General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

what the hell?

here's what i want

Give homosexuals the rights and benefits with NO added taxes to homosexuals jsut as other heterosexuals take for granted. let the GOVERNMENT acknawledge that they are together as a union. let the Religious institutions of this country take care of their religious matters on their own.

If you still don't like that, i'm willing ot also change the word "marriage" alltogether for "Civil Union" because marriage is a word that is older than this country and perhaps even older then Europe, it is in fact a word derived from religious retuals between man and woman. SO whether it is correct or not, lets change the wording.

Everyone here has been complaining about "oh religious this" "oh but its a sin" "oh we don't want to hear that... because its been working for the last 2000 plus years"
so i gave an athiestic viewpoint, what you don't like that?

If they change it for both hets and homos, I will personally lead the fucking parade!!!!

This is a very long topic, so I will just post my views.

On one hand, SF is breaking the law by marrying gay couples, and that's wrong no matter how you look at it. Gays are natural, in my opinion, I believe that people are born gay, not just wake up one day and want to like guys. However, they have an abnormality. After all, the whole point of our existence is to make life and they can't do that if they like someone of their same sex. There's a morality issue here to letting gays get married.

Then again, if it makes them happy, I DON'T CARE. As someone who believes that gays don't choose to be gay, and as a true agnostic, why not let the poor bastards have a little joy on their life, eh? It doesn't threaten me and my future marriage vows.

So anyway, I see both sides.

sigh...
guardian: think about it this way.
Can an animal really CONSENT to having sex?
In actuality, having sex with an animal is like having sex with a 3 year old child; the same amount of mental processes exist in a 3 year old child as they exist in a dog for instance through nearly all of its life. That's why it is "two CONSENTING adults".

Logically, that "beastiality next" argument falls flat on its back, every time.

The reason just making it civil union in the eyes of the government is fine though. But, it would have to apply to everyone, straights and gays alike. Let peoples OWN religions acknowledge their "holy" union; some churches DO support gay marriage, you know.

moonspoon:
you aren't exactly a genius. People are predictable.

Marrige is older than Europe blah blah blah.....

Marrige is a word. A 7 letter WORD. And I quote:

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

Or something like that. The point is marrige is just a word. Homosexuals should be able to use it as well as Hetrosexuals and then in your little minds you can decide that the term marrige is different for both sexualitys if you must.

Love is also just a word. Why cant different sexualities use that word? And then again, if you must. Your mind can tell its a different type of love.

There realy isnt any difference. I say give them the right to marry and then those opposing it can just pretend that marrige had two meanings.

The issue here is not about gayness. Its about anarchy. Its also about the far left, who flames who they want and leave other topics alone. When Judge Roy Moore wouldn't remove the 10 Commandments there was a huge media outcry. Where are those same folks here? If a republican mayor were to declare it legal to carry concealed weapons even though state law prohibited it, what would happen? It is protected by the 2nd Ammendment right? Its not gay marriages that are the issue, its the refusal to obey LAW THAT WAS DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE. Government is OF the people and FOR the people. If you are in a large family you may have been in the situation of being outvoted by other family members on a subject (for me its where to go out to eat). Thats what the gays are dealing with right now; they are a HUGE minority. And if there is then an argument that minorities must be protected, what about polygamists, what about incest, if a brother wanted to marry his sister, shouldn't they be able to? If a father wanted to marry his 18 yr old daughter, couldn't he be married to his wife and daughter? Its not fair to discriminate them either. Unless of course we come to the issue of morality. Is it not moral for a father to marry his daughter and wife?? Well, homosexuality was also considered immoral for a very long time. Its only now, in this "liberated" society that gays have really made their case publically (yes, I know there have been gays for at least 3 thousand years). Is the standard then malleable? If so, and it is so because of what we have seen, will we not see polygamist marriages in the future? The issue in this case in SF is law, the overall issue is marriage. What defines marriage? It just be man and woman, woman and woman and man and man, because what about those that want man and 2 women. Haven't they violated rights to a persuit of happiness? What if someone finds happiness in two wifes? You tell him its unconstitutional. Peace-j

OMG, I can't leave! If a law is discriminatory, it is just fine in my opinion to challenge it and fight for change. Especially in a situation where SF is only breaking the law they feel is discriminatory and in reality are causing no real harm to anyone nor putting anyone in any danger of any sort. If the state of California is not recognizing gay marriages, the fact that San Francisco is 'allowing' them is nothing more than an act of civil protest really. It is that city's way of stating that is thinks the law is wrong. I'm sure Vietnam war protesters, Civil rights protesters, Suffrage protesters, etc. all broke laws somewhere along the way. I really don't hear many people villifying them or saying they were wrong to do what they did. I'm sure at the time many people cried foul but history shows that your nation took the right path on these issues, but needed the push the civil disobedience provided.

As for this leading to polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. These are the war cries and fear mongering of scared and pathetic individuals with little or no real arguments to hang onto. None of these are equivalent to homosexuality. Allowing bestiality is so absurd in nature that it shouldn't even need to be addressed. Incest is by nature a coercive situation where one family member takes advantage of his/her power to coerce a second unconsenting family member into acts of sexuality. This by definition could never be a relationship between two consenting adults. Even if both family members say they are consenting, it is almost certain that years of control and brainwashing have lead to the weaker individual saying this. Laws against incest are not discriminatory, they are protective. Polygamy is the only interesting argument here, but again does not really hold up. Many religions and cultures around the world allow polygamy and by arguing a freedom of religion, one could argue that polygamy should be a legal option in the U.S. However, most women in polygamous cultures are also very heavily discriminated against and polygamy can also be seen as being an infringement on human rights. Oppresed women are very apt to accept polygamy as a norm, but that does not mean they want or like it. Sometimes religious freedom infringes on personal freedoms and when this happens it is ok for the government to legislate in favour of personal freedom.

Finally, I agree with Rage. Marriage is just a word. The definition of it is whatever you make it to be. If you don't want your church to marry gay people because you think it is wrong for religious reasons, lobby your church. The federal and state definitions of marriage do not have any religious meaning, therefore you can not argue against the right of gays to be married in a civil ceremony based on religious reasons. It is an irrelevant argument to the issue at hand. This would seem to be the very cornerstone of separation of church and state to me.

OMG, I can't leave!  If a law is discriminatory, it is just fine in my opinion to challenge it and fight for change.  Especially in a situation where SF is only breaking the law they feel is discriminatory and in reality are causing no real harm to anyone nor putting anyone in any danger of any sort.  If the state of California is not recognizing gay marriages, the fact that San Francisco is 'allowing' them is nothing more than an act of civil protest really.  It is that city's way of stating that is thinks the law is wrong.  I'm sure Vietnam war protesters, Civil rights protesters, Suffrage protesters, etc. all broke laws somewhere along the way.  I really don't hear many people villifying them or saying they were wrong to do what they did.  I'm sure at the time many people cried foul but history shows that your nation took the right path on these issues, but needed the push the civil disobedience provided.

I'm not saying its wrong to challenge it. The problem is it was done incorrectly. The case Roe vs Wade was done and settled IN COURT. If people think there problems will not be properly addressed in a court of law, therein lies the problem. But unless that argument is made, these things must be done in court! How can we expect to live in a civilized country if we do not obey the laws that this country was founded on. If they have a problem, they go to court. That is why it is there. Peace

your saying to me that these acts are wrong, why cannot you imagine what it was like 40 + years ago, when blacks were gaining rights, i'm sure that some fathomed that "oh great if we let those n*****s in our homes and schools..blah blah blah.. those ***** will try to do the same."

If thats true, then why cannot polygamy be allowed? think of it as in Meretrix situation, he pays more because the law sees him as a single AND with a partner therefore tax him higher, it dosent recognize that he is in a union with his partner. plus making money has changed the family home, most often times both mother and father work to keep the house and family going, this was not the case 50 years ago, so as the need to keep our families going. and in religions such as mine why could'nt it be allowed? I'm saying this in the form of economic household problems, and doesn't mean they'd be oppressed women why on Gods green earth would a woman even accept polygamy UNLESS she knew some of its drawbacks (like husband not being home all the time).

I did say that beast-sexual was an extreme point of view, but isn't this situation an extreme point of view compared to the past? if you told gays would fight for their rights to somebody in the sixties they'd laugh in your face, just as your belittling me right now when i say, what happens in 20-30yrs from now, the beast-sexual folks want the RIGHT to be able to have sex with animals.
I wasn't saying marrying animals, but granting the right to be with animals. Whether it be consenting or not, plus all animal rights really care of is basic care and well being of the animal. It makes no differnce if the creature knew what the hell was going on anyways, and to the person they'd be perfectly fine with that.


If there were laws put in place saying that homosexuals could not have sex with each other, which by they way there were, and such laws are also in place to hold back polygamy, beastiality, and incest. What is to say they won't be changed in the future? for incest, its none-of your business if they're doing each other, just as its none of my business if homosexuals are having sex, because that IS there personal freedom, and its not infringing on yours. if the two SAY they are consenting adults.

plus what is to say that incest and beastiality are genetic? that they are imbalance hormones in the head (more so for beastiality then incest), which would effect people to behave this way?

yes i do believe its fathomable in this "liberated" society.

all i'm saying guys is this. ]

40 some years ago everyone thought that with equality and protection of race/sex/and religion would be just what the world ordered and thats all the world needed. today we have the equality and protection of those who differ through sexual preferance, this time being homosexual (lesbian,gay, and bi) what is to say as some of your saying (just what the world needed) line. That in 40years from now ANOTHER group will come up, does this endless spiral seem ok?

Things change, this is a time where America decides which way to turn, and while i believe homosexual deserve their rights just as anyone else does to take care of their partners. What happens when this becomes the social norm, and another group gets the courage to ask for their rights and for the law to be changed?


These are fears, and while they might not hang on to homosexuals gaining their rights. Can you see the picture that i'm trying to show you? and do you even like it?

p.s. why change the word? because marriage has religious backgrounds, the word i mean, a civil Union is more fitting because its perfect for as some call Seperation of Church and State. Not everyone who gets married is religious, just as some here are athiests. I ment to break out the word marriage for that reason. If its not taken out no big deal really, but i'd picture i'td take a lot of the steem out of ultra-religious folks fighting against homosexuality.

the real issue lies then it seems to me with our government. Ie: the fucked up tax system, and other pointless laws we have..

The "what's next?" argument which could also be called the slippery slope argument does not hold up when it comes to basic human rights. The issue here is one of equality. You're saying we cant give group A equal rights now because 40 years down the road people will point to this as a reason to give group B equal rights. Well if groups A and B both deserve equal rights, than they should both get them now. If they don't, than they shouldn't get them now or ever.

You seem to be arguing under the assumption that homosexuality is deviant behavior and therefore should be associated with other types of deviant behavior such as bestiality and incest. If anything, this is the real slippery slope argument. If you allow one form of deviant behavior to be acceptable sooner or later you're going to allow them all right? But what if homosexuality is not deviant behavior? What if the difference between homosexual and heterosexual is no different than the difference between black and caucasian or male and female? This is where cultural beliefs play the biggest role. It is simply unacceptable for the US to claim to stand for liberty, freedom, and multi-culturalism while continuing to pass legislature which favors the beliefs of one dominant culture group over all others. Do we want to be a Christian nation or a free nation? It's one or the other. Citizens have the right to follow whatever religion they wish but government policy was founded on the principles of liberty not Christian morality and as global awareness of culture expands the two are growing increasingly distinct. We have to choose on or the other and those of us that are for gay marriage are choosing liberty as our policy.

Son Tested Shelter: woah! You're side is here campaigning for the ammendment to the constitution to help thwart "activist judges". What is more important, fighting discrimination and guarenteeing equality or following a homophobic law.

If it was like a weapons law or something that was a public safety issue, I could see your point, but he is giving equal rights. No comparrison.

I mean, in Texas, two gay guys were caught doing the nasty and they ended up appealing and overturning Texas' sodomy laws. So, they were supposed to petition the government for the permission to have sex? OMG the issue is anarchy!!!

What I have never understood is why the naysayers think that just because THEY think that gay marriage is immoral or repulsive, it justifies not giving OTHERS the right to do it. Think about this for a sec. It is fair to deny other people the right to do something, when they are tax-paying citizens just like you, just because YOU are bothered by it? That's like some random citizen from the outskirts of Verona denying Romeo and Juliet a marriage license because HE is bothered by it. Is that really fair? They're in love, let them live happily and how they want to live, not how you think they should live. If you see two gays holding hands on the street, do you really think you have the right to deny them to be a true couple, through marriage, just because YOU don't think it's morally right? They're people, you're a person. They have free will, you have free will, and there is no reason why what YOU think should get in the way of what THEY'RE doing. You're different people, they're not under your control, so don't argue that they are.

The solution is: Ignore them! Realize that they are living their own lives in the way they want, and why should you interrupt that? Don't go around persecuting them; it's not fair to think that you, a citizen just like they are, have any right to control what they do. Turn away and don't focus on them; it's their own matter, not yours, to meddle in. The most you can do, as a naysayer, is promise yourself that you will never become one of them. That's all you really have a right to do. You have no right to march up to City Hall and say, "I want to prevent so-and-so from getting married because I think it's wrong!" Now about the Bible disallowing such: Let gays make their own decisions. They can follow the Bible if they think it's right, or they can choose to put it aside and live the way they want to. Remember, you have no right to force the Bible on anyone, this is a country of free religion. If everyone had to follow the Bible, that would be something called unification of church and state, which is unconstitutional and extreme. As long as those are separated the government can make no laws that say "You have to follow this and this," because one can choose whether s/he wants to follow it or not.

This is called rights, people, the right to think and act freely and in the manner that one seeks. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to decide for yourself. Not the right to decide for other people. Oh sure, parents can decide for kids, but you're not the parent of the people that are trying to pass gay marriage. You are a citizen, at the same level as they are, so you can't decide what they do EVEN IF you are extremely bothered by it. Learn to live with it and ignore it. It's their free will, not yours.

Now about the beastiality and incest thing, you technically have no right to decide for those people either. But those are both so obviously disgusting, from any point of view, that most people never even think about doing that stuff. Let me tell you why. Both of those exist either as extremist practices or fetishes. Now this is the U.S, we're not an extremist country, so the former is taken care of. If there's any incest or beastiality it will be conducted illicitly. Now they are both fetishes, something strange someone uses to get off. From Freud, fetishes and other irrational thoughts are born from the subconscious (Id) and stem from bad childhood events, such as abuse and other stuff. If you want to take care of 95% of the above, which by the way is still very little, you crack down on child abuse and mistreatment. That's a whole different matter. Since beastiality and incest stem from the subconscious, they're not apparent in the same way homosexuality is; they're random, depending on the person's upbringing. There is no logical progression from homosexuality to beastiality and incest. Look at the Romans. Homosexuality was a matter of pride in the military, and you don't hear too much about Romans screwing their children or animals. The only reason people are worried about this is because it was the progression of laws passed in Sweden. The whole thing's irrational and extremely rare and random. Plus, for some context, Sweden is an extremely cold country; people are isolated for months on end. They get bored and the subconscious starts to creep out. Put some people in a small, cramped village for a winter, with no access to the outside world, and who knows what might happen. In the U.S. there is little isolation and so this wouldn't happen nearly as often. Plus the age limit for sex in Sweden is 11. Now what crazy government, with no consideration for teen pregnancy or anything, would do that? The same that gave Swedes all these other rights that we're all uptight about. Would have to be pretty narrow-minded, I would imagine. Different government here, different context, different climate, different people. We're not going to follow Sweden's example.

Plus, this whole thing is about marriage. It's the ultimate rite and the ultimate right. Giving someone the right to marry someone else and giving someone the right to have sex with someone else are different. Marriage laws and sex laws are different and there isn't a progression that crosses over to the other. Don't worry, naysayers, about the beastiality and incest, if it ever comes to that even today's leftists will most likely be with you on that one.

This is a very long topic, so I will just post my views.

On one hand, SF is breaking the law by marrying gay couples, and that's wrong no matter how you look at it. Gays are natural, in my opinion, I believe that people are born gay, not just wake up one day and want to like guys. However, they have an abnormality. After all, the whole point of our existence is to make life and they can't do that if they like someone of their same sex. There's a morality issue here to letting gays get married.

Then again, if it makes them happy, I DON'T CARE. As someone who believes that gays don't choose to be gay, and as a true agnostic, why not let the poor bastards have a little joy on their life, eh? It doesn't threaten me and my future marriage vows.

So anyway, I see both sides.

Who said we were put on Earth to reproduce? Who cares about the scientific aspect of it.. we were put here to be happy - and that's what it should be.

The only reason straight married couples are debating this is because they don't want any of their "perfect marriage" glory stolen. It will make gay people ten times happier to finally have the same happiness straight people have had.

I was with you up to this point:

Now about the beastiality and incest thing, you technically have no right to decide for those people either. But those are both so obviously disgusting, from any point of view, that most people never even think about doing that stuff. Let me tell you why. Both of those exist either as extremist practices or fetishes. Now this is the U.S, we're not an extremist country, so the former is taken care of. If there's any incest or beastiality it will be conducted illicitly. Now they are both fetishes, something strange someone uses to get off. From Freud, fetishes and other irrational thoughts are born from the subconscious (Id) and stem from bad childhood events, such as abuse and other stuff. If you want to take care of 95% of the above, which by the way is still very little, you crack down on child abuse and mistreatment. That's a whole different matter. Since beastiality and incest stem from the subconscious, they're not apparent in the same way homosexuality is; they're random, depending on the person's upbringing. There is no logical progression from homosexuality to beastiality and incest. Look at the Romans. Homosexuality was a matter of pride in the military, and you don't hear too much about Romans screwing their children or animals. The only reason people are worried about this is because it was the progression of laws passed in Sweden. The whole thing's irrational and extremely rare and random. Plus, for some context, Sweden is an extremely cold country; people are isolated for months on end. They get bored and the subconscious starts to creep out. Put some people in a small, cramped village for a winter, with no access to the outside world, and who knows what might happen. In the U.S. there is little isolation and so this wouldn't happen nearly as often. Plus the age limit for sex in Sweden is 11. Now what crazy government, with no consideration for teen pregnancy or anything, would do that? The same that gave Swedes all these other rights that we're all uptight about. Would have to be pretty narrow-minded, I would imagine. Different government here, different context, different climate, different people. We're not going to follow Sweden's example.

You're making a lot of claims there that can't be backed up. Both are obviously disgusting? Again, I have to bring up cultural relativity again. They may be obviously disgusting to our culture, but that doesn't mean they are for all cultures. Freud had a lot of interesting theories, none of which are proven. You can't say for sure what does and does not come from the subconscious. You can have theories, but that isn't enough to use it as evidence in an argument. Then you're making assumptions about Sweden's people and politics. I don't mean to offend you in any way, I just want to point out that these are weak arguments - they hurt your case more than they help it. Just a little friendly advice that's all.

Marriage (damnit I am back here and don't want to be), is the unification of two parties (be it two corporations, two people, TWO I think is the operative word here) to the exclusion of all others.

Heterosexuals can currently do this, because they are heterosexual. Gay and Lesbian people currently have no way of obtaining the same benefits as TWO heterosexual people entering into a "Marriage" as there are currently no BINDING laws (we'll wait and see how Massachussetts turns out) that grant TWO gay and lesbian people the SAME rights and protections as hets. I am so sick of saying this.......but since too many of you are NOT paying attention, I'll say it for the last time on these forums (this place has lost all of its RCT charm...it's all too f&%*ing political now)

What we are talking about is TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why in the sam hell is this concept so hard to understand? Straight guys still fuck sheep and their children, yet those against gays being granted civil marriage benefits have this really screwed up and convoluted thought process that allowing us the civil benefits, that again would be TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!!!!!, would lead to beastiality and incest. Oh wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but child molestors are 95% HETEROSEXUAL and usually someone that the abused knows very well, i.e. family member.

I am so done with this topic. Those that want to hate based on their religion, remember this....Jesus didn't hate anyone, and shame on you. I will quote a very intelligent songwriter in so much as this...."dear god if you were alive....you know we'd kill you..."

I honestly believe that if Jesus existed in flesh and blood today, the very people that proclaim to follow him, would be the EXACT same people who would persecute him.

OK, I'm tired. Think I'll go work on Phantasia now.

Goodnight.



P.S. As for Frued...you can't put stock in anything that man says, I mean after all....to treat depression in women, he used to prescribe a concoction of cocaine soaked rags stuffed into ladies nostril cavities (not something you ever think about learning in senior psych in college), and he did that for a long time, until alas, one of his patients, upon removing the rags from her nose after three days of treatment, also pulled out several chunks of her sinus membrane.


And with that I'll just say...."Don't do drugs....drugs are bad.....M'Kay."

Oh wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but child molestors are 95% HETEROSEXUAL and usually someone that the abused knows very well, i.e. family member.

Does that mean Michael Jackson is the other 5%? Sorry.. Couldn't resist.

I am sick of all this. Gays deserve equal rights. I hope all these people against gay marriage will look again at this when it is legal and see how stupid they were.

(this place has lost all of its RCT charm...it's all too f&%*ing political now)

Oh my God.

Citizens have the right to follow whatever religion they wish but government policy was founded on the principles of liberty not Christian morality and as global awareness of culture expands the two are growing increasingly distinct. We have to choose on or the other and those of us that are for gay marriage are choosing liberty as our policy.

This is not correct. The Founding Fathers DID base this on Christianity. Is this discrimination? No, because they were Christians themselves and if someone didn't like it they didn't have to live in the country. However, Christianity is not forced on anyone (or shouldn't be), thusly the freedom of religion ammendment etc...Christianity was the foundation, because it was known that government could not rely on civic virtue alone. There had to be a standard. If God does not exist, than how do we know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. Because my word is just as good as yours, and a murderer, and a gay, and ...a politician! (I'm not equating gays with murderers btw). So if there is no standard, what we have in essence is CHAOS. Who is to say what is right and wrong, what should be enforced and and what should be left alone. Are we sure that an adult is more mature than a child?? Or maybe a child is more mature and pure because entropy has not yet taken so great a hold on their lives, and THEY should be allowed to determine if they are ready to have sexual relations, and older folks be denied that right. God provides a standard of what is right and wrong, and this is what the USA was built on. How do we really know anything without God. Ask yourself what is right and what is wrong. Take a second to think about that, and then ask yourself why that is. How do YOU know what is right? Why is it wrong to kill? Isn't it an expression of my free will, and who is to say they are equal to me? The Bible says all men are created equal, but without that basis how do YOU know that someone is equal to you? We don't we just kill retarded people and disabled people? Secular and Darwinistic thought says SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. These people are obviously useless to society, so why burden ourselves with them? Who says they have a right to life? Who says it is wrong? If so, how do they know? Take Christianity (and all other religions that are based on virtue) out of the picture. What is left? Secularism, and that says survival of the fittest. So then we don't have any individual value, it is just a corporate community. We live and die for the good of community. But how do we know that that even matters? Is community ever defined as our 'purpose?' Who ever defined anything, and how can they, because who is to say their word is better than mine? Are they more mature? But then maybe I am because my life has not been effected by Entropy as much. Maybe community means nothing, and we therefore are just randomly configured particles of atoms that exist as beings with no purpose whatsoever. This is, btw, Darwinism. I hope this helps people to think more. Not that I will declare to you a 'right' way to think, but it is always better to think than to stay idle and accept empty philosophies.

Wait, you're telling me there's no ethics without Christianity? You're telling me that we wouldn't treat people with respect if the Bible didn't tell us to? You're saying right and wrong have no standard except for what is said in the Bible? ASo then are all the non-Christian people in the world barbarians? You think the choice is Christianity or anarchy? People can think for themselves. Secular moral philosophy can be traced all the way back to Aristotle. We don't need religion to decide what is right and wrong for us, we can look at the benefits and consequences and decide for ourselves. How do I know what is right? Well that depends on what I value. I value human rights for one thing. Murder is a volation of the most basic human right. This is what makes murder wrong, not the fact that someone told me it was wrong.

It is always better to think than to stay idle and accept empty philosophies.

I wonder if you really understand what you just said. What are these so-called empty philosophies? Is any philosophy which does not have God as its cornerstone an empty philosophy? Do you mean philosophies which do not spell out the purpose of human life? It seems to me that philosophers are the ones doing the thinking, deciding on the basis of reason what is right and wrong, while the religious moralists are accepting empty philosophies.

You're saying that without religion society is chaos and that is merely your assumption - it's far from proven fact. I've said a hundred times that I'm not against people being religious. The quest for spirituality is an essential part of every human life. But I am against people clinging to religious beliefs when they conflict with basic human reason.

take Christianity (and all other religions based on virtue)

Chrisitianity is not based on virtue. It's based on the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. And those who have the belief are to go to heaven when they die. That is Christianity. Secularism is not the same thing as Social Darwinism. The Bible does give moral guidance, and Jesus gave moral guidance, but you don't need to be a Christian to follow this moral guidance. In fact, Aristotle's whole moral philosophy is based on the concept of virtue. I'm not saying one is more or less right than the other, just that you don't need a holy book to tell you what a little practical thinking can tell you.

And about the founding fathers, yes obviously they were Christians. Everyone was - they were European immigrants. But the framing of the Constitution is taken from political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill. In fact, these people were escaping from Europe's oppresive regimes of state dictated religion. This is why seperation of church and state is in the constitution. They didn't want the government telling people they had to be Catholic or Protestant. They didn't want the church running the government either. And they probably thought every religion other than Christianity was a heathen religion. Do you really want to support the religious viewpoint of the 18th century? Let's go fight another crusade while we're at it. Let's kill or convert those pagan Native Americans because their culture is akin to devil worship. Nevermind that they lived thousands of miles and an ocean away from where this Jesus guy was put to death centuries ago, they obviously should have known that Christianity is the only true faith. The founding fathers had a lot of great ideas about liberty and democracy taken from political philosophers. They were also as culturally ignorant as everyone else at the time. They were Christian because they had no choice really. That was the only religion that was legitimate to them. Now we have a choice. Now we know that there are other cultures out there and we don't need to make them just like us. This is progress it's not decline.

You want to talk about Social Darwinism? How about the capitalist system? That's a form of Social Darwinism isn't it? The founding fathers had no problem with this. Some of them owned slaves. None of them were lower class. They benefitted from Social Darwinism. Christianity has not put a stop to this, in fact it's been used to justify it on many occasions. People are ignorant and selfish. But they don't need to be. Taking accountability for your own actions and basing your morals on reason rather than culturally biased religions is what allows people to transcend ignorance and selfishness and start to appreciate other people. Love your neighbor as yourself applys to all people, not just good Christian people.