It's an allegory for Baptism and that salvation comes through the Church, among others. I don't have a theology degree.

So to defend against disparaging the bible, they try to force the teaching of non-science in science classes? Not sure that line of reasoning makes much sense. Creationism/Evolution only really comes up when crazy people make it an issue by trying to force it's teaching in places that are inappropriate.

And I do think it's a legitimate issue to ask about. To some of us the general acceptance of the scientific method and a general knowledge of modern science is an important indication of an understanding of what science is and why it's important.

Further it indicates to some of us (well me at least) a more nuanced understanding of religion, being able to essentially look at it, as you pointed out Invictus, from the perspective that religion is there to deal with spiritual issues, not with literal history. I'll never understand why it's so important to some people to think that every single word in the bible is LITERALLY true. That to me indicates a very shallow understanding of Christianity or whatever religion you might be talking about. If the idea that something in there might be a metaphor, or a parable, or even that maybe some bits written by people are factually incorrect, threatens your faith that much, then perhaps your faith isn't all that strong or deep to start with.

Dr Oct - I agree with you, for the most part. Government should provide equal benefits to any two people who wish to enter a binding-relationship contract. This should also include boyfriend-girlfriend couples who don't really believe in Marriage, but want to make sure they are protected in all of the same legal cases as Married couples (visitation rights, death benefits, shared insurance plans, etc.)

But language is important, and Marriage means something specific. And by the way, an interesting stat - counter to your impression that it's all the old people who think that traditional values and definitions are important - Obama got roughly 90% of the black vote and 75% of the Hispanic vote in America. Of those two groups, in states with ballot props this year, blacks voted 70% in favor of the traditional definition and Hispanics voted 60%. The same two groups that helped push Obama - super-Lib - over the edge, helped push the gay-Marriage ban over the edge. I don't have any age-related data, but there is certainly a cultural difference that I don't see going away as older people "die off" - unless you think that it's because of the older hispanics and blacks that those numbers are so high. I can't really argue with that, but I don't think it's plausible

But your point about the majority-speaking doesn't make it right is valid. I agree with that in issues that violate someones constitutional rights, I just don't think Marriage applies there.

I'm a conservative :)

Yeah, Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. But schools also shouldn't be breeding grounds for atheist teachings.

I hope you didn't think that I thought a majority makes right. I just don't think marriage is such a fundamental civil right that the gays say it is and that courts shouldn't openly flaunt the democratic process.

@Dr.Oct = Yes, you are right. I misread your mail. I shall no longer skim when trying to catch up on a debate.

@xgongiveit2ya55:

a what?

"breeding grounds for atheist teachings"

Hawking once said if you wanted to believe in God go into physics... if not, then philosophy.

The schools, more and more, are becoming based in something called "evidence-based practice."

You can't prove God. That's the point. Let's stick to things we can show.

it's such a fundamental right, invictus, that denying it to gay persons in front of the law is an slap at the Constitution. Why are gay persons being used to make a higher religious point to the nation? I understand the religious right feels its culture is dieing, but it ridiculous to take it out on a culture.

@ invictus = the democratic process was garbaged when these statewide atrocities were passed. You can't limit rights through the amendment process. It's unconstitutional to do so.

It's just gonna take some years before society catches up with sanity again. The 23 amendment was repealed, and these will be as well.

Cameron for p.m!

There is no federal marriage regulation per se. Gay marriage is being challenged in state courts. Beyond the Defense of Marriage Act (which is unconstitutional since states have total control over marriage) the federal government has no power over marriage.

It isn't fundamental. And you're misunderstanding people's objections to it.

"The 23 amendment was repealed, and these will be as well."

Last I checked, DC still had electors in Presidential elections.

Are you American? These are state issues and a whole different animal from the federal Constitution.

@ invictus - alas, wrong amendment!

I can debate you into the ground on gay marriage. The issues that people have with it are constitutionally and morally bogus. It's a clear case of a culture exercising its power over another with very little background but their own selfishness. Jesus wouldn't sanction it, why are we?

What are your objections to it outside of personal feeling?

hahaha - nice Invictus!!

Hey Malignant: this link might be useful for future arguments:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

You don't feel your right to marriage is integrated with your right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness? If you don't have the right under law to marry, don't you have the moral right under God to marry? Aren't a class of persons being denied the right to be human?

Oh I'm well aware of the numbers of blacks and Hispanics that, at least according to exit polls, voted for Prop 8. And certainly the No On Prop 8 crowd could have done better with their outreach to those communities, but it's not clear what the breakdown was within those groups by age (actually there is information on Hispanic voters, which showed that younger Hispanic voters voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin), but it seems likely that as time goes by those groups will also soften on the issue as younger voters take over a larger and larger portion of the electorate. Ideally, this will also have been a wake-up call to the Gay Rights organizations that they need to do a better job of reaching out to minority communities (and not taking any groups votes for granted), and reevaluating some of their own problems with race, which is long overdue within many of these organizations, but that's another discussion entirely.

For a bit more throrough evaluation of the numbers see here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Wow, if the gallery thinks that was worth a point, no wonder we're in trouble.

@ philcore, not DrOct

I don't think young people growing up will change things much. Almost everyone gets more conservative as they age.

Look, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans and it has little legal merit. There is no federal right to marriage until the Supreme Court rules that there is. That's how it works in a Common Law country like ours.

If you want to get into an argument from a Christian morality perspective, remember that sodomy is a sin, so if gays could marry they couldn't have sex.

we may be in trouble, but that was funny!

And by the way, did you just call me "the gallery"? dem's fightin words ... I think.

by the way - which amendment WERE you thinking of? There was only one that I know of that was repealed, and it had nothing to do with human rights

You still haven't resolved the charge that it is unconstitutional to deny freedom to any individual or group of individuals unless they limit the "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" an another. In the case of gay marriage, there is no rational constitutional ground to stand on, either at the state or federal level. In fact, the rights of your majority might be forfeit if they continue to impinge another's human rights. Things have a weird way of turning, and it's not good to make enemies. With so many pro-gay shows on television and favorite Hollywood actors stating publically their sexual orientation, there probably will be a swing the other way. It is worse with power-plays, which is what this is all about.

Christian morality is at the heart of it, as it seems many Christians have forgotten what it means to live in the eye of God. It seems that they feel they have to protect themselves against an uncontrollable world by forcing their opinions and culture on another group. While this is not new to history, it is un-Godlike and fundamentally unChristian. It shows fear rather than love, and emotional pain backlashed into rage rather than compromise.

You are right. Legal and ethical issues are split. Also Christian ethical issues from non-religious ethical issues. Prop 8 and those who support it and laws like it tries to combine them, which is legally unethical. Not to mentioned unethical as stated by Christian morality.

It's simply selfish and fear driven. I haven't heard a sane argument against.

The Eighteenth Amendment which established Prohibition was an inexcusable intrusion into people's private lives. Human rights is a meaningless term due to its over use, but it was a ridiculous expansion of government regulation of people's lives. Much more important.

Apparently, philcore, I have some research to do regarding Prohibition and how it works legally. It's good to know.

Same issue, invictus. Same issue. It's a inexcusable incursion into private life.

Whether or not marriage is a "fundamental right" I simply fail to see how the government can offer such a legal arrangement to some people, and not to others simply based on the sex of the participants. I suppose one could argue that they could just decide not to offer it to anyone, but I don't think people would like that much.
But as long as they're going to offer such arrangements it seems to me that the 14th amendment which says that no state can "...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." mandates that it be offered to everyone regardless of who they want to be in that arrangement with (again with the proviso that all parties be able to give consent, be of the legal age of majority, and having legal standing).

I still haven't heard anyone give a good, non-religious, reason why everyone shouldn't have the same right to enter into the legal arrangement that, for now at least, the government calls marriage. The closest anyone has come is the procreation argument, but I don't think that really holds up very well.

@Philcore, I think we (mostly) agree on the fundamental issue, but since I'm an argumentative bastard I have to point out that I just don't personally think that the word marriage keeping this particular meaning is all that important. To me, at it's core, it's simply an arrangement between individuals whereby they agree to publicly state that they are in a relationship and would like to make that relationship binding to some degree, I just don't think the sex, race or anything else of the two people involved is really all that important or fundamental to what it is (at least by our modern conception of marriage).

But, I understand that the word is important (for some reason) to other people, which is why I think the government should just stop using it, and let churches, communities or whatever use that word however they like, as long as it has no legal ramifications.

Leaving out the legal arrangement a Church decided they wanted to marry same-sex couples who are we to say that that couple is not married within their Church's tradition? By the same token, if a Church doesn't want to marry people of the same sex, or people who've been divorced, or people who have cohabited before marriage, or people who don't want to go through the churches sanctioned pre-marital class or whatever, that's fine too (and these are all true of different Churches). But none of that should have any bearing on the civil legal matters.

There is no Constituional ground to establish it beyond the sinister "Living Constitution" theory, which really means that courts can enforce the Constitution however they want.

"Things have a weird way of turning, and it's not good to make enemies. With so many pro-gay shows on television and favorite Hollywood actors stating publically their sexual orientation, there probably will be a swing the other way. It is worse with power-plays, which is what this is all about."

That's what people hate! The threats and accusations that there is no legitimate way to be opposed to gay marriage. It stifles free speech when things like that are said.

On Christians you're just wrong. You're looking from the outside and insults like that are what makes Christians, like any group, harden their positions. It's infuriating to hear non-practicing Christians or atheists lecturing the faithful on what God really meant.

You don't want to hear an argument against. All these arguments have been sane. The gay activists put themselves in a corner and say we must come to them. That is unreasonable.

You write too fast, DrOct.

Civic unions are a good compromise.