

My whole point is - why is your philosophical framework MORE VALID than my religious framework??

It's the way that most secular countries are set up, for obvious reasons. The government has to have a purpose, and if you think that every law with a right and wrong process is an attempt to force secular morality on you, I have to wonder exactly what you think the role of government should be. If the role of government is not, as I say it is, to protect its civilians without alienating them (as laws based on sin may), what do you think it should be?

Strip the government's ability to protect its citizens by legislating right/wrong laws and you've achieved anarchy. It wouldn't be a government anymore!

In the case of America, the purpose of government is explained as follows:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/a ... 70303.html
Jefferson borrowed from philosopher John Locke's "natural law" theory, which held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty.

That's something that all faiths and philosophies can respect, isn't it? It's hardly something a person can interpret subjectively. The only things a person can interpret subjectively is the method of going about it.

That's why, in my earlier posts, I attempted to try and bring everyone back to the origin of these endless debates where nothing is resolved until you answer this one question first - Is there a God??

Which God? Allah, the gods of the Hindu pantheon, the gods of the Roman pantheon? The fertility goddesses so prevalent in primitive cultures? What?

OK, how about let me rephrase my original statement and say that homosexual marriages should not be allowed cause it is bad for society, rather than simply classifying it as sin.

Very good. But you'll have to prove that homosexual marriage could be any worse for society than heterosexual marriage.