Saturday, March 7, 2009
Intermission.
As a break from this heated debate...check this band Liam and Me. I just found them and love their music but aint so sure about their lyrics. I put one song on the blog but please check out their myspace site for their better songs. Tell me what you think!
Here's Ashley's take:
Okay, here's what I think the problem is here.We are operating from different bases. You are arguing from a view that is filtered through purely religious views. Not everyone believes in a God and therefore, not everyone is going to be motivated by the whole "God will smite us if we allow homosexual marriage" thing.
Okay here's a source for you to check out: http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2008/03/27/SoapBox/Gay-Marriage.Is.Required.By.The.Bible.And.The.Constitution-3286055.shtml
Here are some of the main important points:"The primary argument against gay marriage is that it's seen as an abomination under Christian doctrine. Indeed, there are several passages in the Bible that make this point, the most prominent being Leviticus 18:22 which states:"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."It's kind of hard to avoid the clarity of such a statement. Reinforcing this view are passages from Genesis, Romans and Deuteronomy, but can these passages establish a legal precedent in the United States? The answer is no. Homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage"The author goes on to explain Jefferson, the 1st amendment and the separation of church and state."in justifying the legality of gay marriage, one must first define marriage as a state function and not a religious one. It can be argued that marriage is a state function because it has the power to modify other state functions such as Social Security and tax filing status. Because marriage affects state functions, constitutionally, it too must be a state function for it to legally do so. If not, the government is violating Article Six and is actively discriminating against unmarried citizens. If marriage is a state function, then it's protected under various civil rights laws."The church doesn't have to recognize the legality of it, much less endorse it, but it will exist nevertheless.According to Matthew 22:21 [Jesus] said:"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."Jesus himself advocated keeping religion out of the law."Romans 13:1, says:'Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. If the law of the land is that everyone must pay war taxes then that is what we must do. It is the law!'The legality of gay marriage is incontrovertible when these passages and precedents are taken into account. Romans 13:1 goes on to say that those who believe a law is wrong should work within the system to change it. Simply denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of religion is illegal. According to Christ, it is also against Christian pathology."So there you go...this is a much more eloquent and better reinforced rendition of what I meant.
Okay, here's what I think the problem is here.We are operating from different bases. You are arguing from a view that is filtered through purely religious views. Not everyone believes in a God and therefore, not everyone is going to be motivated by the whole "God will smite us if we allow homosexual marriage" thing.
Okay here's a source for you to check out: http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2008/03/27/SoapBox/Gay-Marriage.Is.Required.By.The.Bible.And.The.Constitution-3286055.shtml
Here are some of the main important points:"The primary argument against gay marriage is that it's seen as an abomination under Christian doctrine. Indeed, there are several passages in the Bible that make this point, the most prominent being Leviticus 18:22 which states:"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."It's kind of hard to avoid the clarity of such a statement. Reinforcing this view are passages from Genesis, Romans and Deuteronomy, but can these passages establish a legal precedent in the United States? The answer is no. Homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage"The author goes on to explain Jefferson, the 1st amendment and the separation of church and state."in justifying the legality of gay marriage, one must first define marriage as a state function and not a religious one. It can be argued that marriage is a state function because it has the power to modify other state functions such as Social Security and tax filing status. Because marriage affects state functions, constitutionally, it too must be a state function for it to legally do so. If not, the government is violating Article Six and is actively discriminating against unmarried citizens. If marriage is a state function, then it's protected under various civil rights laws."The church doesn't have to recognize the legality of it, much less endorse it, but it will exist nevertheless.According to Matthew 22:21 [Jesus] said:"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."Jesus himself advocated keeping religion out of the law."Romans 13:1, says:'Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. If the law of the land is that everyone must pay war taxes then that is what we must do. It is the law!'The legality of gay marriage is incontrovertible when these passages and precedents are taken into account. Romans 13:1 goes on to say that those who believe a law is wrong should work within the system to change it. Simply denying homosexuals the right to marry on the basis of religion is illegal. According to Christ, it is also against Christian pathology."So there you go...this is a much more eloquent and better reinforced rendition of what I meant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
