Should our government define marriage based on Christian idealism?

In response to the people who answered my question regarding gay marriage. Many of you have said that majority rules which it does in our democracy but my question was is it fair to a minority of people to be out voted my a majority. Should I remind all of you that many laws that have been voted on by our majority of citizens were unjust? Do you not remember the fight to abolish slavery, the civil rights movement, and the women鈥檚 right movement? They fought the majority rules for many years until our nation was forced to recognize their worth as citizens and human beings.

Now we are faced with a new fight for gay people. But to me this is more than a fight for gay marriage. This is a fight of religious idealism vs. secular thought. Someone said that marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. This definition is being redefined through out the world to include same sex unions.

Should our government define marriage based on Christian idealism?

To answer your broader question: the majority should not crush the minority. If that were the case, then Christianity would be law in the US. So would being white.

On the other hand, the minority can't "win" either. We don't make being Jewish law in the US, just to appease this minority population.

So, as to your question of gay marriage. No one has proven that gay marriage is harmful to the majority. This is not a case of the majority "losing" something. This is not like "if homosexuals can't marry, no one can." It's not a zero-sum game.

To get to your very specific question: the founding of this country, despite what anyone will tell you, is not Christian. There are principals that appear to be "Christian," although may of them are shared widely by many religions and cultures. More to the point, the Founders intentionally put aside their own beliefs and made religious freedom a priority. They wanted it to be the case that no one, regardless of religion, would be excluded from society.

Believe me, if they wanted this to be a Christian nation, they'd have said that. You can argue that a belief in a Creator was important to them. But a belief in a particular interpretation of God was something that part of the founding of this country.

And so it should be.

It is NOT a violation of anyone's religion rights to allow gays to marry. Any more than it's a violation of Moslem's rights to let people drink. Or a violation of Morman rights for Coca Cola to exist. Or a violation of Jewish rights to sell bacon.

No, that is unconstitutional. Separation of church and state.

the bible says that the nation that forgets God shall be turned into hell. it is an abomination in the eyes of God for men to marry men and for women to marry women.

No do it on your atheism which is where its leading.

This is not a Christian nation no matter what the fundimentalist say. (See the treaty of Tripoli which states that fact). Therefore there is no reason why we must follow Christian idealism.

No it should not. The opposition to same sex marriage is not only religion based (which I dismiss) it is legally and socially based at it's heart.

We make decisions about how we wish to create our society through our laws all the time. Age restriction, sex restrictions.

For example, what is the difference between an assault and a rape? Our social perceptions and values. With sex thrown in. That's what. Same deal with gay unions.



.

First of all, we live in a Republic, not a democracy. We don't get to vote for president, the electoral college does, etc. We don't get to majority vote for much of anything. As to gay marriage. WHY? The entire history of marriage is about keeping the woman in the home. It is about gender roles and maintaining a household and rearing children and the economics of doing so. Gays have nothing whatsoever to do with it. And I also don't understand why couples not planning to have children get married. The only things I can think of is you all want the tax breaks, loop holes, insurance, etc. financial favors extended to married people. If so, I am against discrimating against single people and poor people. I'm against all tax breaks and loop holes. I'm in favor of a flat tax and taking medical care off the market and paying for it with our tax dollars. If that isn't going to happen, then certainly a boy, his fiancee, and his mother should be a family (for tax and insurance purposes)before gays are.

yeah ... ur argument is unintelligent ... maybe we should cater to beastiality and pedophilia to ... oh wait ... when gays get legally married they can adopt kids and bring them home and raise them in their unatural lifestyle ... thats right i said unatural ... putting aside the religeous ideals, its not right ... if u want to be gay more power to ya ... but dont ask the rest of society to support ur abberant behaviour or condone legalized pedophilia which is basically what gays want ...

Since the US has ALWAYS defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, are you saying the US was founded on Christian ideals?

Because, logically, not wanting to change marriage radically is not really "pushing" Chrisianity. They're not seeking to change any law, just reinforce the one that's been around for 230 years.

RELIGIONS LOVE TO PLAY POLITICS (CONTROL). PAY YOUR TAXES LIKE THE REST OF US THEN YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE AS MUCH MONEY TO SPREAD YOUR HATE.

How about if we don't let the government define marriage at all? Return marriage to the context from which it originated- religion. Remove all control of marriage from government and put it back where it belongs. Who's with me on this?

not religion....but how about basic biology....there are two sexes for a reason....the human species is the only species onthe plant that has homosexuality.....that seems kinda funny to me

You have a multitude of questions wrapped into your post here. This shows it is not as easy and cut and dry an issue to deal with.

First- you ask "is it fair to a minority of people to be out voted my a majority", while recognizing some laws voted on were unjust. Unfortunately, and sometimes fortunately, that is how a democracy works. I say fortunately because osmeitmes the majoirty is wrong. However, there are checks and balance systems in place, where our courts can rule laws unconsitutional if unreasonable to the smaller group. A proper ruling can remind people of the rights of all, wether they be a small or large group. Its important for people to recognize that many areas allow for voting on area judges- do your part and vote. It makes a difference everyday. As always, at times in our nation's history, it takes a long fight, with brave individuals standing up and making lots of noise, to get the smaller groups voice to be heard. And if you have ever been in a government building waiting in line, the same goes for changes in policy towards groups of people- it often goes at a snails pace. Patience, determination, proper planning and grassroot work is often the means to get things changed. But if the cause is just, the determination of those individuals will pay off.

You say "This is a fight of religious idealism vs. secular thought."
and ask if our government should define marriage based on Christian idealism.
Well, a couple of things first. You must keep in mind that its not just Christian idealism- there are many religions that hold the belief of marriage as one man and one woman. When you are debating the issue, keep in mind that if the government ok'd gay marriage, it essentially would be telling all religious they must marry people, regardless of their faith beliefs. Many marriages are performed in church. For some, it is part of their sacraments, a special part of their faith. Now, this exactly is the reason for seperation of church and state. You cannot have the government telling people what to believe in their own religion. So it leaves the government, who must keep their seperation from religion, to consider civil unions. Since they allow marriages performed by goverment officials ( courthouse marriage), then they should have to consider civil unions, if they are non biased or religiously concerned. There is the arguement that should be heard. True seperation of government from religion would not prefer one relationship over another- and would provide access to both, without intruding on the rights of church's and religions to exercise their faiths without government interference. And in our country's founding, there was a huge religious overtone that is inescapeable. Our money refers to God, our nations pledge refers to God- you cannot wipe out our own history, but you can address the issues as they stand. There are many gay and non gay people that share the same religious views. Not all gays are secular- there are many gay Christians out there that do not mind the Christian overtones of the country, and are conservatives in most applications of the word. They just want the same recognitions under the law.

But heres the rub----- once a civil union is allowed, you must change laws, taxes, etc to allow for their recognition. Consider the IRS- when was the last real overhaul of the system? How do you deal with child custody, adoption, seperation, divorce? These laws are just being changed in a few states. And some states have changed their constitutions to not even consider these situations as existing. Eventually, the states that allow and those that dont will eventually all be looking towards the feds for their guidance- but it is better right now to work at state levels changing laws and fighting then go to the feds, who will look for a clear majoirty before even considering a change to impact all states and a huge overhaul of federal law and tax codes.

And finally, its important to recognize the enormous strides already accomplished, and not down play them. Consider that in other parts of the world, a gay marriage or relationship in unheard of, illegal, and sometimes could cost you your life. While that is wrong, and our country should be a beacon and example of freedom- our own country's freedom did not arrive overnight. And even when won, we persecuted differing religions, races, gender of our own citizens for many many years. Even in the face of our past mistakes, it is impossible to expect change to happen instantly. But again, huge strides are being made.

If you have read this far, I appreciate it. I have very strong views on this subject, and think it is far more complicated than reducing it to a single Christian idealism question.