TED Conversations

John Smith

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should a religious basis be reason for dismissal of a law by high courts in secular countries?

Should high courts in secular countries, such as the US supreme court dismiss clearly religiously based laws, such as the "Defense Of Marriage Act" (which forces Abrahamic views of marriage on government institutions and regulations) since such laws effectively turn purely religious views into secular law since the secular constitutions of secular nations advocate against theocracy?

I would answer "yes" to this question but am interested in potential backfiring of such a rule if people can come up with this. So debate away...

P.S. I know there are people who reject secular government altogether, this debate is not for them. The starting point of this discussion is that secular constitutions exist and are accepted by a majority of the population as well as supported by various ethical and logical arguments.

Topics: Separation Church-State freedom from religion gay rights personal freedoms religions secularism
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Feyisayo Anjorin 50+

    • 0
    Jan 2 2013: I did science in secondary school, and we were taught about the reproductive system. The anus was never listed as part of it; so for me, science provides the strongest arguement and loudest voice against gays.

    • John Smith 30+

      • 0
      Jan 2 2013: Do you also believe people who are infertile, have gone through menopause or have been sterilized should not marry? Would you let gay people marry if they adopted a child, had one from an earlier relationship or used a surrogate mother or sperm donor to gt a chilld?

      Why do I ask even though I already know your answer? To expose that your "argument" is nothing but an attempt to hide the indefensible bigotry from leviticus (and I bet you do eat shellfish).
      • thumb

        Feyisayo Anjorin 50+

        • 0
        Jan 3 2013: Gay people have a right to their relationships. I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; homosexual relationship should have another name.
        Would you not be bothered if dictactors and communists call themselves democrats?

        • John Smith 30+

          • 0
          Jan 3 2013: "I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"

          It is your right to believe that, it is not your right to enforce that belief on other people. Anyway, why did you pretend to care about reproduction when you retreat from that issue the moment someone starts prodding? Why was it so hard to admit you have no logical reason to oppose gay marriage?

          "Would you not be bothered if dictactors and communists call themselves democrats?"

          Wow, what an analogy, immediately thinking of dictators and anal sex when an LGBT topic comes up, is that what passes for "love thy neighbor" these days? I wonder what the hindus and animists would think of your puppyish religion (not even 2000 years old) usurping ownership of the word "marriage".

        • Gordon Barker 10+

          • +1
          Jan 5 2013: "Would you not be bothered if dictactors and communists call themselves democrats"
          Yet it would, but it would not bother me if they called themselve Republicians.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.