Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: kcballer on June 03, 2010, 09:20:02 AM
-
Okay so i've been wondering recently about the selective application of religious doctrine into United States Law. My example being the legality (or illegality) of homosexual relations and union. Now we know the basis of the opposition is on religious grounds. Most common examples are "it's in the bible as being a sin so therefore it shouldn't be legal". Or something to that effect.
My question though is why is there a selective application of these rules and sins in American Law. For example working on the Sabbath is punishable by death if you were to take literally some passages, but almost every single major retail chain is open 7 days a week. What is it that makes this not followable or applicable? Is it the callousness of killing someone who is working for a better life? Is it the ludicrous notion that working on the Sabbath is punishable by death? And what makes anti-homosexual passages more tolerable for the American people? Why be selective either the bible is the word of law or it isn't. If it is then enforce all laws, if it isn't then why use it as a basis to enforce anything?
Discuss...
-
LOL at the assumption that those against gay marriage are only b/c of religion... ::)
homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder not but a couple of decades ago...many ppl still feel its not right and it has nothing to do with religion...from an evolutionary stand point homosexuality is useless and that has nothing to do with religion.
now I will give you the idea just you used idiotic examples...
ppl choose what to believe and what not to, the idea of religion and what ppl follow has changed dramatically over the years even more so over decades or centuries
-
Okay so i've been wondering recently about the selective application of religious doctrine into United States Law. My example being the legality (or illegality) of homosexual relations and union. Now we know the basis of the opposition is on religious grounds. Most common examples are "it's in the bible as being a sin so therefore it shouldn't be legal". Or something to that effect.
My question though is why is there a selective application of these rules and sins in American Law. For example working on the Sabbath is punishable by death if you were to take literally some passages, but almost every single major retail chain is open 7 days a week. What is it that makes this not followable or applicable? Is it the callousness of killing someone who is working for a better life? Is it the ludicrous notion that working on the Sabbath is punishable by death? And what makes anti-homosexual passages more tolerable for the American people? Why be selective either the bible is the word of law or it isn't. If it is then enforce all laws, if it isn't then why use it as a basis to enforce anything?
Discuss...
You're missing the forest for the proverbial trees. For example, the 8th commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal. In our country, we have varying degrees of punishment for theft. A guy who steals a TV from the store isn't going to get the same sentence as a jewel thief, hitting a diamond shop. Plus, unlike Biblical law, thieves here aren't require to compensate their victims at least TWICE the value of the items they stole (if you steal my car, the legal system ain't ordering you to give me two cars, of the monetary equivalent of such).
Does the severity of the punishment negate the principle that stealing is wrong? NO.
The same would apply to homosexuality and adultery. Is adultery any less wrong, simply because the participants aren't executed in the USA? NO!
Therefore, it's not that hard to suggest that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, even if homosexual acts aren't capital offenses.
Same goes for rape, which was a capital offense. Yet, rapists don't get executed in America, nor are they require to financially compensate their victims for life.
The punishments for those acts may not be as severe, as they were in ancient Israel. But, that doesn't mean they must get a ringing endorsement from our citizens, either.
-
Hmmm i find that rather difficult to believe there tony. You see homosexuality was a huge part of ancient greek and roman culture. There weren't laws against it and it was deemed normal. Spartans were often in the company of other men and engaged in sexual practices with young boys and each other. There was no law against it, no one was struck down because of it. These were among the dominate cultures of their time and provided a lot of basis for the laws which we follow today. Yet when Christianity became the dominate religious practice and it's laws were implemented throughout western culture, homosexuality became a sin. A punishable offense.
So you see tony if Christianity hadn't become as widespread as it did and we kept more of a greek/roman basis for our laws it would not be a hard stretch to imagine it as part of our culture too.
-
You're missing the forest for the proverbial trees. For example, the 8th commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal. In our country, we have varying degrees of punishment for theft. A guy who steals a TV from the store isn't going to get the same sentence as a jewel thief, hitting a diamond shop. Plus, unlike Biblical law, thieves here aren't require to compensate their victims at least TWICE the value of the items they stole (if you steal my car, the legal system ain't ordering you to give me two cars, of the monetary equivalent of such).
Does the severity of the punishment negate the principle that stealing is wrong? NO.
The same would apply to homosexuality and adultery. Is adultery any less wrong, simply because the participants aren't executed in the USA? NO!
Therefore, it's not that hard to suggest that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, even if homosexual acts aren't capital offenses.
Same goes for rape, which was a capital offense. Yet, rapists don't get executed in America, nor are they require to financially compensate their victims for life.
The punishments for those acts may not be as severe, as they were in ancient Israel. But, that doesn't mean they must get a ringing endorsement from our citizens, either.
I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Are you saying it's okay to selectively implement religious doctrine into law provided the punishments are deemed acceptable by current society?
-
Hmmm i find that rather difficult to believe there tony. You see homosexuality was a huge part of ancient greek and roman culture. There weren't laws against it and it was deemed normal. Spartans were often in the company of other men and engaged in sexual practices with young boys and each other. There was no law against it, no one was struck down because of it. These were among the dominate cultures of their time and provided a lot of basis for the laws which we follow today. Yet when Christianity became the dominate religious practice and it's laws were implemented throughout western culture, homosexuality became a sin. A punishable offense.
So you see tony if Christianity hadn't become as widespread as it did and we kept more of a greek/roman basis for our laws it would not be a hard stretch to imagine it as part of our culture too.
And look how Greece and Rome wound up. ::) ::)
-
Hmmm i find that rather difficult to believe there tony. You see homosexuality was a huge part of ancient greek and roman culture. There weren't laws against it and it was deemed normal. Spartans were often in the company of other men and engaged in sexual practices with young boys and each other. There was no law against it, no one was struck down because of it. These were among the dominate cultures of their time and provided a lot of basis for the laws which we follow today. Yet when Christianity became the dominate religious practice and it's laws were implemented throughout western culture, homosexuality became a sin. A punishable offense.
So you see tony if Christianity hadn't become as widespread as it did and we kept more of a greek/roman basis for our laws it would not be a hard stretch to imagine it as part of our culture too.
You might want to re-visit your ancient history. A number of society viewed homosexuality as immoral, LONG before the Greeks or Romans came into power. Plus, you undercut your own argument. By your logic, NAMBLA would be a standardized institution in America, because it would be "normal" for grown men to hump little boys.
Other socieites saw the Greeks and Romans are perverse. Yet, few had the might or resolve to stop them. That changed, however, as their respective societies weakened (often from within).
-
And look how Greece and Rome wound up. ::) ::)
Are you suggesting that homosexuality led to the break up of their empires? I think you would find that one hard to prove but please do if you can.
-
I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Are you saying it's okay to selectively implement religious doctrine into law provided the punishments are deemed acceptable by current society?
nooo what im saying is that opposition to gay marriage goes beyond religious reasons first of all...
anything that operates within a society has to operate within that societys laws...its not religion that is implemented into society its society that is implemented into religion...
as is evident by the different practices of ppl in the same religion from different societies...
-
I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Are you saying it's okay to selectively implement religious doctrine into law provided the punishments are deemed acceptable by current society?
What I am saying is that, if something is sinful, it's sinful....REGARDLESS of the punishment for that particular transgression.
Rape is wrong!! The punishment in ancient times included DEATH; now, you're lucky if a rapist gets 5 years (and serves ALL of that time).
Stealing is wrong!! Snatching a TV may get you a couple of months in county jail; heisting jewels gets you federal prison time.
Adultery is wrong. In Biblical ancient items, both parties got death; now, adulterers gets verbally chastised and their sluts get reality TV shows, at least half-a-million bucks, and GQ or Playboy spreads.
-
Are you suggesting that homosexuality led to the break up of their empires? I think you would find that one hard to prove but please do if you can.
Both crumbled from within due to a debasement of the citizens with immorality, slovenly ways, corruption, over taxation, etc.
-
You might want to re-visit your ancient history. A number of society viewed homosexuality as immoral, LONG before the Greeks or Romans came into power. Plus, you undercut your own argument. By your logic, NAMBLA would be a standardized institution in America, because it would be "normal" for grown men to hump little boys.
Other socieites saw the Greeks and Romans are perverse. Yet, few had the might or resolve to stop them. That changed, however, as their respective societies weakened (often from within).
Revisit it how? Of course other cultures have been against homosexuality i didn't say they weren't. I am saying the two most dominate and influential cultures in perhaps the history of mankind (from a western perspective) openly allowed homosexual relations. It wasn't until the implementation of Christian based law that is became a no-no in those cultures.
How do i undercut my own argument? I'm not trying to argue for the legality of anything. My whole point is to discuss why only certain religious rules are followed as law, while others are deemed unacceptable. If you can not see that well then i hope by spelling it out here you will understand.
If one law is good enough to follow why not others from the bible? Why be selective?
-
its b/c society is made up of different ppl with different beliefs KC how hard is that to understand?
you think that religious ppl have a lock on the legislation process of this country? ::)
you have seculars, political correctness, LGBT ::) etc....running around making laws as well so you get a hodge podge of laws HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
-
Both crumbled from within due to a debasement of the citizens with immorality, slovenly ways, corruption, over taxation, etc.
So their practice of homosexuality is the cause of those? Is that your basis for the comment? Corruption, lack of leadership, a split of emperors is all tangibly related to their practice and acceptance of homosexuality?
If that is the case how come the military conquered for so long yet had used homosexual activity to boost their moral? Shouldn't they have been killed by the opposing armies before conquering such vast areas and empires?
-
its b/c society is made up of different ppl with different beliefs KC how hard is that to understand?
you think that religious ppl have a lock on the legislation process of this country? ::)
you have seculars, political correctness, LGBT ::) etc....running around making laws as well so you get a hodge podge of laws HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?
Why are you searching so hard for a right answer tony? This isn't about right and wrong answers but about the question itself. You may be in fact have some truth to your words but it doesn't take away from my central point. If a passage from a document is good enough to be deemed a basis of law why not others within the same document?
Are you advocating that future generations can selectively apply the constitution as well? We may have people who right another document perhaps banning guns, will people then be able to revoke the 2nd amendment using that document because "its b/c society is made up of different ppl with different beliefs"
-
So their practice of homosexuality is the cause of those? Is that your basis for the comment? Corruption, lack of leadership, a split of emperors is all tangibly related to their practice and acceptance of homosexuality?
If that is the case how come the military conquered for so long yet had used homosexual activity to boost their moral? Shouldn't they have been killed by the opposing armies before conquering such vast areas and empires?
Bro - do some research. Christianity flourished as a counterbalance to the rampant sexual perversions in Rome.
-
LOL at the assumption that those against gay marriage are only b/c of religion... ::)
homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder not but a couple of decades ago...many ppl still feel its not right and it has nothing to do with religion...from an evolutionary stand point homosexuality is useless and that has nothing to do with religion.
now I will give you the idea just you used idiotic examples...
ppl choose what to believe and what not to, the idea of religion and what ppl follow has changed dramatically over the years even more so over decades or centuries
And the American Psychology Association used absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC information to make the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a general consensus based on the opinions of the psychologists.
-
Why are you searching so hard for a right answer tony? This isn't about right and wrong answers but about the question itself. You may be in fact have some truth to your words but it doesn't take away from my central point. If a passage from a document is good enough to be deemed a basis of law why not others within the same document?
Are you advocating that future generations can selectively apply the constitution as well? We may have people who right another document perhaps banning guns, will people then be able to revoke the 2nd amendment using that document because "its b/c society is made up of different ppl with different beliefs"
::) ::) ::)
youre ASSuming that only religious ppl make the laws in this society and that all religious ppl have the same views...when actually non religious seculars as well as those with different religious views make the laws in this society so OBVIOUSLY they laws will not all coincide with one persons believe system...
the constitution example is just stupid not every law maker believes in the bible but everyone must abide by the constitution...now youre an idiot if you think that ppl dont inturpret the constitution differently which will lead to different laws...
-
Bro - do some research. Christianity flourished as a counterbalance to the rampant sexual perversions in Rome.
Your assertion is homosexuality was a catalyst for their demise. I would like to see you prove this. As yet all you've alluded to is weak points which have no merit on the fall of rome or greece. Homosexuality has nothing to do with laziness, taxation, the split of rulers, the over-extension and fighting too many wars on too many fronts. All of which are accepted as major reasons why the empires fell. Please understand your assertion that is was a catalyst is not only incorrect factually but it's also rather amusing to say that empire(s) who took over most of the known ancient world while using buggery were then felled by said buggery because it made them lazy and over taxed.
-
::) ::) ::)
youre ASSuming that only religious ppl make the laws in this society and that all religious ppl have the same views...when actually non religious seculars as well as those with different religious views make the laws in this society so OBVIOUSLY they laws will not all coincide with one persons believe system...
the constitution example is just stupid not every law maker believes in the bible but everyone must abide by the constitution...now youre an idiot if you think that ppl dont inturpret the constitution differently which will lead to different laws...
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking the question as to why we selectively implement laws based on religious doctrine. I have yet to say all laws are based on Christianity or have ties to religion.
-
Your assertion is homosexuality was a catalyst for their demise. I would like to see you prove this. As yet all you've alluded to is weak points which have no merit on the fall of rome or greece. Homosexuality has nothing to do with laziness, taxation, the split of rulers, the over-extension and fighting too many wars on too many fronts. All of which are accepted as major reasons why the empires fell. Please understand your assertion that is was a catalyst is not only incorrect factually but it's also rather amusing to say that empire(s) who took over most of the known ancient world while using buggery were then felled by said buggery because it made them lazy and over taxed.
Sexual perversion and immorality was one of the causes, not the only cause.
Twinks banging other men and little boys usually are not in a position to defend the empire.
-
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking the question as to why we selectively implement laws based on religious doctrine. I have yet to say all laws are based on Christianity or have ties to religion.
well then youve answered your own question there broham... ::)
-
well then youve answered your own question there broham... ::)
Once again it's not about answering the question it's about engaging in the discussion. If we use the biblical reference against homosexuality as to why it is banned (as a majority of anti-homosexual people do), why do we then not implement everything from the bible? If it's good enough to provide a basis for law against one thing, why not all others?
-
Once again it's not about answering the question it's about engaging in the discussion. If we use the biblical reference against homosexuality as to why it is banned (as a majority of anti-homosexual people do), why do we then not implement everything from the bible? If it's good enough to provide a basis for law against one thing, why not all others?
again you ASSume that the majority of ppl who are against gay marriage are so b/c of religion...
youve answered youre own question bro, if religious ppl dont make the rules in this country why would you think that all religious rules would be implemented? ::) ::) ::)
-
Sexual perversion and immorality was one of the causes, not the only cause.
Twinks banging other men and little boys usually are not in a position to defend the empire.
HAHAHA are you serious? hahaha so these 'twinks' that ruled all of Europe, fought some of the most famous battles in history, had some of the most famous warriors in history(spartans, Achilles etc) and became the basis for many stories still alive today (300, Troy, Homer's Odyssey etc) are good enough to slaughter thousands, but are somehow not good enough to defend themselves? How is that logical?
-
again you ASSume that the majority of ppl who are against gay marriage are so b/c of religion...
youve answered youre own question bro, if religious ppl dont make the rules in this country why would you think that all religious rules would be implemented? ::) ::) ::)
I don't have to assume that though, it is fact. Assumptions are like opinion, my statement is a fact. A majority of people opposed to homosexuality are in-fact Christian and it is taught in the Bible that it is a sin. That is the basis for anti-homosexuality laws. Not everyone may be of that view but the majority are and it is the majority who decide laws and changes to law in a democracy.
-
again you ASSume that the majority of ppl who are against gay marriage are so b/c of religion...
youve answered youre own question bro, if religious ppl dont make the rules in this country why would you think that all religious rules would be implemented? ::) ::) ::)
I think you have once again missed the whole point of this thread. You're searching to answer the question rather than discussing it. This isn't math there is not 100% right answer.
-
LOL at the assumption that those against gay marriage are only b/c of religion... ::)
Agree. The entire premise is wrong.
-
I don't have to assume that though, it is fact. Assumptions are like opinion, my statement is a fact. A majority of people opposed to homosexuality are in-fact Christian and it is taught in the Bible that it is a sin. That is the basis for anti-homosexuality laws. Not everyone may be of that view but the majority are and it is the majority who decide laws and changes to law in a democracy.
please show your proof for your statement...its the majority of ppl that create the laws yes not the majority of the public...there is a difference if it was the majority of the public the idiotic health care bill you love so much would have never passed ;)
please show that proof
-
please show your proof for your statement...its the majority of ppl that create the laws yes not the majority of the public...there is a difference if it was the majority of the public the idiotic health care bill you love so much would have never passed ;)
please show that proof
Uh US Census a majority are Christian. A majority are opposed to homosexuality. Not a far stretch to see the link there tony.
-
Uh US Census a majority are Christian. A majority are opposed to homosexuality. Not a far stretch to see the link there tony.
LMAO hahhah so b/c the majority are christian means the fell a certain way b/c they are christian?
LMAO so the majority of ppl were against the health care bill b/c they were christian?
LMAO much like the other guy i had to straighten out what you have is a coincidence in numbers not a correlation...you have to show a connection not a coincidence...so please since you think its fact show the connection...
OTHERWISE YOURE ASSUMING!!!!!!!!!!
-
Oh please tony. give me a break. We both know christian principals are the basis for why we have anti-homosexuality laws, and the major and most vocal of those against homosexuality are christian groups in this country. It's not an assumption it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who actually understands this issue. You've decided to argue semantics instead of issues. You wanted proof i gave it to you. Is it definitive, no. But the correlation can be drawn once all things are considered. Something you have failed to do and something a logical person would do on this issue.
Once again you're arguing minor semantics and clutching for answers rather than discussing the question. You seem unable to understand that. Please reply when you understand this premise and have something important for or against to add relating to the discussion of the question not some rumbling about an unrelated matter to the actual question it self.
-
Oh please tony. give me a break. We both know christian principals are the basis for why we have anti-homosexuality laws, and the major and most vocal of those against homosexuality are christian groups in this country. It's not an assumption it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who actually understands this issue. You've decided to argue semantics instead of issues. You wanted proof i gave it to you. Is it definitive, no. But the correlation can be drawn once all things are considered. Something you have failed to do and something a logical person would do on this issue.
Once again you're arguing minor semantics and clutching for answers rather than discussing the question. You seem unable to understand that. Please reply when you understand this premise and have something important for or against to add relating to the discussion of the question not some rumbling about an unrelated matter to the actual question it self.
Many other religions are against gays as well.
-
Oh please tony. give me a break. We both know christian principals are the basis for why we have anti-homosexuality laws, and the major and most vocal of those against homosexuality are christian groups in this country. It's not an assumption it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who actually understands this issue. You've decided to argue semantics instead of issues. You wanted proof i gave it to you. Is it definitive, no. But the correlation can be drawn once all things are considered. Something you have failed to do and something a logical person would do on this issue.
Once again you're arguing minor semantics and clutching for answers rather than discussing the question. You seem unable to understand that. Please reply when you understand this premise and have something important for or against to add relating to the discussion of the question not some rumbling about an unrelated matter to the actual question it self.
if its a fact than you can prove it so please do so...other wise youre ASSuming...
if its such a widely accepted fact you should be able to prove it quite easily
-
I don't have to assume that though, it is fact. Assumptions are like opinion, my statement is a fact. A majority of people opposed to homosexuality are in-fact Christian and it is taught in the Bible that it is a sin. That is the basis for anti-homosexuality laws. Not everyone may be of that view but the majority are and it is the majority who decide laws and changes to law in a democracy.
You obviously never went to law school and are utterly clueless on American history.
-
Many other religions are against gays as well.
It's forbidden in Judiasm, Islam and Christianity for starters. The only religion that I can think of that is accepting of homosexuality is Buddism.
-
Oh please tony. give me a break. We both know christian principals are the basis for why we have anti-homosexuality laws, and the major and most vocal of those against homosexuality are christian groups in this country. It's not an assumption it's a fact. A fact known by anyone who actually understands this issue. You've decided to argue semantics instead of issues. You wanted proof i gave it to you. Is it definitive, no. But the correlation can be drawn once all things are considered. Something you have failed to do and something a logical person would do on this issue.
Once again you're arguing minor semantics and clutching for answers rather than discussing the question. You seem unable to understand that. Please reply when you understand this premise and have something important for or against to add relating to the discussion of the question not some rumbling about an unrelated matter to the actual question it self.
You just mentioned the key word (although you misspelled it ;D ): PRINCIPLES!!!
If it's about Judeo-Christian principles, then it holds that homosexuality is as wrong in 2010 A.D. as it was in 2010 B.C., regardless of the severity of the penalties, warranted by homosexual acts. The same would hold true for rape, adultery, and theft.
I don't think you believe that rape is any less vile now than it was in ancient Biblical times, even though it's not punishable by death, as it was back then.
-
It's forbidden in Judiasm, Islam and Christianity for starters. The only religion that I can think of that is accepting of homosexuality is Buddism.
Are those dominant religions in America? With enough push to mobilize millions of people? I think not.
You all seem to be missing the whole point. It's not about gays vs non gays. It's about why we have selective application of Christian principals into law and not others. To say we don't is plain ignorance. Christianity has influenced our laws more so than any other outside influence. The homosexuality issue was an example. Why must you all then think in only linear ways. That the example must be attacked rather than the question and root of the issue discussed.
-
We have whatever the voters (or in some cases judicial activist courts) say we have.
-
Are those dominant religions in America? With enough push to mobilize millions of people? I think not.
You all seem to be missing the whole point. It's not about gays vs non gays. It's about why we have selective application of Christian principals into law and not others. To say we don't is plain ignorance. Christianity has influenced our laws more so than any other outside influence. The homosexuality issue was an example. Why must you all then think in only linear ways. That the example must be attacked rather than the question and root of the issue discussed.
Because humans are selfish, greedy, manipulative, hypocritical people seemingly incapable of following the Golden Rule.
-
Because humans are selfish, greedy, manipulative, hypocritical people seemingly incapable of following the Golden Rule.
Like those who peddle snake oil to their fellow citizens?
-
Like those who peddle snake oil to their fellow citizens?
Yep, and those who manipulate situations to their advantage and have the audacity to claim things are fair
-
Yep, and those who manipulate situations to their advantage and have the audacity to claim things are fair
like the health care bill and political correctness?