Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Blake]

The religious aspect.

If it's from a religious aspect, then why are divorce rates the same, if not worse for the religious segment of the population getting married than the atheist or agnostic segment of the population?

if God blesses a marriage that was done the right way, then why is it failing around 1/3 of the time?

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/ar...stics-released

[ChumpDumper]

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

After it was redefined.

[Blake]

b. The state allowing non-married couples, gay couples or straight, to raise children could be a bi-product of the lowering of our morals and value;

from your religious viewpoint?

because from a secular view I doubt you have anything substantial to back up your claim that it is lowering our morals and values to allow gays to raise kids.

[mogrovejo]

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.

[Blake]

And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought.

that's untrue.

...but it's interesting you felt the need to say "before and after Christ"

[FromWayDowntown]

However, the fact that this isn't a religious issue doesn't make arguments based on religion less valid. Laws are always informed by ethics and morals. And ethics and morals have always been, before and after Christ, motorized by religious thought. The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.

I don't think that anyone checks his or her religious beliefs behind when engaging in debate, and I agree that religious values will frequently help to define policy initiatives. But I'd also suggest that when it appears that the sole supportable objection to a particular policy initiative is that it defies a perceived moral majority that stands, for all intents and purposes only upon an entrenched religious belief, the policy itself becomes questionable in a religiously and morally diverse society.

[spursncowboys]

If it's from a religious aspect, then why are divorce rates the same, if not worse for the religious segment of the population getting married than the atheist or agnostic segment of the population?

if God blesses a marriage that was done the right way, then why is it failing around 1/3 of the time?

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/ar...stics-released

It is not that god automatically blesses a amarriage. any amount of sin will tear families apart. There are millions of reasons why anyone will live out of god's way. My point is is even after you divorce five times, that person could get married again and ask for forgiveness and live out of sin and be saved. A person marrying someone of the same sex cannot repent their sins and move closer to god, since they are living in sin. I am not saying being gay is a worse sin than any other.
As a culture there is only evidence that our society has advanced with a judeo-christian value backbone, since there has never been a successful society that allowed and promoted sexual relationships.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Fam...f_Religion.pdf

[Winehole23]

The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments is totalitarian in itself and would basically lead to the exclusion of a majority of the people and existent doctrine from the public sphere.

Again, that's not yet been stipulated, that I'm aware of. You just suggested it, Sir.

Was your intention to deflate the argument proleptically, or were you responding to someone who actually made it in this thread? Just curious.

[mogrovejo]

that's untrue.

...but it's interesting you felt the need to say "before and after Christ"

Is it? Maybe you should read the thread, hum?

[mogrovejo]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...7&postcount=76

[Winehole23]

Another pellet of self-quotation. Classic.

[Winehole23]

The idea that the public (political) discussion should be verboten territory to religious arguments

Was never asserted by B2B in the posted. You did not assert it, I think.

Who did?

[mogrovejo]

Rawls among many others - marxists, for example. And it was certainly implied by B2B and others in their responses.

[Winehole23]

Rawls among many others - marxists, for example.

My point exactly. You were spinning your wheels, not responding to actual posters.

And it was certainly implied by B2B and others in their responses.

Bull . Where?

[mogrovejo]

My point exactly. You were spinning your wheels, not responding to actual posters.

LOL You have some kind of obsession with me responding to other posters, don't you?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...4&postcount=18

Bull . Where?

I've already said: in the replies.

-----

Do you do anything here besides trolling around arguing technicalities and formalities?

[Winehole23]

I've already said: in the replies.

I think not.

Care to point out the pertinent language?

[mogrovejo]

I think not.

Good, we have different interpretations.

[Winehole23]

Do you do anything here besides trolling around arguing technicalities and formalities?

If mentioning something twice makes me a troll, or obsessed, you've already gone completely over the edge with Edmund Burke.

[Winehole23]

Good, we have different interpretations.

You can't back it up, can you?

[mogrovejo]

If mentioning something twice makes me a troll, or obsessed, you've already gone completely over the edge with Edmund Burke.

The problem isn't the repe ion de per si, rather in what the repe ion falls upon.

[Winehole23]

The problem isn't the repe ion de per si, rather in what the repe ion falls upon.

How paterfamilias of you to say so.

[spursncowboys]

from your religious viewpoint?

because from a secular view I doubt you have anything substantial to back up your claim that it is lowering our morals and values to allow gays to raise kids.

actually u are the one without anything substantial except a distorted view of rights and your feel good stand. However when have I said something as to object about gays raising kids? I would like to see this. Maybe my writing is misinterpreted.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think that anyone checks his or her religious beliefs behind when engaging in debate, and I agree that religious values will frequently help to define policy initiatives. But I'd also suggest that when it appears that the sole supportable objection to a particular policy initiative is that it defies a perceived moral majority that stands, for all intents and purposes only upon an entrenched religious belief, the policy itself becomes questionable in a religiously and morally diverse society.

I don't think anyone has done that here, so that is straw.

[Blake]

Is it? Maybe you should read the thread, hum?

It is.

What does me reading the thread have to do with you proving that ethics and morals, before and after Christ, have always been motorized by religious thought? Maybe you should post a source, hum?

btw, you misused the word "motorized". I'm guessing you meant "motored".

[mogrovejo]

It is.

What does me reading the thread have to do with you proving that ethics and morals, before and after Christ, have always been motorized by religious thought? Maybe you should post a source, hum?

btw, you misused the word "motorized". I'm guessing you meant "motored".

You accused me of "feeling the need to say "before and after Christ"". If you could read the thread you could see I was quoting, ipsis verbis, the poster I was replying to.