Interesting thing raised there, church and state, because there isn't a totally explicit separation between church and state, especially around marriage (and especially especially in fayre England, thanks to Henry VIII).
Yeah, but US MURRICANS have a pretty explicit separation. Some have argued that it only means that the government cannot control religion, not the other way around; that's idiotic IMO. It was established to prevent a state religion from arising. Making laws based on a particular religious text would be
exactly what the clause was put in to prevent. That is, unless I messed up my history
really badly.
I'm personally against gay marriage, because marriage is pretty much a collection of interpretations and customs around a magic book, and I don't see why the users of the magic book should have to change their interpretation to a dodgier one just because the state says so. I also don't see that the state should recognise these "marriage" things done by some priest as legally significant. People want to have the legal/economic status of a "married" couple? Fine, let them get a civil partnership. The state should not involve ceremonies when making laws.
Oh, I'm not claiming that religious institutions should be required to permit homosexual marriages! That would be a violation of the 1st Amendment! I'd personally prefer it if civil unions took on all rights that marriages have, and then the state stopped doing marriages, but as long as the state is part of civil marriages, it should do so Constitutionally.
Tell that to Japan and Italy.
Anyway, you gave a blanket claim - anti gayness has no argument outside of religion.
Except that there are non-religious arguments.
There are. But I doubt most would stand up in a court of law.
They probably could, depending on where you were. Depending on population problems/disease rates. Though for the latter, protection would probably be more advisable than an outright ban.
That it shouldn't be made illegal is clear morally speaking. To say, as you were, that the reasons are purely religious is where I find fault. Religion is only part.
Okay, I agree. I was wrong. Religion is a significant part, but only a part, yeah.
I just laugh at people who are anti-gay outside of religious reason because they are slaves to our DNA.
Just as Sir Ian McKellen said "Who are you? Why are you in my house?"
Hah! Good reference.
It appears you are implying governments have a right to legislate upon the sex lives of their citizens.
This being directed at Dwarfy.
No, he's not. He's saying that there are secular arguments, not that he
agrees with them; just that they exist.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 13654305 times)