Comments on: WashPost Highlights Religious Liberty Threat

By: Larissa

Larissa — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:59:43 +0000

"Larissa, here’s the problem with basing your political views on religious beliefs instead of a secular view:
If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law, therefore disenfranchising everyone of every other religious view or non-religious view. Our laws must be secular in nature in order to best protect us all."

Laws are created by humans. We are able to create laws based on convictions and our desire to change or better things. These convictions, for many many people come from some kind of religious faith. If religion were not "permitted" to inspire convictions strong enough to be put towards laws, then the only laws would be ones that come from secular ideas (i.e. I do what I want and there's no consequences. Anything other than that includes some kind of religious principle whether the writer of the law goes to a church or not!).

"If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law,"
Oh, wow I never knew I was so powerful! So if I vote a certain way my religion is forced on everyone? Not in my experience..
My views do not become law. I simply vote or act the way I do because of my beliefs, all or most of which are founded in religion.

The belief that religious beliefs shouldnt influence our votes is absurd. Just as absurd as if I told an african american to forget his/her culture and vote only based on the politics of a candidate. Just as absurd as if I told a homosexual that he/she could only vote for things that specifically support their quest for rights and nothing else. It is asking a group of people to cut off part of themselves.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:13:48 +0000

So let me get this straight....

If the object that causes the religious to suffer legally or from lack of religious freedom it should be okay to discriminate and practise your religion but when it comes to a mother 6taking her child away from medical practice then that's somehow bad. She was practising her religion and yet you will scream just as loud that her religious beliefs hold no value. BUT the same doesn't apply when religion discriminates against homosexuals. It doesn't matter when religion teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death.... that is your religion in the Bible but you don't even follow the bible except for the parts you want to follow.

If you wish to take the religion arguement anywhere then you need to first proove to everyone that your religious values work for everyone and not just one targeted group.

Someone somewhere was using taxation as an arguement and sorry but you pay your taxes and you enjoy the protections. I pay my taxes and get less protection. That is in-equality and that is why this is a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. But you guys will try anything to convince the unwary. Even to the point of lying and half-truths....

Religion that relies on deciept and fear to acheive its end, is not religion but pure human greed for control over other's lives often at the victims expense.

By: Stefanie, Texas

Stefanie, Texas — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:52:54 +0000

Larissa, here's the problem with basing your political views on religious beliefs instead of a secular view:

If you base your political view on your religion, then your specific religious views become law, therefore disenfranchising everyone of every other religious view or non-religious view. Our laws must be secular in nature in order to best protect us all.

By: John Butler

John Butler — Sat, 23 May 2009 13:01:00 +0000

I've got an idea... if churches want to take tax-payer money, then let's tax the churches! If they want to use their "faith" as a reason for non-compliance, then they should refuse all tax-payer money, because last time I checked, Gays and Lesbians pay taxes too. So, if your organization takes tax-money, you have to follow the EOE guidelines as well. Simple. If you want to be exclusionary, fine, raise your own funds. In the meantime, practice your faith, rather than just be "scared" about it being taken away.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:25:09 +0000

Yes, I agree with you On Lawn. Ignorance is pretty easy to do, as you've so eloquently demonstrated. Just a recap: marriage is not about procreation. Marriage as about the union of two adults, and the legal recognition that comes with that union. Procreation is irrelevant....

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:57:47 +0000

how about we wait until couples have had a child until they can get a marriage license? Would that make you happy?

Would waiting until someone gets into an automobile accident to get car insurance make you happy?

Would waiting until someone falls off the highwire balancing act before you install a safety net make you happy?

You want people to enter into the commitment, to be prepared and understand what is happening before the child enters the picture.

So far, none of your explanations, anecdotes or analogies has convinced me that the core meaning of marriage is procreation.

Oh I don't pretend that is an accomplishment. Ignorance is pretty easy to do.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:16:39 +0000

On Lawn, I have a great idea. Since you insist on this notion that marriage must have procreation in order to be valid or meet the "core" meaning, how about we wait until couples have had a child until they can get a marriage license? Would that make you happy? Then there is no pressure for the couple who doesn't want to have children. They will be left out of marriage altogether. We could grant those couples civil unions. Would that appease you?
So far, none of your explanations, anecdotes or analogies has convinced me that the core meaning of marriage is procreation. In fact, if you look back at our comments you will notice that both you and Chairm tried numerous times to get my definition of the core meaning of marriage. Chairm said that every person who supports SSM has failed to get the core meaning that HE was looking for. Now, this wouldn't have something to do with the fact that the core meaning of marriage is something else, would it?
I think I'm right. The core meaning of marriage is a commitment between TWO consenting adults, and the legal rights, benefits and commitment that the government grants those two individuals. Whether those two adults procreate or not is a matter between them and has nothing whatsoever to do with the government's legal agreement. The only important issue relating to procreation is that the children of these two adults is protected by their parent's marriage once they are born. When those parents decide to end their marriage, the children are often split up as if they were property or assets. And, children are often used as weapons when the divorce is process.
So, it seems to me you and Chairm would like everyone to believe that marriage is about procreation, when it actually isn't. It must be frustrating that so many people do not see your point of view? And, doubly frustrating that NOM hasn't seen procreation as a valid argument against SSM since they've never used it in their campaign.... Your message is not getting across...

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:57:43 +0000

So, it validates my point rather than your point. In other words, couples who marry don’t do so in order to procreate, but with the possibilty that they might procreate. Gotcha.

I'm glad you got that far, but its not clear how that validates your point. Its still got a way to go.

If I were to rewrite that to be more accurate I'd say...

couples who [engage in the human mating practice which has] the possibility that they might procreate[, marry to ensure responsibility from all parties involved in case children are created].

Its written similarly for car insurance...

people who engage in the practice of driving cars have the possibility that they might get into car accidents. Car insurance ensures responsibility from all parties involved in case of an accident.

By: On Lawn

On Lawn — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:24:30 +0000

Is a single mother invalid, because she is not married?

Excellent point. Think about that a bit more introspectively

She is not "invalid" just because a single person is not a marriage.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:38:59 +0000

On Lawn, I think I just "got" your insurance analogy. OK, so couple's get married in order to protect their children, should they at some point decide to procreate. Is that your point? So, it validates my point rather than your point. In other words, couples who marry don't do so in order to procreate, but with the possibilty that they might procreate. Gotcha.
Well, that was interesting...