I don't disagree with that, but do you disagree that IN GENERAL a child is better off in two parent home than an single parent? I'm not saying there aren't exceptions - like if one of the parents is abusive.

Of course i agree that 2 parents are better than one. Less effort needed. I am saying that if there are intentions from both divorced parents there can be no difference. At least if the community that the child lives in, is not stupid.

Please don't think I'm putting the intentions of the parents, or the love for their kids, into question. I understand that people make mistakes (I made one once myself, I think), and that the vast majority of parentls love thier children dearly and and doing the best they can for them.

My original point was simply that if weakening marriage has the effect of creating more single-parent families, can't that be an argument against it that's not based only on religious beliefs?

Even that little "only" in your sentence is enough. Religion shouldnt play a part at a nations laws.

The problem is that if someone wants to find an excuse for something he will find it no matter what. I can find excuses for stopping the production of computer games, movies poker, everything. That doesnt mean i am right.

Okay, then should murder be legal because religion CAN be used as a reason to be against it? If a law can be justifed without using religion, it shouldnt' matter whether or not religion CAN be used.

Murder violates personal freedom, abortion or gay marriages doesnt.

Uh oh. You want to bring abortion into it? I would argue that abortion violate the personal freedom of the baby, but agiant that's another issue for another day.

And I was just refuting your point that because religion CAN be used as justification for a law, then the law is invalid. If you can justify the marriage amdendments by the negative effect that weakening marriage has on society, what difference does it make if religion can also be used as a justification?

I was saying that religion is not a reason for deciding if a law is valid or not. All i am saying is that a law should be decided by personal freedom. Religion should be neutral, not affecting anything, if someone want to believe or not, thats their business.

Somehow i forgot what are we arguing about..

Guys, this country was founded ON RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. Religion will always play a part in our laws as much as we might not want it to. Let us not forget that the seperation of church and state just says that the US will not favor any religion over any other, not that there will be no religuous influence at all. I was born Jewish and much do the dismay of my family I am not a religious person anymore because when I looked at the facts, organized religion seemed to do more harm than good and I want no part of it. That is MY OPINION. I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with me. I respect each other persons opinion and if they are willing I will state my case, listen to theirs, and we will talk about it. Will either of us change our minds? doubtful. But it does give me an insight into how the other person feels and vice versa. I don't feel its right for people to push their beliefs on others. Just because someone feels different than you, why does that make their opinion or belief less vaild? Grivek, I don't think the divorce rate is going to get much higher, its already at 50%. Its because of that fact that I dislike the "sanctity of marraige" argument. If marraige is so sacred, why do so many people get divorced? I also don't like the "slippery slope" argument for anything. I think you draw the line at two consenting adult humans. The reason why you can't marry your dog is because your dog doesn't have a way to convey its consent to marry you and can't sign its name. I'm serious here, people use that as an argument so I'm giving my counter argument. You can't marry a minor for sort of the same reason. They can't legally consent to much of anything. However I do feel that polygamy should be legal. If a woman wants to marry a man who already has 3 wives, and all 5 of them agree its a good thing, why should I stand in their way? Any two people who love each other should be able to express that and give it the same weight in the eyes of the law as any other two people.

I have to agree with Alex that if you pass a law banning something, you are forcing people not to do it. Most people usually follow most laws (I'm sure we've all sped once or twice or made a U-turn where it was techincally illegal). So if I were gay you would be forcing me not to marry my boyfriend because I am a law abiding citizen.

I actualy derive the majority of my moral values from my best friends. I disagree with a lot of my parents (Jewish) values. I sort of had to decide for myself what was right and wrong. I think its wrong for the government to tell two concenting adults that their love is not as vaild as the love that I share with my fiancee. I don't care about religious marraige. My marraige isnt going to be recognized in any church or temple. I just want everyone to have the same rights in the eyes of the law.

Good grief...I avoid the chat board for an evening to cut up a small-stakes home game and 20 responses suddenly spring up on this thread.

On the Bible being used to justify banning gay marriage -- this very same Bible was once held as THE reason Protestants and Catholics couldn't be married, but society seems to have survived this with no ill effects. This same Bible was then held as justification that a white person couldn't marry a black person. Again, society saw the light and seems none the worse for wear. Somehow, I suspect society will survive gay marriage just fine as well.

If you look within a couple chapters of the oft-quoted verses in Leviticus used to justify negative perceptions of homosexuality, you'll find several other edicts from God that society long ago cast to wind. I would argue that society is no worse off simply because I no longer follow God's law to not wear my cotton fibre blend polo to work.

The only reason why this is even an issue is because, unlike your gender or your skin color, which are readily apparent at first view, sexual preference remains enshrouded in a mist of secrecy and taboo. This enables it to be more easily and readily discriminated against.

Personally, I think we're on a collision course of science and religion on this one. Studies are moving more and more in the direction that human sexual preference is derived, at least in part, from genetics. The stronger this link is established, the harder it is going to be for the religious community to declare the behavior "sinful" and "wrong." Much the same as the church was finally forced to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe, I predict it will one day be forced to capitulate that homosexuality is not the sinful choice it has long been preached to be, but is instead a product of the genetic lottery and instilled by the very creator people purport to worship.

__________________
:cool:

To be successful in business, surround yourself with professionals. To be successful in poker, surround yourself with idiots.