Of course not. The Bible isn't the only book that ever expressed that one should not murder. I don't think that is what Dragoness was saying.



I don't think that is what she was saying either.

I understood her to mean that Christianity and the Bible should not be the governing authority that trumps the majority. It should not have any more weight than any other system of religious belief.

In fact, people should use their common sense and their sense of ought to determine laws. They should not claim to have the support of their God for them. People should use their brains.

I agree people can and should use their brains, but that does not exclude them also reading/referring to their bible, or any other book which nourishes them.

I could take such sentiments the wrong way, but because I consider myself a christian, it is understandable why I would have issue with a statement that christians should 'NEVER BE ALLOWED'

I agree, and they can "refer to the Bible" any time they want to, but it has no place in the making of Law for the people who are of all different faiths. In other words, they should not attempt to pass a law against women or gays because they feel something in the Bible supports it.

Amen, church and state should be separate. This is where right and wrong becomes subjective when you get into issues that really are none of your business such as gay marriage. If it's not hurting you or hurting someone else personally, and even moreso when it's not even hurting the person doing whatever it is that is perceived wrong, than we ought to stay out of it. We have no right to tell another person what they can or cannot do if they are not harming another being or themselves.

That's where the line between right and wrong ought to be drawn right there. If it's not hurting someone, leave the person or people alone.

laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,,

it is a misconception that personal relationships dont 'harm' anyone if they are consentual

in the case of marriage, if it is state sanctioned, than those constituents have EVERY RIGHT to dictate its limits and terms

imho

Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with.

Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived.

so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers?

should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born?

should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual?


,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide

Why is it a misconception? Why is it your business what another person does in a relationship?

I don't personally care if it's state sanctioned marriage or not, I don't even like the state involved at all but that's another topic. Regardless though, when it comes to taking away another person's freedom to do what they want with themselves, you really don't have the right. Would you say it was ok in the 1960's for blacks to be segregated from the whites? That the whites had the right to dictate the limits and terms on which the blacks could act? This is not much different.

this is a bit different because being black or white is not the same CHOICE as being married or in a relationship

there is a different dynamic there

noone stops people from being in whatever relationship they wish, having the state SANCTION a relationship is not a right , it is a privilege whose limits are defined by the community

should it be illegal for gay people to have relationships? no
should it have been illegal for blacks and whites to comingle? no

but that is a different standard than insisting the state SANCTION/promote/support those choices in our personal lives

I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity

the same is true with personal relationships,,, the difference being that the male female relationship is supported and promoted as the FOUNDATION from which life begins and the endless benefits children with their mother and father in a committed relationship with each other have over children who dont have that dynamic as a foundation

In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work.

As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business.

Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails.

What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others.

So only certain people can have rights to marriage? How is that not segregating?

how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective

I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so

And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth'

I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural'

,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,,

Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it?

because marriage is not a RIGHT it is a privilege? What other situation can you think of where having a 'license' is an unconditional right?

which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs?

it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,,

We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is.

Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case.

This is the problem IMO when you get the state involved in personal affairs, you take God given rights and make them to where they become subjective in who can have them and who can't. The state has no business dictating things like this.

because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide

we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with)

we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community

if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way