I don’t think so, because everyone interprets the bible differently. Take, for example the gay marriage issue. Most anti-gay marriage people say that the bible forbids gay marriage. Some pro gay marriage people say that the passages in the bible that appear to argue against homosexuality really argue against loveless marriages.
I think that it’s totally presumptuous to deny gay people of the ability to define who they are and express themselves through the intimate association our society prizes most highly based on your personal interpretation of the bible. This is not only disrespectful, but also dehumanizing.
I’m not religious, but I don’t think that God should be brought into political arguments. Unless you’ve talked to him, do you really know what he wants?
O.K., Claire let’s talk about this.
It is disrespectful and ignorant for you to claim the Bible is being misinterpreted when it so clearly defines a prohibition that you do not agree with. Wishful thinking will not change the text nor the intent of what has been written. Do not pretend to understand religious sources more than those who study and adhere to them, it only makes you look uneducated and pliable to social engineering.
Marriage is essentially a religious practice that has been so long a part of our many cultures that it is codified into law. This has been a tradition from all parts of the civilized world. It might be argued that it is a defining element of civilization. It was not created by the State as much as adopted by the State from the Church. There have been times in the distant past where the two were in reality the same, but not in America. Our founding laws divided civil consequences from religious practice. Marriage is a religious issue far more than it is a political issue.
In America, people of like gender are as protected in civil rights as anyone else, they have the right to vote, to work, to happiness, protection, to transfer property, to include each other in medical or other moral or legal decisions, all available to them under current law, any proficient lawyer can aid them in whatever legal arrangements they desire, so there is nothing ‘dehumanizing’ in allowing other people to adhere to their religious beliefs. Religion does draw a line and this varies from sect to sect, but almost universally for those that uphold the Bible, forbids gays the religious sanction of the bounds of marriage, and sets it as a prohibited practice. The Bible also forbids other practices such as killing and stealing and other things that are deemed counter productive to the way of life of believers. In America, belief can not enforce by law, nor should belief be tortured by law.
This issue of gay marriage is not a political cause, it is an attack on religion and upon our basic civil rights. By using this issue to remove the separation of Church and State, the precedence will have been made and curiously, could also be forced the other way. The public mind might one day seek to establish a State religion enforced by law. By making this error now, all it would take is a charismatic leader to advocate ‘for the good of society,’ a single belief system that would be enforced by law. Under such a system, you would have to adhere, profess to believe, or be refused the rights of the State, such as you now enjoy. Perhaps even to the right of your life and property, or to the nurturing of your children. That is the danger of forcing a political correction on a protected practice formed from belief. This has happened in varying degrees in the past and present, it likely will happen again in the future. We do not want it to happen here! Do not tamper with our basic rights, you don’t know the full extent of the consequences. No one does.
Let religion alone to be what it is — the exercise of belief. Here in America, people are allowed the peaceful exercise of religion or to have no religion at all. Belief is not superior in law over the non belief neither is non belief upheld as superior in the law. Let people believe how, where or what they may, so long as we can all continue to enjoy the basic freedoms we enjoy. To have the balance that we now have is more than good, it is a calming force on our society. We co-exist, usually peacefully. Remember, as much as this seems to be an issue here, this could not have even been a calm public debate in many other countries in the world. So long as we can maintain our rights, all of us enjoy the same protections, including people of same sex orientation.
Political force on religion would be as incorrect as religion being forced on the body politic. This principle seems simple and it is.
These religious hacks tend to ":justify": everything by using the Bible.
":Justify": is not synonymous with ":prove,": however.
If you political arguement is religious in nature I would say yes.
And please show me in the constituion where it says you have the right to be married.
It’s a religious ritual.
Jesus and God in the Kingdom of Heaven rule all and we only follow what they say.
Funny you have such opinions of the Bible without knowing it’s contents.
BTW – I’m far from perfect but I do talk to God. More importantly I listen. You should try it.