Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

[TLK Valentine]

The louisianna thread had a secular argument against SSM

Indeed -- and it should be noted that Louisiana has a unique legal history from the rest of the U.S...

Law of Louisiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistically speaking, it was inevitable to find at least one Federal judge who would uphold a ban on SSM -- we'll have to see if his ruling susrvives the inevitable appeal...

But I don't believe that this has been the only argument used historically. I think that all the morality laws are based on Bible based morals and ethics -- historically.

That's your opinion, and you are indeed entitled to it.

Personally, I prefer the First Amendment over the First Commandment...

 

[vincenticus]

The louisianna thread had a secular argument against SSM



But I don't believe that this has been the only argument used historically. I think that all the morality laws are based on Bible based morals and ethics -- historically.

in Christ,

Bob

There was never an issue about simply finding merely secular arguments for banning same-sex marriage. "Gays are icky" is a secular argument. It was an issue of finding GOOD secular arguments. The ones this judge uses are not. First, we do not put rights up for popular vote (see former laws targeting African-Americans) and the Supreme Court has declared marriage a fundamental right (see Loving v. Virginia).

If the state has an interest in keeping children intact with their biological parents, it should also ban divorce, adoption, sperm donations, egg donations, artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. The state does not, nor does the state ban marriage for people who have partaken in such activities. Furthermore, couples may decide not have kids, so the argument completely fails there too.

Banning same sex marriage does not keep children with biological parents who would otherwise raise them. If a homosexual couple is having a child, they had a sperm or egg donation. Marriage is not required for this and it is a common occurrence. Banning same-sex marriage will not cause the homosexual person and the donor to form a family to raise the child. If they adopt, it is no different from any other adoption, a child leaves one (likely biological) family to be raised by another (likely non-biological) family.

Banning same-sex marriage does nothing more than delegitimize existing and future families. Marriage is not required to start a family and these bans only serve to make rights of parentage and property unclear, causing legal harm to children. Declaring the love of a child's homosexual parents inferior and unworthy of recognition causes social harm. So it would be nice if someone actually thought of what is happening to actual children instead of spouting baseless fears, calling their parents abominations and implying homosexuals are inherently incapable of raising children.

It's a horrible argument on a number of levels, and I'm pretty surprised a federal judge wrote that out.

 

[Loudmouth]

The louisianna thread had a secular argument against SSM



But I don't believe that this has been the only argument used historically. I think that all the morality laws are based on Bible based morals and ethics -- historically.

in Christ,

Bob

First Commandment: You can only worship God.

First Amendment: You can worship any god you want, or no god at all.


Second Commandment: Don't make idols.

First Amendment: Make all the idols you want.


Third Commandment: Do not blasphemy.

First Amendment: You can say whatever you want, freedom of speech.

Are we talking about the same Bible?

 

[conamer]

Yeah, disobedience to God's good purpose woven into the order he created.


Right, I get it, you hate God. I used to hate him too. I don't expect any other attitude from unsaved people. You can't draw a single breath apart from his grace and mercy and yet you hate him and want nothing to do with him. For that you will be judged.


A fearful judge, who nonetheless gives you breath, the beats of your heart, the days of your life, and all the blessings of living on this planet. You will stand accountable for your hatred of God, who gives you everything you cherish.


I have stated over and over again that I DO NOT support legislating biblical morality. I believe in legislating only to protect life, liberty, and property in accord with the US constitution. My position on SSM is to leave it to the states, I'm a libertarian not a theocrat.


It means that I will never be condemned no matter how much I mess up, the question of my sin is completely settled and I am loved by the creator of the universe unconditionally and this will never change. In other words, I am absolutely free and consequently have no fear of death. This goes for all Christians.

Absolute eternal forgiveness and infinite blessing, for bowing down and trusting in the atoning work of Christ. That is what God offers sinful man. And yet, you hate God...truly astounding.

It's nothing new under the sun.

 

[Queller]

If civil rights are not derived from Bible morals - then you are right - but your premise can be questioned and here is the proof.

If as you say the existings laws against SSM, inappropriate content, incest, pedophilia, polygamy etc are not based on any Bible morals but on secular arguments alone... then what "secular argument" changed to allow some states to permit SSM?

You've missed the point. Most of those things are prohibited based on Biblical morals. The problem is that a secular government (one not based on religion) should not force the morals of one religion on those who disagree.

If you are looking for actual history - and actual documents framing the character and charter for our legal system - constitution etc.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

I can tell you right now that there are problems with this site. It makes the claim that our three branches of government are based on Isaiah 33:22. The problem is that verse state that one being, God, is our King, Lawgiver, and Judge. Our government is definitely not based on that but all three branches are completely separate. It also states as support for this claim "see Madison" and gives a link to a blog that states this;

“For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; he will save us” (Isaiah 33:22).
—Acknowledged by James Madison as the inspiration for the 3 branches of our government, judicial, legislative, and executive

Unfortunately there is no link to an actual quote from Madison to support this claim.

 

[Queller]

Nonbelievers constantly claim to not believe in God, and yet they routinely pass judgement on him and his character. For not believing in him, they seem to get awfully upset over what they perceive to be his character flaws.

As Archaeopteryx stated, a person can pass judgement on the actions of someone in a book without believing that someone is real.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court often gets it wrong. The Constitution is pretty simple and straight forward, it doesn't require a complicated hermeneutic. The 10th Amendment doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Neither does the 14th Amendment which mandates that states cannot pass laws that violate a person's due process and equal protection rights.

Marriage is not a right, because rights belong solely to individuals.

Yes, and in many states, individuals are being denied the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Banning same-sex marriage violates the rights of two individuals.

Marriage is a social institution, as it is a contractual arrangement upon which benefits are bestowed by government, and is thereby subject to state authority, though not federal as such authority is not delegated to the feds by the constitution.

I refer you to the above mentioned 14th Amendment.

Either let the states handle it,

The states are handling it. Unfortunately, some states are handling it in ways that violate the US Constitution, which they cannot do.

 

[Queller]

The louisianna thread had a secular argument against SSM

But I don't believe that this has been the only argument used historically. I think that all the morality laws are based on Bible based morals and ethics -- historically.

The judge stated;

"in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents."

Here's the problem with that argument; it makes divorce illegal, it means that single people with children can't get married to someone new, it means that people who are unable to conceive children together cannot get married, and a whole host of other problems. The only way to get around those problems is too acknowledge that this is a legal fiction and the law is aimed solely at same-sex couples. Then you have created a double standard that goes right back to being a violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

After being reviewed, this topic will remain closed. A reminder to all that flaming is not necessary nor allowed to carry on a discussion. Additionally, while one is welcome to tag threads, inappropriate thread tags are not needed and are subject to being moderated.

● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.

MOD HAT OFF​