George Bush - Religious Fanatic?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this was so, why should two of the same sex not enjoy the same rights that two of opposite sex enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they shouldn't? If I implied such I certainly didn't mean to do that and apologies if I did. The post I responed to stated that there were minimal economic aspects to marriage and ask for examples to refute that. I provided these as a refutation of his point about the economic aspects of marriage.

[Jedi Flopper]

That is skewed logic. A religious man promoting a law does not make this law a religious law. The content determines that, not who gave birth to it. And most laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion, thank God ;-) With God's help it stays that way...

Walk with me my young padawan as I enlighten you in the ways of reality...

First of all, lets dispense with the word religion. It is too nebulous to define and we would not agree on a definition anyway. Instead we will discuss morality.

Now, morality comes in two different flavors. Subjective and Objective. Subjective morality changes as opinions and cultures change. It is impossible to argue subjective morality because opinions are like anuses, everyone has one and they all pretty much work the same. It would be stupid for us to have an argument over which flavor of ice cream is best. The answer is subjective and your opinion is as valid as mine is.

That is where we are in America today. Subjective morality and situation ethics has people on polar extremes yelling that their "morality" is truth when it is literally impossible for both of them to be right.

The solution to this problem is to use an objective standard to determine what is right or wrong. What could that standard be?

If I believed that Jesus of NAzereth was Divine and the his teachings as outlined in the New Testement were divine truth, might I not be able to use those teachings as a basis of law? To do so would at least move the argument from the purely subjective into the realm of the semi objective. (Differing interpretations would bring some subjectivity into the picture)

Now, I have said all of that to say this. Most of the "moral" laws in our nation have as their root the teachings of Jesus. You might say this is preposterous, that our moral laws are based on our perception of right and wrong. This view is not based on fact and utterly ignores human history. Human nature is self serving self preserving and self aggrandizing. Jesus teaches that true meaning in life comes through service and sacrifice. He was not the first to propose this idea, but his followers were more successful in propogating the teaching.

I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

I await your flames and responses to my challanges.

[goldcowboy]

Right on!

[Nate Finch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What - filing jointly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Community property, wills, spousal health coverage, credit ratings to name a few besides filing jointly.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry... perhaps you misunderstood. The original poster said that there were economic reasons as well as moral reasons not to allow gays to marry. So I was pointing out that allowing gays to marry in no way affects the general economics of the country as a whole.

Yes, I agree that those are some very good incentives to get married. It is not, however, a reason to ban gay marriage.

-Nate

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
I challange anyone to name a moral law that cannot be traced back to a teaching of Jesus. I also offer a different challange to those who are so inclined. Name a teaching of Jesus that cannot be defended as moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Thou shall not steal" - coming from Jesus before anyone else? Hardly. Hammurabi had no system in place to deal with stealing?

Also, the bricks of our democracy and juricial system came from the Greeks, before Jesus. The whole judicial system is more or less based on the thoughts of Socrates (the strength of the argument wins, etc.). In fact most of our values came from the Greeks. Christianity is an added, important, layer - not the whole foundation.

[adios]

Do those economic factors I mentioned drive up the cost for others? For instance would spousal health coverage in gay marriages drive up the cost of health coverage overall for employers? I have no idea if they would or not (I suspect not very much if any) but higher health care coverage costs to employers would be less incentive for employers to hire new workers. Would gay marriages place more burdens on the courts in resolving community property disputes (again I doubt that it would but don't know for sure) and thus ultimately increase taxes to alleviate the extra burden on the courts.

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if this was so, why should two of the same sex not enjoy the same rights that two of opposite sex enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they shouldn't? If I implied such I certainly didn't mean to do that and apologies if I did.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to. Simply exchanging arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
The post I responed to stated that there were minimal economic aspects to marriage and ask for examples to refute that. I provided these as a refutation of his point about the economic aspects of marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, perhaps this was directed more to the original poaster who seemed to imply that marriage is primarily about economy.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is a good operative definition of a religious fanatic?

[/ QUOTE ]

a fanatic of anything is one who's extreme zeal goes beyond what is considered reasonable. sure, Bush is a proclaimed Christian. so is Kerry. fanatic? not even close. people in general overuse the term "fanatic" way too often when confronted with a simple difference of opinion.

cheers!

[Mr. Graff]

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is a religious pragmatist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought four years ago. Had I been a US citizen I would have voted for him then. Now it seems obvious to me that he is driven by his own faith, not that of others.

[adios]

There are economic aspects to marriage no matter how inclusive marriage might be. Nate alluded to this, there are some very positive economic aspects of being married. I wasn't trying to delineate between positive and negative, just that they existed. FWIW I would think the positive economic aspects of Gay Marriage-Civil Unions would outweigh the negative. BTW didn't Bush say something positive about civil unions right before the election even though the Republican party platform opposed them? At least those are the facts as I remember them.