Comments on: Are churches the “whites only” businesses of modern day?

By: karhu

karhu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:16:29 +0000

There is a concept of secular morality.

By: bornslacker

bornslacker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:49:07 +0000

"You think that societies do not have a right to dictate laws based on morals. "

EXACTLY

By: karhu

karhu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:33:27 +0000

I think we got to the crux of the argument and found ourselves on opposite sides.

You think that societies do not have a right to dictate laws based on morals.
I think they have a moral obligation to enforce such laws for the good of society.

We will have to agree to disagree.

By: bornslacker

bornslacker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:25:41 +0000

Well… YOU call it an atrocity. I do to. I think it's sick. I'm sure 99.99999999% of people would agree with you. Again we can't put civil rights to a vote. However, one could make a secular argument that incest causes retard babies, which is bad for society.

However, marriage doesn't always produce children. Also, not being married doesn't prevent incest. Perhaps sex between fertile heterosexual relatives should be outlawed.

… but this is another argument.

By: karhu

karhu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:03:23 +0000

Which nobody in a healthy society would want.
Shouldn't they decide to make a rule which would prevent such atrocities from happening?

By: bornslacker

bornslacker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:50:52 +0000

If no secular reason could be given and the only objection is my moral objection…

Yes.

By: karhu

karhu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:40:33 +0000

So, a man can divorce his wife and marry is daughter as soon as she turns 17?

By: bornslacker

bornslacker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:39:19 +0000

… any other consenting adult."

and before you start in with polygamy, I'm not sure that I have a problem with that. I might have a moral problem with it, but off the top of my head I can't think of any secular reasons why that shouldn't be allowed.

By: karhu

karhu — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:29:34 +0000

I concede the point that marriage never changes.
Growing up post civil rights movement you forget that in their history black where seen as subhuman.

What laws would you have them replaced with?
"Any legal adult can marry… "
Finish that sentence.

By: bornslacker

bornslacker — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:57:51 +0000

You said, "Marriage ever changed… no"

Sorry sir, you are incorrect. Marriage HAS changed. The laws regarding marriage HAVE changed.

"Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes interracial sex between whites and members of other races. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed "miscegenation." Contemporary usage of the term "miscegenation" is less frequent. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1949 until 1985"

Again, I'm not seeing the argument. I see you asserting "There are many secular laws (that I don't like) that are in place to keep our society as stable as possible"

That's not an argument. That's stating that someone put laws in place and you don't think we should change them. I think we should.

I've listed the reasons as to why I think we should change them. We should change them for the same reason we changed the laws regarding marriage between mixed races.

Why should we not change the laws? Because it keeps society stable? How so?