“What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?”

[Ferre]

the traditional, religious definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that religious definition should not be dictated by the state.

Which religion are you refering to gamerslink? Reason why I ask is because "marriage" pre-dates the Abrahamic based religions and ancient cultures in China and Greek did marry same sex couples, in fact in ancient China, especially in the southern province of Fujian, men would even marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages were long lasting. At the end of this marriage the elder partner would help the younger find a wife (of course female!) so that he can settle down to raise a family.

In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.

I got that information here:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp
http://ignca.nic.in/ps_05018.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...nt.html?page=3

I personnaly think that the definition of marriage should not be dictated by the Christian religion, they are not the ones who invented it in the first place at all.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I personnaly think that the definition of marriage should not be dictated by the Christian religion, they are not the ones who invented it in the first place at all.

So who do you presume invented it?

Look, if you'll go back a little further in time you'll see that marriage has always been an act to santify the union between two people in their quest to form a family. To make the act of consummation Holy.

Come on now think people, I know you're smart enough. How the hell did you get here? Definitely not by two men, oh no! Nor by two women, come on! That's just scientific fact, and is almost too much common sense.

Seriously, I like how people argue this subject reason being why I brought it up. Creates fun conversation, and we can also learn a thing or two. So I've posted two simple links that I'll qoute here, that will back my statements nicely. I know marriage was actually created by the CREATOR (who else?) to santify the sexual union between men and women in the attempt to further HIS creation. (Procreation/Bloodlines)

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/general...agehistory.htm

The marriage of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II was an arranged marriage to ensure the legitimacy of the royal line. Here is information about their marriage and children.

http://marriage.about.com/od/ancient...n_Marriage.htm

[thegamerslink]

For the purposes here, since it is the freedom to marry same sex in the United States which is at debate, then I was basing on the Christian religion as that is the founding religion of the United States.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

For the purposes here, since it is the freedom to marry same sex in the United States which is at debate, then I was basing on the Christian religion as that is the founding religion of the United States.

"Founding religion of the United States"?

Guess not...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Originally Posted by The Treaty of Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

[thegamerslink]

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I could type out the whole thing because there is another reference or two to God in the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.christianparents.com/declarid.htm

[thegamerslink]

When writing a legal document defining the legal operations of a government you desire to be one not empowered to control it's citizens. A paper that you ensure the freedom of religion. And defining the lack of ability for the government to endorse or restrict religion, why would you then find it not logical that religion is intentionally kept from that particular document? That is not a definition of the lack of religious belief, or belief in Christianity. It's a statement beyond that scope for the wisdom and intentions of those that drafted the document.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

When writing a legal document defining the legal operations of a government you desire to be one not empowered to control it's citizens. A paper that you ensure the freedom of religion. And defining the lack of ability for the government to endorse or restrict religion, why would you then find it not logical that religion is intentionally kept from that particular document? That is not a definition of the lack of religious belief, or belief in Christianity. It's a statement beyond that scope for the wisdom and intentions of those that drafted the document.

Gamerslink, you can talk untill you weigh an ounce but I think that George Washington and his government in 1797 where better informed about this issue than you are.

I take their word for it in the case of what the USA was founded on and they stated oficially in the treaty of Tripoli that this was NOT christianity.

What is it in this sentence that you do not understand?

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

[thegamerslink]

The Government was not, the country was is there not a difference there?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

The Government was not, the country was is there not a difference there?

Whatever rethoric rocks your boat bro, when you want to believe he USA was founded on Christianity, be my guest.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

The Government was not, the country was is there not a difference there?

Yes, there is a difference. And yes, the country was founded on Christian principles. Just ignore Ferre. The guy doesn't utter a logical or true sentence but once every third decade.

The problem is, was that right? Some of those Christian principles that the gov't was founded on got people into trouble. Back in the early days there were some really oppressive (Christian) laws. Like laws that punished people for not going to Church on Sunday. Or laws against fornication and adultery.

Religion should be a personal matter.

[thegamerslink]

I see no rhetoric. You have a government formed so that it doesn't impose control over it's citizens. Even to the degree that it does not impose it religious beliefs upon them. You have people that have come to these territories for a multitude of reasons, one of which, and if my schooling in American History are even close to correct, a major reason was for the practice of religious freedom and escaping the thumb of the Catholic church. God (Religion) was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, clearly the device that founded this country, without this, there would be no constitution. The history of this country and it's original founders is wrought with Christian based religion, there is no way around it.

[Ferre]

Did the constitution say; God-of-the-bible? "God" can be any of the many gods worshipped by people during the ages, it could also mean "that what we don't know" or "mother earth", all depending on the interpretation of the reader unless this "god" is clearly specified.

Is it clearly specified in the constitution gamerslink?

And I fail to see what the freemason's interpretation of god has to do with the founding of the USA, or are you telling me that the freemasons founded the USA?

[thegamerslink]

Just to add here, you brought up the FreeMason's in reference to forefathers of the U.S.

The Supreme Being and the Volume of Sacred Law

Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being.[27] However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his or her interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation.[28] Thus, reference to the Supreme Being will mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. And while most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term.

In the ritual, the Supreme Being is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe, which alludes to the use of architectural symbolism within Freemasonry.[29][30]

A Volume of the Sacred Law is always displayed in an open Lodge in those jurisdictions which require a belief in the Supreme Being. In English-speaking countries, this is frequently the King James Version of the Bible or another standard translation; there is no such thing as an exclusive "Masonic Bible".[31] In many French Lodges, the Masonic Constitutions are used instead. Furthermore, a candidate is given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs. UGLE alludes to similarities to legal practice in the UK, and to a common source with other oath taking processes.[32][33][34][35] In Lodges with a membership of mixed religions it is common to find more than one sacred text displayed.

[thegamerslink]

You are fixating on the Constitution being the founding of the U.S. Perhaps that is the error of your argument. The Constitution only defines the limitations of the government of the U.S. and the governmental ideas of it's people.

The United States was founded on those who fought, sacrificed and died for her, the Declaration of Independence was a statement of revolt made by those that shared those convictions. And based on their beliefs which were Christian. Christianity has always been a dominant guiding force of our country up until the revolution of the Aethiests of the mostly 70's and 80's through today.

I'll through another one at you, at it's core, if you break the religions down, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity they are the same. The difference is the belief of worship, all believe in the same God. So, it could be said, since they are all the same that the country was founded on any of those three, if you take the religion to it's very core, which was the reality behind Freemason belief.

[Ferre]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that large parts of the people who fought for your independence were atheists, Did you know that in the colonial period no more than 10-20% of the population in America actually belonged to a church?
What about the other 80-90% of the people, did they not fight for the independence?

Was the USA founded on the beliefs of a minority?

[thegamerslink]

Again you are misguided. To be a Christian, it is not a requirement that you belong to a church. In fact, during those times many lived many miles from an established town or city. With the lack of quick family transportation trips to the town or city were reserved for required purposes and often few and far between as that took time away from working the farm or ranch, which was seen as a waste of time and effort. Such as buying seed for planting, selling and buying of livestock or crops and other life and survival necessities. Religion was something most families practiced in the homes and in the way they saw fit.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Again you are misguided. To be a Christian, it is not a requirement that you belong to a church. In fact, during those times many lived many miles from an established town or city. With the lack of quick family transportation trips to the town or city were reserved for required purposes and often few and far between as that took time away from working the farm or ranch, which was seen as a waste of time and effort. Such as buying seed for planting, selling and buying of livestock or crops and other life and survival necessities. Religion was something most families practiced in the homes and in the way they saw fit.

Sure, let's keep it at that; I am misguided and you are better informed than anyone else on this planet, including George Washington.

Fine by me, I have no problem giving you this "win", you clearly outsmart me in any way possible.

[Ferre]

This might be an interesting article for those who use the bible as a reference and justification for their homofobia...

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/glob...bible-gay.html

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Sure, let's keep it at that; I am misguided and you are better informed than anyone else on this planet, including George Washington.

Fine by me, I have no problem giving you this "win", you clearly outsmart me in any way possible.

LoL, your sarcasm cracks me up I must admit. Let's say I chose my words poorly when I said it was Christianity as that was the founding religion of the U.S. It would have been better had I said that Christianity(religion) was before it's founding and after it's founding, and for the most part still is the main intended moral motivation of the U.S.

When President Washington made the statement

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

he was in fact speaking directly of the government of the United States. Not the United States as a country. The government is indeed Secular, the country however was founded by it's people, not by the government. Perhaps this is where the argument developed from?

[krahmaan]

From my memory most provinces and lands were ruled or governed by someone or some group of people. Like the times where mostly Kings ruled. The King was the one to make law, but before doing so he always got the opinions of his advisors. Most times these advisors were spiritual advisors.

Spirituality and religion are closely related. Spirituality is the aim and religion is the practice. At least in ancient times that was the case, now it's more a popularity contest (religion). Now back to the King and his advisors. Being that the one(s) who made the decisions were highly influenced by spiritual advisors, then it's safe to say that even in governments the leaders were highly influenced by the leaders of the Church.

This is not a new thing, or out or the ordinary. So, if the United States was highly influenced by the advisors of the Christian Church and created laws regarding marriage threw the laws written by advisors of the past, then, it would seem that this religious hand in marriage being defined between a man and a woman doesn't seem too far off. Being that that's how holy conception takes place.

Christianity is not the only religion that has this belief. Others like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism share this belief. So that to me justifies it as a rule, that if broken should not be granted the same luxuries because of the choice to stray from the norm and natural.

I think that the state needs to have a hand in these touchy issues to keep order like in old times. Even though complete total order is impossible under the circumstances that there always will be those who will choose to be led stray, or will commit evil.

Still they must be held accountable if they make this choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Adviser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister