PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/23/marriage.ban.reut/index.html


This has to be the single most beautifuly clever peice of civil disobedience yet. My hat goes off to Benton County, they know how to push an issue. I don't think that this is going to make any straight people suddenly wake up and say "Hey now I know how it feels! My god what have we been doing?" but it's sure as hell fun to piss people off sometimes.

Thats really brilliant. This tactic will be especially effective if they actually manage to push through a constitutional gay marriage ban. Hard to argue that such a ban will protect the institution of marriage if the only locales that were allowing gay marriage in the first place stop allowing any marriage.

Benton County is one of the places where the Oregon Gay Fray started; I believe it was Corvallis "20-08" in 1990 or so that started the push toward Oregon Measure 9, Colorado Amendment 2, and, in the long run, the Vermont effort to recognize homosexual union.

I would say Benton is staking themselves with the Oregonian tradition that includes recycling laws and lightweight marijuana possession charges. Oregon has a great liberal streak running straight down I-5 and bleeding out toward the coast. I admit I figured it would have been Washington/Multnomah Counties or Lane County first, but Benton makes sense, as the University there is ... how much of the county? As much as half?

Finally, a step in the right direction, for possibly the most ridiculous issue ever!

I don't see how it's a rights issue. It would like me claiming not to have freedom of speech because there are laws against slander. If the right to freedom of speech is based upon definition, then so to must be marriage. For better or worst, I don't believe that a gay marriage is a marriage. While I do believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions, it would be lie for me to support gay marriage.

okinrus, slander, by definition, actually has the potential to hurt another person* [of legal significance in cases of slander are things such as reputation, business standing, social standing, etc.], people -- any people -- wanting to marry does not. Perhaps you could offer an example which is comparable in your objections to legally recognized gay marriage, or you could explain how people of a certain sexual orientation marrying each other could be harmful to anyone else. Thanks!


*I'm not sure I fully agree with this -- sticks & stones and all that -- but slander has a legal precedence predicated on the notion that it can cause harm.

okinrus, slander, by definition, actually has the potential to hurt another person* [of legal significance in cases of slander are things such as reputation, business standing, social standing, etc.], people -- any people -- wanting to marry does not. Perhaps you could offer an example which is comparable in your objections to legally recognized gay marriage, or you could explain how people of a certain sexual orientation marrying each other could be harmful to anyone else. Thanks!

Hurt is an entirely subjective, depending completely on the person. The best that you can say is that slander may be able to cause some amount of monetary "hurt" that must be compensated.

The principle(as was said by Paul) is that sexual immorality harms the participant since its a crime against our own body, but immorality will harm others as it has a contagious effect. If divorce wasn't seen as an easy way out, it would almost never occur. Still, evil in general is something contrary to God.

I believe the copy-cat effect can also be observed in other things such as suicides, school shootings, and rapes. Each sin breaks a natural barrier that would otherwise stop someone.

The fact of the matter, though, is that I don't have to believe that gay marriage is wrong; I can even believe it's even beneficial. Yet if I don't believe gay marriage is truly marriage then there's no sense lying by calling it marriage.

Hurt is an entirely subjective, depending completely on the person. The best that you can say is that slander may be able to cause some amount of monetary "hurt" that must be compensated.

The principle(as was said by Paul) is that sexual immorality harms the participant since its a crime against our own body, but immorality will harm others as it has a contagious effect. If divorce wasn't seen as an easy way out, it would almost never occur. Still, evil in general is something contrary to God.
This is not an argument against gay marriage. It is an argument against gay sex. If this is your position, then how can you even support civil unions?

The fact of the matter, though, is that I don't have to believe that gay marriage is wrong; I can even believe it's even beneficial. Yet if I don't believe gay marriage is truly marriage then there's no sense lying by calling it marriage.
No one is asking you to think that gay marriage is "truly marriage"(whatever that means to you), all thats being asked of you is that you allow other people to think that.

I think Benton should serve as a template for everywhere else in the world. They have flown against convention and appear to have recognised that the law should apply to all instead of just one group in society. Brilliant strategy and hopefully those who are prevented from marrying in the county, until the laws are settled on the issue of homosexual marriage, will see how it feels to be left out of something they considered to be a right. The best way to teach about discrimination is to discriminate the discriminators. I keep thinking back to the blue eye/brown eye experiments by Jane Elliot.

This is not an argument against gay marriage. It is an argument against gay sex. If this is your position, then how can you even support civil unions?

Someone can be against sin but for free will. The reason why I'm for civil unions is that while I don't believe that there is such a thing as gay marriage, there is a relationship. Since a civil union does not require any distortion of the meaning of marriage, yet offers gay couples to share their <em>own</em> property. It's none of my business how two people want to divide their property.


No one is asking you to think that gay marriage is "truly marriage"(whatever that means to you), all thats being asked of you is that you allow other people to think that.

I think the law as it is now allows any one to think that they are married. The question is whether goverment should recognize a marriage purely because the couple "thinks" they are married. Clearly not.

Someone can be against sin but for free will. The reason why I'm for civil unions is that while I don't believe that there is such a thing as gay marriage, there is a relationship. Since a civil union does not require any distortion of the meaning of marriage, yet offers gay couples to share their <em>own</em> property. It's none of my business how two people want to divide their property.


I think the law as it is now allows any one to think that they are married. The question is whether goverment should recognize a marriage purely because the couple "thinks" they are married. Clearly not.

it s none of your business who another person loves

The principle(as was said by Paul) is that sexual immorality harms the participant since its a crime against our own body,

As does religion. It harms the mind, nearly irreparably, but you don't see me running around shouting that you need to be stripped of your faith. The principal difference in this matter would be that I understand it's not our individual rights to dictate the lives of other individuals in matters where we are not concerned. Do us all a favor, stop being so nosey.

The question is whether goverment should recognize a marriage purely because the couple "thinks" they are married. Clearly not.

It's official, you are now the most dangerously stupid person I have ever had the misfortune to come directly into contact with.

In this argument you are asserting that it is the government’s duty to uphold your religious beliefs. This is utterly ridiculous. You keep touting your ideas about “the definition of marriage” which you have gleaned not directly from your religious teachings, but mostly from the thoughtless hateful rhetoric of your political religious right wing. Well I’ve got news for you, Oki, we are living under the rule of a secular government which is supposed to represent the interests of all of the people, and when we stand on the verge of an issue in which so many stand to gain, and no one stands to lose a thing, we can’t come up with a half-baked theological argument in order to stop justice from being done.

The very suggestion that somehow your religion’s views on marriage should be the single standard applied to all of the people of the United States isn’t just infuriating, it’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous to the very fabric of this nation. It’s people like you who would turn this nation into the exact same sort of religious fundamentalist state like we see in the Middle East, and I find that completely unacceptable. Today it’s one man and one woman, without any justifiable reason, tomorrow we’re back to a man and woman of the same race, and then only Christians (for by your reason how can a marriage among heathens and the Godless please the lord?). It’s a very good thing that there are so many Americans out there with enough sense to see your pretentious conservative movement for what it is and fight back. I’m afraid that despite your wishes we will remain a nation that values equal protection under the law.

Ahh, okinrus, I think we're on functionally different planets on this one then, as the concept of acts committed between consenting adults being immoral is pretty wacky to me. As with most "adult" activities [those which require the ability to adequately judge the circumstances & ramifications of the activity], I'm all about personal autonomy and consent. Really, little else can compete with that, to my view. So, once two [or three or five] people have consented to participate in an adult act, I'm pretty sure it's none of my business, nor is it yours or your god's, unless you are party to that act.

I think marriage is just such an adult act. In principle, I'm for any kind of marriage between any kind of consenting adults [yeah, polygamy is fine, group marriage is dandy]. However, I'm fundamentally against the gov't having anything to do with marriage, so truly, I don't think anyone should be able to get a state sanctioned marriage.

With the definition of marriage being a primary point for you, it sounds as though you agree that Benton County's decision is a good one. Is that correct? Would you accept gay "unions" if heterosexual couples were allowed by law only "unions" as well, and marriage was entirely removed from the realm of government?

Incidentally, an interesting law remaining on the books in my own home state is that if you "think" you are married and proclaim it so, you legally are married, provided both parties consent. Of course, they don't recognize queers who claim they're married, but I have hopes for a continuation of progressive thinking in this arena.

i don't know about anyone else but i was holding up a lighter to mystech's last post. i rarely (if ever, pftt) feel a twinge of anything but disgust and hatred for this country. it may have even been a flag lighter (which will later burn itself).

sense and the constitution will prevail. keep your religion out of my country.

sense and the constitution will prevail. keep your religion out of my country.

Hey, just remember that all those steeming piles of shit are resting on a golden foundation. America is still a noble ideal, we just have to work harder to stay true to it.

So, once two [or three or five] people have consented to participate in an adult act, I'm pretty sure it's none of my business, nor is it yours or your god's, unless you are party to that act.

First, I don't own my God or any god. Are you suggesting that three or five people can get married and supported by the goverment? If you are against the goverment endorsing marriages, how can you be for the goverment endorsing gay marriage? I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act, but I suppose that depends on the type of marriage.



Incidentally, an interesting law remaining on the books in my own home state is that if you "think" you are married and proclaim it so, you legally are married, provided both parties consent. Of course, they don't recognize queers who claim they're married, but I have hopes for a continuation of progressive thinking in this arena.

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?


With the definition of marriage being a primary point for you, it sounds as though you agree that Benton County's decision is a good one. Is that correct? Would you accept gay "unions" if heterosexual couples were allowed by law only "unions" as well, and marriage was entirely removed from the realm of government

I don't believe this is a rights issue. It's as impossible for me to marry a man as anyone else. Thus, even if I was for gay marriage, I could only view this as a deceptive technique--like Mystech's appeal to religious hatred and my own stupidty-- at forcing a law to be changed.

The matter does not concern religion. It's irrelevant why marriage means what it means to me or why it means something else to Mystech. So a religious argument, while having no bearing on the law, can indeed effect someone's meaning of a given word. Just like people would not know the meaning of God without religion. Perhaps Mystech might want to explain why the Spartans, where homosexuality was openly practiced, never considered it marriage? Now the Spartans were not being racist, bigots, or morons. They knew that marriage was between a man and wife.

Similarly, black's rights were not denied by marriages being of only the same race without assuming the superiority of whites. The truth of the matter is that a white couldn't marry a black and a black couldn't marry a white. Yet if both races are considered equal, as a person should, the restriction affected both whites and blacks equally. The rationale behind the distinction was, nonetheless, racist without making the distinction racist. When the rationale was rejected, there was no motive behind making the distinction between mariages.

I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act
soooo you're either from the south or utah

It's as impossible for me to marry a man as anyone else.
alrighty then, i guess i'm marrying a woman. so you are in support of same sex marriage afterall!

I'm sorry but this ban seems like a childish act, it's not going to solve any problem, it won't make anything happen any faster. leave the protesting to the people, not to it's administration.

okinrus:
Are you suggesting that three or five people can get married and supported by the goverment? If you are against the goverment endorsing marriages, how can you be for the goverment endorsing gay marriage? I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act, but I suppose that depends on the type of marriage.

If the government has to be involved in marriage at all [which I don't think it should be], then I believe that marriage between any number of consenting adults of any gender or sexual orientation should be legal and participants should receive all the "benefits" legal marriage bestows. What makes it an "adult act" are the things I listed in my last post; marriage involving children is a whole other kettle o' fish.

I don't think so. Do you have a reference?

In a former life I was a law clerk...I gotcher "reference" right here ;) Check out http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm. This is Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 2, and the part we're interested in is Sub-chapter E, succinctly entitled Marriage Without Formalities. The significant portion can be found in section 2.402, subsection a, part 2, which states "(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married." Taking a look at the entire sub-chapter will give you adequate context. This is also something I've discussed in-depth with a Texas family attorney, because I couldn't believe it at first either, and finally, something with which I have personal experience. Texans are wacky, though, there's no getting around it.

Really, as far as everything else you said, I'm having some trouble making sense of it. It sounds as though you're using semantic games to justify a desire to maintain a status quo that satisfies your interests, which I find to be a barrier to constructive discussion, not to mention a distasteful tactic.

Also, I say "your god" in the same way I'd say "your mother" [who I presume -- perhaps erroneously -- you do not own]. But, the distinction between ownership and identification might be semantically challenging, so, I apologize for the confusion.

like Mystech's appeal to religious hatred and my own stupidty

Well lets give credit where it's due here. I only hate religion when someone is trying to force their views on me. I'll admit, however, that I hate stupid people all the time.


The matter does not concern religion.

yes, despite your insistence that your theological views matter at all on this issue, it is certainly not a religious issue, maybe now you and the rest of the religious right can back off?

It's irrelevant why marriage means what it means to me or why it means something else to Mystech.

I think that that is very relevant. We're not mindless slaves to tradition and arbitrary rules, it's our job as citizens of the United States to make sure our laws and our government makes sense within it's own context.


So a religious argument, while having no bearing on the law, can indeed effect someone's meaning of a given word.

Yes, however if someone tries to impose their particular take on an issue in order to conform with their religious beliefs then that's nothing but government institutionalization of religious views. It's inherently immoral.

Perhaps Mystech might want to explain why the Spartans, where homosexuality was openly practiced, never considered it marriage? Now the Spartans were not being racist, bigots, or morons. They knew that marriage was between a man and wife.

Well that's a fine straw-man, do you really want me to justify the actions of a civilization that passed away thousands of years before either of us were conceived? I find that a bit hard to do. I don't even see how this is relevant, as by your own previous arguments a marriage between two ancient Greeks could not really be a marriage because they're a bunch of heathens with more gods than you can count. Their institution of marriage was much different than the Christian institution and different from the one we live under today, I don't see how we should be accountable to thousands of years old traditions that weren't even practiced in our own culture.

Similarly, black's rights were not denied by marriages being of only the same race without assuming the superiority of whites. The truth of the matter is that a white couldn't marry a black and a black couldn't marry a white. Yet if both races are considered equal, as a person should, the restriction affected both whites and blacks equally. The rationale behind the distinction was, nonetheless, racist without making the distinction racist. When the rationale was rejected, there was no motive behind making the distinction between mariages.

You're able to tie your mind in more knots than I thought was possible. Does cognitive dissonance come easily to your people, or do you have to work hard at it?

Well lets give credit where it's due here. I only hate religion when someone is trying to force their views on me. I'll admit, however, that I hate stupid people all the time.

You really shouldn't hate anyone.


yes, despite your insistence that your theological views matter at all on this issue, it is certainly not a religious issue, maybe now you and the rest of the religious right can back off?

I don't consider myself a member of the religious right. I do, however, defend my right and those in goverment's right to define words based upon their religion. It's part of the freedom to practice religion.


Yes, however if someone tries to impose their particular take on an issue in order to conform with their religious beliefs then that's nothing but government institutionalization of religious views. It's inherently immoral.

What are you suggesting Mystch? Am I to define every word by the opposite of what my religion defines it to be? My religion defines stealing, lying, and marriage. For marriage, it defines recognized and unrecognized marriages and things that are plainly just not marriage. Of course, behaving in a matter exactly opposite to my religion is just as religious as my religion. Who am I to say to a Satanist that he can't have his own personal definition? He can, and he can get it approved with enough votes.

Now, you're also showing a lack of trust in our democratic goverment, because quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors. I assure you that their meanings for the words "free", "right" and "man" may well have came from the bible.

You really shouldn't hate anyone.Why is it always the people who inspire hatred who say that?

Look, I agree. I don't hate you. I just think the world would be a better place if all the Christians went home to God now. They'd be happy, I'd be happy, real estate costs would come down, the job market would open up . . . . I do, however, defend my right and those in goverment's right to define words based upon their religion. It's part of the freedom to practice religion.Note the words "their religion". They can define words according to their religion however they want. You cannot execute those opinions as laws, however. This is the United States of America. Get used to it. Supremacy is not equality.Am I to define every word by the opposite of what my religion defines it to be?That's the difference between whether you want to think or merely obey.

God gave you a brain ... let me guess--are you going to say that rational thinking is a tool of the devil?Who am I to say to a Satanist that he can't have his own personal definition? He can, and he can get it approved with enough votes.And it can still be taken apart if it fails to preserve equal protection before the law.Now, you're also showing a lack of trust in our democratic goverment, because quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors. I assure you that their meanings for the words "free", "right" and "man" may well have came from the bible.(1) Many Christian clergy are homosexuals.
(2) The definitions do not come from the Bible, but from the person.

That second point, Okinrus, is rather important.

You know when critics accuse Christians of not thinking, either for themselves or at all? You know, the rhetoric about "blind sheep," and the stupidity of a flock that does whatever it's told despite the obvious ramifications? You know, the disparaging talk about the difference between reason and faith? The sacrifice of the intellect that most delights God?

Definitions from the Bible?

No. Definitions from their brains, from their characters, from their own selves.

If god knew that this whole "Definition" thing would become such a hot issue in this great nation, which is allegedly struggling to save its Christian soul, why didn't he put a glossary in the bible?

Why is it always the people who inspire hatred who say that?

Look, I agree. I don't hate you. I just think the world would be a better place if all the Christians went home to God now. They'd be happy, I'd be happy, real estate costs would come down, the job market would open up . . . .

I have not once attacked Mystech or any other gay. Although I've attacked certain actions that some people might do, I attack my own faults as well.


Note the words "their religion". They can define words according to their religion however they want. You cannot execute those opinions as laws, however. This is the United States of America. Get used to it. Supremacy is not equality.

I don't follow the distinction here since often times secular society defines words based upon religion. Take, for example, the right to freedom of religion in the consitution. Where is religion defined? Not by the secular society or the individual but by religions. What makes the word "God", the "Ten Commandments", and "Bible" have any meaning outside of religion? How can a court decide that the "Ten Commandments" are religious when they clearly have no meaning outside of religion? How can you define seculalism without religion?

Now, as you've probably guessed, quite a good portion of what I consider "religion" is just defining words. Shouldn't members of goverment have the right to practice my religion, that is, defining words and acting accordingly?


That's the difference between whether you want to think or merely obey.

God gave you a brain ... let me guess--are you going to say that rational thinking is a tool of the devil?

It is only an occasional tool. Not the rational process itself but the creation of a rational trap or circle. The Devil is more rational than we are, so in a direct confrontation of wits, we will surely loose.


(1) Many Christian clergy are homosexuals.
(2) The definitions do not come from the Bible, but from the person.

(1) Does not really matter. Though I would consider that if these people define marriage by the same bible, then they can only be as guilty as I am.

(2) Almost nothing comes from the person alone. Ok, so if that person uses Webster's dictionary for their definition of their marriage. But this dictionary probably uses religious sources along with literary ones. Basically, the dictionary uses popular usage of the words. Yet to say that popular usage is not formed by religion is false. Thus, using a dictionary can be just as "religious" as using the catechism.


You know when critics accuse Christians of not thinking, either for themselves or at all? You know, the rhetoric about "blind sheep," and the stupidity of a flock that does whatever it's told despite the obvious ramifications? You know, the disparaging talk about the difference between reason and faith? The sacrifice of the intellect that most delights God?




Definitions from the Bible?
No. Definitions from their brains, from their characters, from their own selves.

The brain. Well, given enough biblical exposure words are often times derived by one's faith without consciencly realizing it. Characters or personalities are both formed and part of someone's identity. I'm afraid, however, that a Christian pastor's belief in only one God might be stronger than his belief in freedom, suggesting that both God and the ideas of freedom may be encompassed by personality. Our own selves may decide what is right(ie., the belief that slaves should be free), but it clearly does not define the meaning of words, as is observed by any foreigner.

I have not once attacked Mystech or any other gay. Although I've attacked certain actions that some people might do, I attack my own faults as well.And?I don't follow the distinction here since often times secular society defines words based upon religion.First off, I don't doubt that you don't follow the distinction. More importantly, though, is that the rest of that is true to a certain extent, but not according to your supporting argument:Take, for example, the right to freedom of religion in the consitution. Where is religion defined? Not by the secular society or the individual but by religions. What makes the word "God", the "Ten Commandments", and "Bible" have any meaning outside of religion? How can a court decide that the "Ten Commandments" are religious when they clearly have no meaning outside of religion? How can you define seculalism without religion?The word religion is not defined by religions in this case; atheism is protected as a religious position according to the idea of "freedom of religion." Words like "God," "Ten Commandments," and "Bible" refer to ideas, the latter two more concrete than the first. The court can decide that the Ten Commandments are religious specifically because their primary authority is religious. Secularism without religion is ... humanity in a hitherto-unknown condition. But essentially, secularism can't be defined without religion. Without religion, secular means human insofar as what we might speak of as a "secular idea" bearing no consideration of religion is merely a "human idea." When you strip away all the artificial labels, you're still a human being.Shouldn't members of goverment have the right to practice my religion, that is, defining words and acting accordingly? That all depends on how the religious idea enters the civic arena. If one's only real objection to murder is that God says it's wrong, that's no reason to not enforce laws against murder. But if one's religious interpretations are effected within the civic sphere in such a manner as to restrict unnaturally and unfairly the freedoms of others, a better, more rational reason needs to be found.It is only an occasional tool. Not the rational process itself but the creation of a rational trap or circle. The Devil is more rational than we are, so in a direct confrontation of wits, we will surely loose.The sad thing is that there's allegorical truth in that; I hold myself answered.Does not really matter.Fair 'nuff. But just to be clear, for the record, your point that quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors and the assertion it is meant to buoy are similarly invalid.Almost nothing comes from the person alone. Ok, so if that person uses Webster's dictionary for their definition of their marriage. But this dictionary probably uses religious sources along with literary ones. Basically, the dictionary uses popular usage of the words. Yet to say that popular usage is not formed by religion is false. Thus, using a dictionary can be just as "religious" as using the catechism.You're only making my point for me:

• Fair enough: nothing that a person thinks on their own is independently their own.
• But we might ask here: One million people believe one-million different things about what God wants from humanity according to the Bible; some of these things contradict each other; can it be said that all one million interpretations are correct? So much for the eye of the needle.
• While the Bible, for instance, influences a person's definition of a word, so, too, does the person's other experiences and knowledge influence their perception and definition of what the Bible says.
• You're running from the point: If the definitions came from the Bible, there would be fewer conflicting definitions. To wit: Christianity, to me, is encapsulated largely by two passages in Matthew. But those words don't necessarily read the same, and can be construed so that one should be joyous when burned at the stake; "We're doing this because we love you; this will hurt us more than it will you." Be there a God in Heaven, at least the second part is probably true.

I would never endorse a system that leads to burning people at the stake, especially for those reasons. Yet if I leave it simply to those passages in Matthew (chs. 5 & 25, latter portions of each) without assessment of the rest of those chapters, the rest of that gospel, the rest of the Gospels, the rest of the Bible .... And then we move into a slightly different dimension, and this is where it becomes, well, I think it gets rather quite apparent, but it seems I'm wrong about that:

• All of what the Bible means to any one person is determined not only by the words on the page, but what those words mean to the person.

It's the same as two people having a different opinion about what a line in a song means. What, for instance, does this (http://web.stargate.net/soundgarden/cgi-bin/lyr.cgi?ly=slave) mean? Or this (http://web.stargate.net/soundgarden/cgi-bin/lyr.cgi?ly=kicks)? (Hint: They have something in common, aside from being by the same band.)

The only real difference is the consequences people choose to invest in the diverse opinions.Well, given enough biblical exposure words are often times derived by one's faith without consciencly realizing it. This is true, but to what extent?

Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist--it's amazing how much brainpower men devote to their penises, regardless of faith.

What I'm after is that there's plenty of influences. People in the business world talk business; people in the entertainment industry talk entertainment. By and large, the Biblical influence is minor; it is only apparent because the identifiable ideological commonalities among diverse people cover a range broader than the specialized world of insurance adjuster, industrial electrician, software designer, market analyst, parent, student, friend and social creature, member of family, &c.Our own selves may decide what is right(ie., the belief that slaves should be free), but it clearly does not define the meaning of words, as is observed by any foreigner.I disagree. A note I include in SFOG and other discussions from time to time is the usage note for the term "ad hominem (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem)." Simply, observe the discussion of the evolving usage of the term; this is a result of people defining words independently of what they actually mean.

Thus, while burning someone at the stake might seem cruel to you and me, if we are to love our enemies, and we are to do unto the least of His Brethren, it's not hard to see how some people arrived at the idea that it was a merciful thing to torture and execute people for witchcraft. The faithful sought to save the witches' souls, a reward certainly worth agony and death.

As perspectives change, so do definitions. When you get down to the practical, words are just words until you add up what they mean, and you can only figure what they mean by putting that meaning into action. In other words, words are just words until you add up what they do, what they communicate.

In order to apply any "definition" to a word, we must still define the words in that "definition."

We can agree, for instance, that it's best to "respect" people. But when we apply that word to measure our actions, what that definition means and how it informs, advises, and influences our choices is entirely up to us. There comes a point where one of our respect will equal disrespect in the eyes of the other.

The Bible influences definitions, but when you add it all up that influence is in its common connections between diverse people. In terms of individual decisions and action, the Bible is a very subtle influence, and even a minor one.

And?

The comments made by Mystech suggest that he was offended somehow by anyone disagreeing him. So I'm stating here that I do not believe that I'm better, more holy, or more good than Mystech. Yet I do have eyes that can see what is wrong, and I do not feel that I'm hypocritical by pointing out what is wrong.

But I'm not going to debate whether homosexual marriage is good or bad. I'm defending our leader's right to define words by their religious experience, knowing full well their are religion, and even sects of Christianity, that have looser definitions of marriage.


That all depends on how the religious idea enters the civic arena. If one's only real objection to murder is that God says it's wrong, that's no reason to not enforce laws against murder.

I don't think so.


But if one's religious interpretations are effected within the civic sphere in such a manner as to restrict unnaturally and unfairly the freedoms of others, a better, more rational reason needs to be found.

You're assuming your case has been made here, I think.


• Fair enough: nothing that a person thinks on their own is independently their own.
• But we might ask here: One million people believe one-million different things about what God wants from humanity according to the Bible; some of these things contradict each other; can it be said that all one million interpretations are correct?

My view is that the govermental law is not about correctness. While I do believe that the law should protected the innocent, minorities, and the weak, unless if the majority of the people support this view, then the goverment is already bankrupt.


So much for the eye of the needle.
• While the Bible, for instance, influences a person's definition of a word, so, too, does the person's other experiences and knowledge influence their perception and definition of what the Bible says.

Of course, I do not believe in the bible alone stuff. Yet this would all be collectively under religion. I know that some atheist are even inspired somewhat by passages in the bible. I defend their freedom to support views in goverment that might have been inspired by reading any number of religious texts. F

Furthermore, I believe that the separation between Church and State never asks why someone believes what they believe, but only looks at the objective "what" to determine if it is religious. While someone could have million religious reasons, that same person could have a billion secular reasons. Need I mention that the most common secular reason is money?


I disagree. A note I include in SFOG and other discussions from time to time is the usage note for the term "ad hominem." Simply, observe the discussion of the evolving usage of the term; this is a result of people defining words independently of what they actually mean.

In general, however, someone's perception of what the word "ad hominem" means comes from some, perhaps incomplete, knowledge of what it means. Very few words are just made up.


Thus, while burning someone at the stake might seem cruel to you and me, if we are to love our enemies, and we are to do unto the least of His Brethren, it's not hard to see how some people arrived at the idea that it was a merciful thing to torture and execute people for witchcraft. The faithful sought to save the witches' souls, a reward certainly worth agony and death.

Those burning witches were not trying to save the witches' souls. Although the torture was an attempt to gain a confession, the killing however seems to be stop the spread of influence.