Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 73004238" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>The morals of avoiding stealing, killing, lying, etc... aren't exclusive to religion. </p><p></p><p>The reason we have the 1st amendment is because it draws the line in the sand for which laws pass "The Lemon Test" and which ones don't. For those who are unaware, the Lemon Test basically dictates that a law must have a compelling secular purpose in order to be constitutional.</p><p></p><p>Stealing, killing, and things of that nature certainly fit that mold. A secular perspective can definitely tell that having your property taken, or being physically harmed is not a good thing and not something anyone should have to be subjected to. A secular perspective can't draw the same conclusions about marriage that you describe. Your definition of the restrictions that should be in place can only be drawn from religious teaching, and not conclusions that someone would draw organically.</p><p></p><p>For instance, if I hadn't been subjected to any other teachings whatsoever...if someone punched me in the face, I could reasonably draw the conclusion "hey, that's not cool when someone does that...there should be a rule against that". The same cannot be said about the restrictions the right-wing evangelicals propose for marriage. The only way to come to that conclusion is via religious upbringing and indoctrination.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 73004238, member: 123415"] The morals of avoiding stealing, killing, lying, etc... aren't exclusive to religion. The reason we have the 1st amendment is because it draws the line in the sand for which laws pass "The Lemon Test" and which ones don't. For those who are unaware, the Lemon Test basically dictates that a law must have a compelling secular purpose in order to be constitutional. Stealing, killing, and things of that nature certainly fit that mold. A secular perspective can definitely tell that having your property taken, or being physically harmed is not a good thing and not something anyone should have to be subjected to. A secular perspective can't draw the same conclusions about marriage that you describe. Your definition of the restrictions that should be in place can only be drawn from religious teaching, and not conclusions that someone would draw organically. For instance, if I hadn't been subjected to any other teachings whatsoever...if someone punched me in the face, I could reasonably draw the conclusion "hey, that's not cool when someone does that...there should be a rule against that". The same cannot be said about the restrictions the right-wing evangelicals propose for marriage. The only way to come to that conclusion is via religious upbringing and indoctrination. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute
Top
Bottom