Thomas Jefferson the author of the DOI and major contributor to the Founding would make an error like that? If the nation was completely secular and he knew it, those would be MAJOR errors.
In the first secular nation in the world? One composed almost entirely of people of the Christian faith? In which the idea of secularism was still developing? Nonsense. Of course these were minor issues.
Who worships them? No significant number of people worship them but millions including most of the founders worshipped the Lord. And it is far more than just the naming of days, His birthday is hinge of history.
You're the one who said that a secular society would have eradicated all mention of Christianity in the calendar. Does the retention of the Norse gods prove that they were pagans at heart? These were - and are - simply cultural associations that they had no mind to do away with.
Our anatomy is part of our nature, homosexual behavior goes against human nature.
How? In what way is homosexuality against human nature?
How? It cannot unify two persons like sexual intercourse can.
I said: Any reasonable person can see that homosexual relationships are quite capable of reinforcing each other personally without being depersonalising acts.
And this is obviously true. We all know homosexual couples who love each other deeply. Saying that their sexual love for each other is "depersonalising" is nothing more than your objective, and rather objectionable, personal opinion.
No, I said nothing about the product, I am referring to the act itself. According to biologists they are still a unified reproductive unit irrespective of fertility.
So you consider biology nonsense?
No, I consider your arguments to be nonsense because of the mistaken way you invoke biology to justify them.
Well it is very relevant to certain nations and societies. Most of Europe is not reproducing at replacement levels. Their leaders are requesting their people to have more babies.
But are their leaders forbidding couples from having babies if they have low chances of doing so, no chance of doing so or a stated intention against doing so? Are they even investigating these things?
Of course not. And so your argument falls to the ground. Not being able to have babies - or, if you prefer, "be unified into a single personal reproductive unit, thereby reinforcing each other personally" is no grounds for fobidding heterosexual people from marrying, and nor should it be for homosexuals.
You have yet to demonstrate my arguments are irrational. Things may change in the future, nobody thought Trump would get elected president of the US and nobody thought Brexit would pass.
As you often say: see above. And above that too, because I've frequently shown your arguments to be irrational.
Many nations like Germany are encouraging couples to have babies because they are having them at less than replacement level.
See above.
That is not the only reason, as I have demonstrated above, it is also concern for the health of the people engaging in the behavior. Gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence and mental and physical illnesses.
And - even granting this rather shaky premise - why should that be grounds for not letting them marry?
He is the Good itself, upon which morality is based, thereby making it objective.
But that just moves the dilemma one step backward. It hasn't removed it or resolved it. Okay, so God is Goodness itself. In that case, the same question can be posed. What does it mean to say that God's character is intrinsically good? Does it measure up against some external standard, or (as I believe you are saying) is goodness itself defined by God's character? If the latter, then I'm afraid goodness is meaningless, because God could say that anything was good - including acts that we would today consider to be evil - and, under your system of logic, they would be. How could we say any action of God was not good, if you define goodness as "whatever God does or says should be done?" Has God declared it to be good to be loving, merciful and kind? Well, what if tomorrow He changed his mind and declared it to be good to be cruel, unjust and malicious? On what grounds could you possibly object or disagree?
You might say that God would never do such a thing. But why not, if there's no external standard against which goodness can be measured?
And so we see that saying "God is goodness" means that goodness has no meaning at all.
Already answered.
Yes, as long as they don't violate the Constitution and the DOI.
And supposing that Satanists decide to pass a law making Christianity illegal because they claim its presence infringes their religious freedoms? Supposing that Satanists pass a law saying that the Satanic writings must be taught in every school? Supposing Muslims passed a law that said that all American must become Muslims because it is the wish of Allah? Would that be okay with you?
No, the DOI is part of the American legal code and the philosophical foundation of the Constitution as I demonstrated to Clizby. So any law passed that violates those principles contained in the DOI should be ruled unConstitutional by SCOTUS. Such as gay marriage.
I'm afraid not. Remember, when the Declaration of Independence was written, women could not vote, and blacks were considered property and less than human. The rules have changed a lot over time, and it's good that they have. Gay marriage is just another example of this.
Where does that right come from? You cannot just make up rights, that is what Hitler did.
It's you who is making up rights. By what right do you prevent two people from having the thing they desire - a legally recognised marriage - when it harms nobody? By what right do you tell them they cannot do this thing?
No, I said they cannot unify two persons to reinforce personhood. I also said that the behavior causes many health problems and domestic abuse.
As I said: you're still where you were before: stuck, trying to claim that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't produce children, while maintaining that this doesn't apply to heterosexual couples that can't produce children. Essentially, you're saying exactly that, just trying to put it in less offensive words.
Well Scientific American said if it were not for heterosexual monogamous couples (biological marriage) our ancestors would not have survived.
Sure they would have. They just wouldn't have reproduced.
But that's just nitpicking. I see what you mean, of course. Yes, if our forebears had not had children, our species would have come to an end. So what? Does this mean it's a requirement for every person to have one child? How about two, or three, just to be on the safe side? Now there's a slippery slope for you.
Your argument is not just faulty, it's unkind. Again: why should a couple not be allowed to marry just because they cannot produce children? You seem to have some strange idea that forbidding gay marriage will result in more babies. Do you imagine that, if not allowed to marry each other, gay's will immediately decide to go out and have
heterosexual marriages and bear children?
Yes they are with surrogacy and other artificial techniques.
That works for my argument, not yours. They're not
stealing children from heterosexual couples, who are still free to marry and breed as much as they wish. Indeed, if you're worried about the future of society, gay people adopting and having babies by various scientific means would seem to be a good thing.
Heterosexual rates are much lower.
As usual - so what? As I said, mental and physical illness does not prevent heterosexual couples from getting married, so why should they stop homosexual couples?
Also, have you considered that rates of homosexual mental and physical illnesses might be a good deal lower if it wasn't for a society that tells them they are unnatural and should never be allowed to have loving relationships?
Can I suggest that you listen to the Bible:
1 Corinthians 13:2 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Your argument is not a loving one. It's an unkind one. Though you fathom all mysteries, yet your arguments mean nothing, for they are not spoken in love.