My dad might have thought so, or at least cringed at the thought of the right wing Christians (Christian Coalition Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell Moral Majority) passing a lot of political agenda that could be oppressive to non-Christians.
Dad favored Judaism, especially the simplicity of justice, mercy, walking humbly with God (ATM can help me here....)
Dad did not directly mention homosexuality to me, but he was indirectly very much concerned for their welfare (and for that of others) should Christians gain political power and agendas. He would say that history showed Christians were martyred to lions, and then later Christians martyred others to lions.
He was sad when I converted about my 20th birthday (without really understanding Christianity). He thought it was a demonstration of affiliating with hatred.
In the United States, it would be very reasonable and fair if a homosexual man or woman could simply (logically) substitute a same-sex adult for an opposite-sex adult in marriage. After all, America is supposed to be free from religion, and marriage reduced to a functional and legal secular equivalent. Hold the phone. Religion ain't letting go of politics and the law. I think what killed the Equal Rights Amendment was gay marriage, more than abortion no questions asked or the conscription of women.
If 85% of Americans believe in some sort of God, 15% do not. But their government presumes the existence of God, does it not? Yeah, so do I. But I don't tell 300 million people what to do.
1. What are European countries, Canada, etc. protecting their citizens from with regard to organized religion?
2. How would America be different if it were run by a government run by European guidelines?
Anecdotes---
Red Dwarf-- Religion is an excuse for people to be extremely crappy to one another. Think Northern Ireland (it's a turf war)
I am already comfortable with the idea that the state sometimes need to protect us from other people-- for example, that is why we have the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to punish NTs who despite all attempts to educate/enlighten them to be open and fair, still do not want to treat us equally, and the state affirms our dignity by saying, "no this will not be tolerated." Or the Violence Against Women Act.
This is simply taking individual protection up a notch to collective protection.
I could even envision the military being told they exist to protect the country from organized religion run amok from within, or even foreign jihad (Islamization of Europe by the sword during the reign of the last (next) pope (Peter the Roman), if prophecies of Nostradamus hold out).
Next pope? Last pope? Saint Malachy wrote a list of all the popes, purportedly, until Christ comes back. We are on the penultimate pope (the next to the last), so enjoy it while it lasts? He wrote a phrase for each pope.... for Roman, he wrote,
he will serve the saints in a time of trial/trouble/tribulation, when the city of the seven hills (Rome) shall be destroyed, and then the Terrible Judge will judge the people....
Yes, even a Christian will agree to that, Wondering1.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists cherish the separation of church and state. The nightmare SDA end times prophecy, and I am serious, is the United States enforcing a law to go to church on Sunday (the mark of the beast), and jailing and/or killing the SDAs because they only go to church on Saturday (the mark of the saved). It would be a Bible banging president who would lead the nation to do it too.
Besides, there is so much rivalry within the "Christian" church that the top dogs could wind up lion food, who knows, over time.
Yes....... but lemme guess the top 10
1. We'd be in the Kyoto treaty
2. We'd act multilaterality in military affairs or not act at all, have a smaller military, though we'd probably still have a volunteer army
3. We would not have the death penalty
4. We would have gay marriage
5. We would generate a lot more power from nuclear or renewables, and certainly would import a lot less oil
6. We might be more even handed toward the Palestinians in their struggle versus the Israelis, who as Carter has reported in his book Peace not Apartheid, haven't quite figured out how to make friends and encourage peace
7. Health care is a national good, not a corporate or private good
8. Perhaps we could negotiate our way out of some of our world crises: Iran, maybe give back Guantanamo to Cuba and drop the damn embargo, instead of implying "mine is bigger than yours and I can shove it deep into yours"
9. Better mass transit
10. Far better schools, with respect to math, science, foreign language, and maybe high tech/computers, and for the few who earn it, free or low cost higher education
A greater number of cultures and languages in close proximity in a land mass with peninsulas and rivers, as described in Jared Diamond's book
Guns, Germs and Steel, mean that technological change disseminates quickly, as did military technology at one time. Isolationist imperial China in a single flat land mass did not have an impetus for change and was a sitting duck when change sailed in from Europe, though it almost discovered Europe by accident.
"How would America be different if it were run by a government run by European guidelines?"
Would you like an honest opinion?
Can you add anything erkolos, wondering1, anyone from UK, et cetera
What about Islam in the UK? From what I am reading from Hal Lindsey, maybe 5% of the country is turning on to it.
So much for Clash and Rock de Casbah
Tony Blair was also advised that he should never, under any circumstance, mention God.
It makes me distraught to live in a country where politicians are encouraged, under any circumstance, to mention God.
I am already comfortable with the idea that the state sometimes need to protect us from other people-- for example, that is why we have the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to punish NTs who despite all attempts to educate/enlighten them to be open and fair, still do not want to treat us equally, and the state affirms our dignity by saying, "no this will not be tolerated." Or the Violence Against Women Act.
This is simply taking individual protection up a notch to collective protection.
I could even envision the military being told they exist to protect the country from organized religion run amok from within, or even foreign jihad (Islamization of Europe by the sword during the reign of the last (next) pope (Peter the Roman), if prophecies of Nostradamus hold out).
Next pope? Last pope? Saint Malachy wrote a list of all the popes, purportedly, until Christ comes back. We are on the penultimate pope (the next to the last), so enjoy it while it lasts? He wrote a phrase for each pope.... for Roman, he wrote,
he will serve the saints in a time of trial/trouble/tribulation, when the city of the seven hills (Rome) shall be destroyed, and then the Terrible Judge will judge the people....
Oh come on! This is mere conjecture and is most unlikely to happen and it's actually quite annoying to see your just uncritically spouting such tales.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
May I get some clarification here? Are you saying that Gay marriage should not be allowed, but Gay Civil Unions should?
It could be different for you in your country, but marriages here are a civil matter. You can of course choose to be married in a church but the marriage itself is a civil matter.
A civil partnership has "most" of the same rights as marriage except for the rather critical one of not being able to say the m word which may cause problems in some scenarios. My own view is that there is absolutely 0 legitimate reason to prohibit marriage between 2 consenting adults - same sex or opposite sex.
As for general seperation of church and state that is one I strongly support. The government's rightful place is protecting people's rights and no more. Sadly no such ideal government exists and so politicians still let their religious views create a conflict of interest. One need only look to the objections to stem cell research or cloning for proof of this.
I am sure there are non-Abrahamic religions that would be absolutely happy to do gay marriages. The Buddhists. Peace and love to you.
If the Jews, Muslims and Christians can agree on anything, it is an insult to God to claim that His religion can make room for gay marriage, so I do agree with Zach on that one.
One Muslim Web site the guy writes, [women should not go around almost naked...... why not respect a woman with her clothes on for her intelligence heart and so on?] and a Christian like me is thinking, dang it, that is what we ought to say.
I am wary of calling Buddhism a religion. I know a number of Buddhists, and they do not believe in God. It's a complex theology. It was, at its origin, atheistic.
You know? I think that my sensibilities (anti-materialist) correspond to that attitude...Why should women be objectified? I do not think, however, that you should oppose their right to dress as they please.
A religion is "philosophy put into practice, with ritual" essentially. Buddhism is just as much a religion as any other.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
May I get some clarification here? Are you saying that Gay marriage should not be allowed, but Gay Civil Unions should?
It could be different for you in your country, but marriages here are a civil matter. You can of course choose to be married in a church but the marriage itself is a civil matter.
Yes. Here we identify marriage as being a theonomical matter. Civil unions are a civil matter. Gay Marriage, unfortunately, falls under the jurisdiction of a Church. I do not like the church. I am not a fan of organised religion. I do believe, however, that separation of church and state works both ways. If a church wishes to realign then it should. If it does not? The state should not impose itself. Of course a marriage is also legally binding!
What country do you live in?
In the US and UK at least, marriage is an entirely civil matter which can be performed with a secular ceremony or via a minister of religion. Me and Amy were married in such a civil ceremony because quite simply my own religious views do not prescribe any particular form of wedding ceremony and neither do Amy's.
I am sure there are non-Abrahamic religions that would be absolutely happy to do gay marriages. The Buddhists. Peace and love to you.
If the Jews, Muslims and Christians can agree on anything, it is an insult to God to claim that His religion can make room for gay marriage, so I do agree with Zach on that one.
One Muslim Web site the guy writes, [women should not go around almost naked...... why not respect a woman with her clothes on for her intelligence heart and so on?] and a Christian like me is thinking, dang it, that is what we ought to say.
I am wary of calling Buddhism a religion. I know a number of Buddhists, and they do not believe in God. It's a complex theology. It was, at its origin, atheistic.
You know? I think that my sensibilities (anti-materialist) correspond to that attitude...Why should women be objectified? I do not think, however, that you should oppose their right to dress as they please.
A religion is "philosophy put into practice, with ritual" essentially. Buddhism is just as much a religion as any other.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I refer to points 1 and 2. 
3, 4 and 5
In common parlance, religion means "a system of beliefs and values".
But why does a civil union fall short of a marriage functionally? What doesn't it do? Say God?
Mrs. Meads was married without the aid of an official of God, thank you. I think the entirely legal marriage functions well, there are two daughters, they will probably grow up to become like her, I presume everyone is happy.
So why wouldn't a secular legal civil union work the same?? She probably knows a few people who could benefit from civil unions and certainly wishes their day will come.
A civil partnership has "most" of the same rights as marriage except for the rather critical one of not being able to say the m word which may cause problems in some scenarios.
The mere fact that there is a seperation is a problem. Civil partnerships are "second class marriages". Aside from this, there are still cases where a civil partnership may not be enough - such as some hospitals who will only allow a spouse or other next of kin to visit and define this as "someone who is married".
If you want to make something "as good as marriage" why not just have marriage?
The only real objection to gay marriage is a religious one. 2 loving homosexual adults should not be discriminated against. In the case of religious objection I believe it is fine for a church to refuse to bless an individual marriage, regardless of how bigoted that refusal is but I do not believe that the state should give in to such bigotry.
Some people make the very silly argument that gay marriage would in someway undermind straight marriage, I can't see how. I don't care whether or not there's someone else out there who married the same sex, it has no bearing on my own marriage.
Remember that gay rights are not all that different from autism rights in many aspects, if autistics had to get a civil partnership instead of marriage then i'd be willing to bet nobody on this forum would have a positive view. Sadly that has not been extended to homosexuals by everyone, despite the very high number of LGBT autistics around and the similarities between the 2 groups' struggles.
Does religion threaten heterosexuals too? Atheists? Feminists? Women? I've read Backlash by Susan Faludi for example. The Christian church in general gets some of the blame for perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse in rural areas by being silent, and for the underlying theme of male domination.
What the churches do not teach (a dangerous half truth, a lie) is that the father-husband has to serve his wife/children not abuse them. You see it in Ephesians: chapters 5 and 6, everybody submit to everybody please.
He has to listen to his wife, love her, help with the chores to lighten her load, give her a break when she is stressed...... he has to listen to the kids, let them know he cares, hug them, but provide firm discipline boundaries with consequences, to teach that God does the same.
If you think Ephesians lets the husband sit on the Lazy Boy, be a lazy boy, beer up, belch, and watch the Bowl, read it a little more carefully.
Very good point there. All too often, the Bible is read very selectively to support the idea that it is just the women who should submit to men.