Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Secular governments need no religion

Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:02:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Relevant example:
>Gay marriage should be banned for everyone because some people believe that it's forbidden by the bible.
For a government to accept validity from this argument, they would also need to accept validity from this argument:
>All women ought to cover their heads in public, because that is required by the Quran.

As you can see, enforcing the beliefs of a single group upon an entire country comprised of thousands of groups makes no sense. The only logical position such a government can hold is true neutrality. This is why there is a separation between church and state. It is a terrible precedent to give authority to religious bodies when the biggest Western religious body itself (christianity) is fragmented into so many hundreds of incompatible beliefs and schools of thought that no single christian doctrine is representative of the views of every christian.

If you want gay marriage to be illegal, you're no different to a muslim wanting all women to cover up. Neither view should have any impact on a secular government.
For Mother Russia.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:10:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Not really relevant. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere, just gay civil marriage. If a cost benefit analysis is done and a society deems gay marriage to not be something worth viving tax breaks for die to a cost benefit analysis, than they should not allow gay civil marriage.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:13:02 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:10:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
Not really relevant. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere, just gay civil marriage. If a cost benefit analysis is done and a society deems gay marriage to not be something worth viving tax breaks for die to a cost benefit analysis, than they should not allow gay civil marriage.

Why do you make a distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil marriage?'
For Mother Russia.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:20:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:13:02 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:10:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
Not really relevant. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere, just gay civil marriage. If a cost benefit analysis is done and a society deems gay marriage to not be something worth viving tax breaks for die to a cost benefit analysis, than they should not allow gay civil marriage.

Why do you make a distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil marriage?'

Anybody can make a commitment to another for life, but civil marriage comes with tax benefits. The special tax benefits are awarded because the government thinks promoting marriage helps keep families together, keeping crime rates lower and it encourages breeding to stabalize the population. If gay marriage does not have those benefits, there is no reason to give all the tax incentives out.

I'd jobestly prefer and end to civil marriage while keeping some lf the protections. It seems fascist to register your love with the government
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:34:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:20:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:13:02 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:10:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
Not really relevant. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere, just gay civil marriage. If a cost benefit analysis is done and a society deems gay marriage to not be something worth viving tax breaks for die to a cost benefit analysis, than they should not allow gay civil marriage.

Why do you make a distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil marriage?'

Anybody can make a commitment to another for life, but civil marriage comes with tax benefits. The special tax benefits are awarded because the government thinks promoting marriage helps keep families together, keeping crime rates lower and it encourages breeding to stabalize the population. If gay marriage does not have those benefits, there is no reason to give all the tax incentives out.

I'd jobestly prefer and end to civil marriage while keeping some lf the protections. It seems fascist to register your love with the government

homosexuals are perfectly capable of raising children and not being criminals etc. Furthermore, tax breaks and government incentives are built around marriage, not vice versa.
For Mother Russia.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 1:42:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:02:56 AM, Syko wrote:
Relevant example:
>Gay marriage should be banned for everyone because some people believe that it's forbidden by the bible.
For a government to accept validity from this argument, they would also need to accept validity from this argument:
>All women ought to cover their heads in public, because that is required by the Quran.

As you can see, enforcing the beliefs of a single group upon an entire country comprised of thousands of groups makes no sense. The only logical position such a government can hold is true neutrality. This is why there is a separation between church and state. It is a terrible precedent to give authority to religious bodies when the biggest Western religious body itself (christianity) is fragmented into so many hundreds of incompatible beliefs and schools of thought that no single christian doctrine is representative of the views of every christian.

If you want gay marriage to be illegal, you're no different to a muslim wanting all women to cover up. Neither view should have any impact on a secular government.

I kinda flunked my sex ed class, but I think there may be biological implications for homosexuality, if I remember correctly. So why does this need to be a religious issue?

Anyway, to use the logic of the left - we're upsetting ISIS and making more terrorists by promoting homosexuality, so therefore we should stop talking about it.
This space for rent.
Peepette
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 2:10:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Marriage as a love and familial legal unit where both partners are equal in the eyes of the law is fairly recent history. It wasn't until the 1970's where women were fully recognized. Legal benefits with marriage are the taxes, inheritance rights, ability to sign legal documents without spousal consent, insurance benefits through an employer either from husband or wife's plan, as well as the legal right to make medical decisions on behalf of a spouse. It wasn't until 1923 that women could even file for divorce; only men were allowed under law. Until this time men had sole right to make custodial decisions regarding offspring. Depending on the state, prior to the SC ruling, civil unions between homosexuals did not come with all the rights of married couples. There were still instances where medical decisions regarding care of a civil couple were not honored, inheritance of property, nor was there an ability to gain insurance through an employer via the spouse. The whole concept of the stability of the family unit is rather a new idea. Only within the last 200 years has marriage gone beyond a financial or status related contract.

Often is heard the Bible as a source against homosexuality. As true as this is, the same book also tells stories of men with multiple wives and concubines. Besides, there is precedence of various cultures that have recognized same sex marriage, some Native American tribes for example. It was not viewed as a love/sex relationship but an agreed upon pact for the division of labor. In short, the concept of marriage as it is viewed today is a recent mindset and the institution of marriage and family has morphed as societal forces changed. It will continue to do so into the future.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 2:10:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:02:56 AM, Syko wrote:
Relevant example:
>Gay marriage should be banned for everyone because some people believe that it's forbidden by the bible.
For a government to accept validity from this argument, they would also need to accept validity from this argument:
>All women ought to cover their heads in public, because that is required by the Quran.

As you can see, enforcing the beliefs of a single group upon an entire country comprised of thousands of groups makes no sense. The only logical position such a government can hold is true neutrality. This is why there is a separation between church and state. It is a terrible precedent to give authority to religious bodies when the biggest Western religious body itself (christianity) is fragmented into so many hundreds of incompatible beliefs and schools of thought that no single christian doctrine is representative of the views of every christian.

If you want gay marriage to be illegal, you're no different to a muslim wanting all women to cover up. Neither view should have any impact on a secular government.

Lets see:

They cannot manage their own countries finances properly.

They are frequently peopled by ones who are corrupt and dishonest.

They tend to too keen to send their "pawns" to war rather than going themselves.

They compete with other nations and tend to treat the people of every other nation as inferior to it's own.

No, they don't need religion, they would only abse that the same way they abuse their power.

Those are just some of the reasons Jehovah will replace them with his own world government under his son soon.
Willows
Posts: 2,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 2:14:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I think that the shocking event in Orlando yesterday should sober up all of us.
As members of a free democratic society we should never play into the hands of maniacal terrorists by being scared of telling them just what demented, misfit morons they really are.
I think also that theists and atheists alike are united in our disgust at these decrepit cowards who claim to commit atrocities in the name of God.

I am an atheist but it is times like this I wish there was a Hell for this bad excuse for a human being can rot forever in.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 2:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 2:14:22 PM, Willows wrote:
I think that the shocking event in Orlando yesterday should sober up all of us.
As members of a free democratic society we should never play into the hands of maniacal terrorists by being scared of telling them just what demented, misfit morons they really are.
I think also that theists and atheists alike are united in our disgust at these decrepit cowards who claim to commit atrocities in the name of God.

I am an atheist but it is times like this I wish there was a Hell for this bad excuse for a human being can rot forever in.

I could not agree more.

The only one with the right to remove the life of those who break his laws is Jehovah himself, and he will unless they change.

But the choice has to be theirs and they have to be given time to learn.

The trouble with Muslims is they seem to feel that Allah is incapable of ding his own dirty work, and they are right since Jehovah has limited Satan's power to stop him taking life directly.

Which is why Satan is working hard to make us destroy ourselves.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 5:08:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 1:42:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I kinda flunked my sex ed class, but I think there may be biological implications for homosexuality, if I remember correctly. So why does this need to be a religious issue?

Anyway, to use the logic of the left - we're upsetting ISIS and making more terrorists by promoting homosexuality, so therefore we should stop talking about it.

We should not change the way we run our society because we're being threatened. The correct response is to flatten whatever it is that causes the terror.
For Mother Russia.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 6:17:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 5:08:55 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 1:42:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:


Anyway, to use the logic of the left - we're upsetting ISIS and making more terrorists by promoting homosexuality, so therefore we should stop talking about it.

We should not change the way we run our society because we're being threatened. The correct response is to flatten whatever it is that causes the terror.

Yes, it's an ironic way of saying: ISIS committed a strategic blunder, because now the left wants to flatten them too. I read this morning, some gay leftie who's going to vote for Trump now, because staying alive is more important than any other right.

There's a saying: A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged.
This space for rent.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 6:19:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:34:52 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:20:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:13:02 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 11:10:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
Not really relevant. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere, just gay civil marriage. If a cost benefit analysis is done and a society deems gay marriage to not be something worth viving tax breaks for die to a cost benefit analysis, than they should not allow gay civil marriage.

Why do you make a distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil marriage?'

Anybody can make a commitment to another for life, but civil marriage comes with tax benefits. The special tax benefits are awarded because the government thinks promoting marriage helps keep families together, keeping crime rates lower and it encourages breeding to stabalize the population. If gay marriage does not have those benefits, there is no reason to give all the tax incentives out.

I'd jobestly prefer and end to civil marriage while keeping some lf the protections. It seems fascist to register your love with the government

homosexuals are perfectly capable of raising children and not being criminals etc.

The question is does marriage make a differenve in their likelihood of doing that or of rAising good children. Even if thet are superior to straights in that regard, if doing it doesn't reduce the likelihood of those things, there is no reason to incentivize those things

Furthermore, tax breaks and government incentives are built around marriage, not vice versa.

Tax breaks are given to incentivize those things. Marriage occurs whether you can register it with the government or not. The reason civil marriage was created into law in the United States was to register it for the tax advantages.

Nobody thinks "het babe I love you so much that I want to spend the rest of my lifd with you, but you know what would make it better? Getting the government in on this shitt"