Bible vs. Constitution

[Beanieboy]

In this last election, gay marriage was one of the political footballs kicked around. While I can understand why one may oppose gay marriage based on one's interpretation of the bible, I am unclear why people look to this one issue, and not to others.

For example, Hinduism. Hinduism is legal. Hinduism is tolerated.
But what is argued is that tolerance is the same as acceptance or approval, which suggests that Hinduism is just as valid as Christianity.

If one looks to the Bible, the Bible is very clear on the subject: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other Gods before me.
I don't know how much clearer one can be than that.
So, shouldn't Americans all vote on what religions should and shouldn't be allowed? Shouldn't Hinduism be illegal if it contradicts the Bible?

Another example: Premarital sex.
I have no problem with people who believe one should wait until marriage.
However, it's perfectly legal.
So is getting drunk, and the bible forbids that in over 300 verses.
Smoking is obviously harming the body, perfectly legal.
Yet, none are banned. No one would even think about it.

Until I read up more on the candidates, I had no idea that President Bush supported school prayer. Isn't this in direct violation of the Constitution that says that the government will neither prohibit nor endorse any religion?

Can one truly claim to live by the bible, but only pick and choose what they want to enforce? And doesn't this kind of attitude has direct conflicts with Freedoms granted by the Constitution?

[Cowthulu]

In this last election, gay marriage was one of the political footballs kicked around. While I can understand why one may oppose gay marriage based on one's interpretation of the bible, I am unclear why people look to this one issue, and not to others.

For example, Hinduism. Hinduism is legal. Hinduism is tolerated.
But what is argued is that tolerance is the same as acceptance or approval, which suggests that Hinduism is just as valid as Christianity.

If one looks to the Bible, the Bible is very clear on the subject: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other Gods before me.
I don't know how much clearer one can be than that.
So, shouldn't Americans all vote on what religions should and shouldn't be allowed? Shouldn't Hinduism be illegal if it contradicts the Bible?

Another example: Premarital sex.
I have no problem with people who believe one should wait until marriage.
However, it's perfectly legal.
So is getting drunk, and the bible forbids that in over 300 verses.
Smoking is obviously harming the body, perfectly legal.
Yet, none are banned. No one would even think about it.

Until I read up more on the candidates, I had no idea that President Bush supported school prayer. Isn't this in direct violation of the Constitution that says that the government will neither prohibit nor endorse any religion?

Can one truly claim to live by the bible, but only pick and choose what they want to enforce? And doesn't this kind of attitude has direct conflicts with Freedoms granted by the Constitution?

It is not a matter of making it legal. It is a matter of using government granted priviledges to endorse the activity. The government does not give benefits endorsing any of the behaviors you have equivocated.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison.

[Beanieboy]

Can you clarify?

A Hindu church would have nonexempt status, for example.
That's granted by the government.

A Hindu can have children, and raise them to have Hindu beliefs, so, while one can argue there is one man, and one woman, potentially, their soul has a one way ticket to hell.

So, I still see it as Macintosh and Braebury apples.

[Cowthulu]

Can you clarify?

A Hindu church would have nonexempt status, for example.
That's granted by the government.

A Hindu can have children, and raise them to have Hindu beliefs, so, while one can argue there is one man, and one woman, potentially, their soul has a one way ticket to hell.

So, I still see it as Macintosh and Braebury apples.

Hinduism is specifically protected as a religion under the constitution. Sexuality is not a religion.

You are still comparing apples and oranges.

[Duder]

In this last election, gay marriage was one of the political footballs kicked around. While I can understand why one may oppose gay marriage based on one's interpretation of the bible, I am unclear why people look to this one issue, and not to others.

For example, Hinduism. Hinduism is legal. Hinduism is tolerated.
But what is argued is that tolerance is the same as acceptance or approval, which suggests that Hinduism is just as valid as Christianity.

If one looks to the Bible, the Bible is very clear on the subject: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other Gods before me.
I don't know how much clearer one can be than that.
So, shouldn't Americans all vote on what religions should and shouldn't be allowed? Shouldn't Hinduism be illegal if it contradicts the Bible?

Another example: Premarital sex.
I have no problem with people who believe one should wait until marriage.
However, it's perfectly legal.
So is getting drunk, and the bible forbids that in over 300 verses.
Smoking is obviously harming the body, perfectly legal.
Yet, none are banned. No one would even think about it.

Until I read up more on the candidates, I had no idea that President Bush supported school prayer. Isn't this in direct violation of the Constitution that says that the government will neither prohibit nor endorse any religion?

Can one truly claim to live by the bible, but only pick and choose what they want to enforce? And doesn't this kind of attitude has direct conflicts with Freedoms granted by the Constitution?

Hello, Bean! It's great to see you getting involved over here.

Your argument wouldn't carry much force over at that "other place," would it? There, the prevailing spirit would publically stone to death the Hindu just as readily as it would the gay. Enyart and his crowd fantasize about the streets of America running red with the blood of homosexuals and those who knowingly associate with them, fornicators and those who knowingly associate with them, adulterers and those who knowingly associate with them, those who openly profess belief in a god other than Yahweh, and children whose parents have lost control over them. I know that list is incomplete - so you'll have to get ol' Clete to update it for you.

In that "other place", they carry their fundamentalism to its logical conclusion, and you have to at least give them brownie points for consistency, and for providing a example of what happens when you lift ancient tribal laws out of their proper historical context and attempt to apply them in the modern cosmopolitan world.

As far as your specific issue is concerned, I agree with the Christians who say the government should not sanction gay marriage. The government shouldn't saction any marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution, and President Bush has characterized it as "sacred". If Christians really want to protect a sacred institution, their political aganda should be to wrest control of it from the secular authorities altogether and make marriage purely a church matter. At the people's discretion, the government may give special consideration to people, married or otherwise, who consider themselves to be in domestic partnerships.

[Cowthulu]

While I don't agree with Duder's extremist hyperbole in his first paragraphs (it is possible to be against gay marriage and not be a gay bashing homophobe ya know?), I do agree with his last paragraph about government getting out of the marriage business. Civil Contracts for anyone and everyone who want them with no definitions attached.

[Beanieboy]

I agree that the Government should get out of marriage. It is a church's right to decide who does and doesn't get to marry in their church, but that means that don't have the right to tell an athiest they can't marry at City Hall.

There was a time when people said that people of different races couldn't marry to "defend the institution of marriage."

There was a time when only men could vote, and the idea of women trying to vote was protested as "defending democracy."

Now, we just see these things as absurd.

That being said, my point is not about gay marriage specifically, but this idea that anything that Christians don't agree with (homosexual marriage) should be mandated by all, and voted into law. The arguement is that by tolerating homosexuality, they are endorsing it.

In that vein, then, isn't tolerating Hinduism, then, approving of another religion?
Isn't that saying that Hinduism is just as valid as Christianity?
Shouldn't Hinduism be banned to defend the sanctity of religion?

Now, I don't know of a religion where murder is given a thumbs up. Islam forbids it, athiests forbid it, Wiccan forbid it. So, it's not based on the bible, but the fact that no one wants to be killed or have their loved ones killed, nor live in fear of being murdered.

Working on the Sabbath is quite another issue.
Yet, people shamelessly work on Saturday (or Sunday).

So, I'm unclear how the bible is only referenced some of the time.

[Cowthulu]

The arguement is that by tolerating homosexuality, they are endorsing it.

That is not the argument at all. Giving priviledges through a government contract (ie a legal marriage) is more than toleration it is endorsement.