CFA part Deux (Page 12)

This:

This my way (or God's way) or the highway type attitude applied across a broad spectrum of society runs contrary to both freedom and liberty.

secularism is not a religion.  It is absent nearly all of the defining traits of a religion.  And if you want to go further philosophically, there is no over reaching belief system involved with it past separation of church and state, no cultural system, nor spirituality in it.

Just because R. George says it is so, does not mean that it is so.  Have you not questioned thatquintessential assumption yourself?  Prove how marriage and procreation are connected and I'll bite, but you haven't done that, thus far.  I'm willing to read his writings when I get time, but as it stands now there are too many things in the natural world (and society) that tell me otherwise.

ETA: the single reproductive organism happens quite frequently outside of wedlock.  procreation does not marriage to be possible or exist, neither does marriage need procreation to exist.

Secularism is as much a faith based system as any other one.

For starters, what is the human secularist answer to why there is something rather than nothing?

Yes, it happens out of wedlock. In that case it's not marriage.

Within wedlock, it is marriage whether conception is effected or not.

Again, the argument is that only in marriage between one man and one woman to you get the full matrix,
emotional bonding, spiritual bonding, acts that are reproductive in type and thus point to fecundity, ect.

No other union does all of that. 
It is in a class by itself. 

No.

My appeal is an appeal to greater freedom, not less.

I think the sexual revolution agenda is about license, not freedom and liberty.

The constitution protects my natural right to bring my beliefs and opinions into the public square.

So you saying denying the right for a group to marry is more freedom not less? Yes you have your beliefs but you do realize that what you believe does in fact limit freedoms for other.  

Secularism protects against people living under rule of separate and different religions, that's it.

I don't understand your question about something rather than nothing?  Can you clarify for me please?  Not really sure what you're referring to.

So come join us and help out.

No one is denying the right of persons with same sex attraction (gay, lesbian, ect.) from marrying.

Freedom is the capacity to do what we ought, not what we want.
 

_______________

No.

Secularism attempts to impose it's belief system and values as much, if not more, than other systems. Certainly more than Christianity does.

Why does anything exist rather than nothing exist.
What's the human secularist answer to that? 

_______________________

The funny part is that is my thinking too on this subject to. You don't want to change the definition of marriage.

nm

formatting made me think Don wrote what Appa wrote

Well, you don't agree with me. I understand that.

However, that is my intention.

He is saying that by virtue of it being procreative it is "above" a non procreative union.  It produces something that a non procreative union does not and therefor the union itself is a level above.  I don't understand the judgement placed there as it pertains to unions.  And I don't understand the connection.  Why does the act "in type" (ie hetero) have any more importance than the act NOT "in type" (ie homo) when there is specifically no intention to procreate?  By looking at procreation itself you are looking at outcome.  You can't take into account only parts of the outcome, the outcome has to be taken as a whole in order to be consistent.

Do you not see how the first argument he makes starts out anti-homo (or maybe pro-hetero) on the basis of what, I don't know?  It basically says hetero is better because it can procreate so that's the only kind of union that works.  But when you look around homo unions are common.

First, most same sex couples in most of the US ARE denied the right to marry the person they love (I assume you support this, rather than the idea that people should be forced to marry someone they do not love). Saying they are free to marry, meaning they can marry a person of the opposite sex, means they should marry someone they do not love, and either break their vows by engaging in same sex relationships outside of marriage, or not be fully engaged in their marriage, both of which are more destructive to marriage than 2 dudes or 2 chicks marrying their lovers.

Second, freedom is the ability to make choices, whether good or bad. You are talking about making moral or ethical choices (doing what we ought, even if it is not what we want - I SHOULD feed the baby, rather than stick him outside when he cries). As a psychiatrist, I sometimes have to determine if a person should be forced to accept some sort of treatment against their expressed wishes. The bar is set very high in order to do so (as it should be), because we value the right to make our own choices. That is what freedom is.

________________________

This reminds me of what I tell my kids (mostly when they are fighting)

If you have hate in your heart there is no room for love.

Sorry about that.

If you're ever in Philly, I'll take you to Mass and buy you a beer.
You can have the beer first if that will help.  

I actually agree with you on this.  There are some scary churches out there that are not following the bible in their preaching and foster intolerance and exclusion.

Next time your back in Omaha I'll take you to Lifegate Church.  I can almost guarantee you it's a lot different than any church you've been to before.  

Not that it matters, but I was a very outspoken Athiest as well up until 2006.

I see where you're coming from on this and if you look at only from your desires being the dominant and winning out in the event secularization were nullified, then sure, it forces it's belief system on you because you can not have set according to your religious beliefs.  However, take the opposite assumption and islam wins, for instance.  Now what.  It's intended to have the greatest freedoms and keep infighting to a minimum.  I look at it as the absence of a belief system being forced on me.  Reason for it's implementation:

John Locke -  (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.

You can see these assumptions play out in truth in the Middle East today.

I don't know what you mean by "anything"?  Seriously, trees, abortion, clouds, religion, what?  You can't possibly be asking about "anything" because there are way too many things that exist to cover them all.  Are you trying to go down the God path here?