FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » If we have diversity in religion, why not in sexuality? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: If we have diversity in religion, why not in sexuality?
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
So, in the baptism of the dead thread, we see that a lot of people have an emotional vested interest in their positions. Because of this, everyone has gone to great pains to not declare that the other side is wrong and should change. Everyone is basically o.k. with everyone else believing as they wish and acting accordingly, even though those beliefs are different.

I want to point out to those who have been saying legalization of homosexual marriage is the same as forcing everyone to 'accept' it, or that because something means 'everything' it means'nothing', that you can have several different beliefs and behaviors in a society which don't agree or are at cross ends to each other, and it doesn't mean that one side is any less legitimate than the other, or that the individual beliefs aren't important to those that believe them.

To further extrapolate the treatment of religion on this board and in our country to gay marriage, I want to point out that at (most) of our public schools, we have wisely chosen to make them ecumenical and areligious when it comes to the faculty, the courses, and the texts, but ahve allowed the students in the schools to pretty much do their own thing religiously.

The same can be done with homosexuality and gay marriage, can't it? If we can do it with religion, why not sexuality and gay marriage?

[ April 19, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shan
Member
Member # 4550

 - posted      Profile for Shan           Edit/Delete Post 
What then would be left to argue about, Stormy? [Wink]
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 6005

 - posted      Profile for John L           Edit/Delete Post 
No one has to "accept" it. They just have to stop preventing people who are not harming them from having a normal life. It's the anti crowd that is "forcing" the "accept it" mentality.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Storm, I think you're wrong and should change.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
O.K. What should I change into?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 6005

 - posted      Profile for John L           Edit/Delete Post 
Some shorts and a Hawaiian shirt. Sandals preferably.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I had a discussion about this with a friend the other day. I was explaining my "surrender" theory of why I think the same civil entity of "marriage" should be available to homosexual as to heterosexual couples, with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities for both. Basically, I think it has become abundantly clear in the last 50 years that marriage is no longer the principle legal institution for the encouragement of procreation and family. Almost all legal benefits associated with providing child-raising benefits are available based on a person's status as guardian of a child, not as partner in a marriage. In general, this is a good thing, since it makes no sense to deny benefits to the children likely to need them the most. However, it means that the civil recognition of marriage has been reduced to those rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

He was more on the civil union side, with forced full faith and credit across state lines. For all intents and purposes, the two institutions would have the same legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities but maintain separate legal identities. His main reasoning is that the reason society dedicates resources to marriage is to help encourage families; he’s unwilling to surrender that aspect of the legal marriage, even though under his plan it would exist in name only. Interestingly, he’s in favor of offering covenant marriages, and allowing religious marriage celebrants to require them for couples getting married in their churches. Obviously, some churches would require them and some wouldn’t. Both covenant and non-covenant marriages would be available to anyone in a purely civil ceremony. He also would extend the same choice to homosexual civil unions.

My preferred method of handling the wide divergence between civil and religious marriages would be to rename the whole civil entity to “civil union” for both. Anyone who wants to be married would have to tack something onto the ceremony, even if it’s just saying it’s a marriage. Obviously, churches would just use their current ceremony. But that would have no legal effect, and in the records would still be a civil union. This goes along with my previous statement that gay marriage is available now, but without the civil benefits. However, the renaming is not as important to me as it was a couple months ago, mainly because as I’ve been going through my own wedding preparation with my priest I’ve realized the dichotomy already exists and is handled just fine.

Now this is two very conservative Catholic Republicans who both think that equal civil privileges should be extended to homosexual couples, although we differ on the details. I know the “separate but equal” argument that can be made against his version, and we discussed it at length. But I think this demonstrates that the same ecumenical spirit that exists on this board with regard to religion can exist within society with regard to homosexuality.

However, I think the proxy baptism thread demonstrated that even well-meaning people are going to cause great offense to each other. There will be many religious people who believe that homosexuality is a sin. There will also be many religious people who believe that denying the chance to form a loving binding marriage within a faith automatically makes it suspect with regard to the Christian virtue of love.

I suspect we’ll muddle through somehow.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


However, I think the proxy baptism thread demonstrated that even well-meaning people are going to cause great offense to each other.

Sure. Absolutely. It's all part of living in a free society. People think differently.

The problem for most people comes when you bring the state into it. Kind of along the same lines you, and many other people on this board, have been thinking, let me throw something out there. What do you think if, rather than an amendment defining marriage, we have an amendment that enshrines the seperation of 'sexuality' and state? Something along the same principle that many people follow for seperation of church and state, I think it would make many people who oppose gay marriage breathe a little easier, since one of their primary concerns is that schools will influence their children to believe a certain way about sexuality. So, whenever a school tries to do something like this, any judge can just point to this amendment and slap their attempt down.

Now, I know, the term sexuality is a big ball of worms, but before people start to chime in with objections of 'soon sex with children will be legal!', don't be silly. just as freedom of religion doesn't equate to the ability to harm others or their property, the same limitations would apply to freedom of sexuality.

[Laugh] John L.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
he’s in favor of offering covenant marriages, and allowing religious marriage celebrants to require them for couples getting married in their churches. Obviously, some churches would require them and some wouldn’t. Both covenant and non-covenant marriages would be available to anyone in a purely civil ceremony. He also would extend the same choice to homosexual civil unions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "covenant" marriages. could you elaborate?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Covenant Marriage Links

Basically, a couple getting married chooses to agree to some limits on the grounds they can use for divorce. There are also educational components.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Storm, I'm not a big fan of such an amendment, and not because of any "sex with marriage will be legal" argument. I'd need to think about it more, but the consequences of such an amendment are hard to predict before hand. The 14th amendment was used to strike down child labor laws, and did not reallys serve its intended purpose for almost 90 years except in a few cases.

Although I know you disagree with me on this, I'd also hate to see a constitutional prohibition on any restriction of public (as in viewable by unwarned passers-by on public streets) sexual expression.

I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools, so the amendment provides no protection I think is needed for those who oppose gay marriage on those grounds.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
That's fine. I'm just throwing it out as something to think about.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Understood. It's an intersting idea, and any acknowledgement of the fears of those opposing civil gay marriage can only help the dialog.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
newfoundlogic
Member
Member # 3907

 - posted      Profile for newfoundlogic   Email newfoundlogic         Edit/Delete Post 
My question is that isn't the basic argument against homosexual marriage that it demeans a straight marriage? If that's the case then isn't that principle based on the religious meaning of marriage as opposed to the legal meaning? If both of those are true than why care about the legal meaning and just not define marriage the way you want within your religion? As some religions currently sanction homosexual marriage, why not some religions just continue not to sanction it?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
"I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools"

To a large degree, it is taught in schools. In high school one of my liberal debate teachers adored the sound of her own voice and gave multiple lectures about how homosexuality was ok and it was ridiculous for anyone to say otherwise.

In college, professors speak as though it's a given that homosexuality is ok. While I don't think anyone would get in trouble for saying that they disagreed, it would definately be frowned upon.

If homosexual marraiges are recognized by the government, this will undoubtedly increase to the point where disagreement with homosexual marraiges will be viewed akin to disagreement with interracial marraiges. Bigoted and barely tolerable. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question.

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
"We have diversity in X, so we can have diversity in Y" is not an argument that works, I think - not when Y is something that many people consider wrong.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If homosexual marraiges are recognized by the government, this will undoubtedly increase to the point where disagreement with homosexual marraiges will be viewed akin to disagreement with interracial marraiges. Bigoted and barely tolerable. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question.
So the arguement is "We'd better keep the legal discrimination in tact because if we don't we won't be able to discriminate verbally either"? Sorry, I don't care how inconvenient it will be for people to wag their fingers at me in public.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnKeats
Member
Member # 1261

 - posted      Profile for JohnKeats           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"We have diversity in X, so we can have diversity in Y" is not an argument that works, I think - not when Y is something that many people consider wrong.
Tres,

If protestants and Mormons and Jews can all peacefully coexist, even if they each believe the others to be "wrong" about the nature of man's relationship to the Divine, why is it different for homosexuality? Why aren't my beliefs also able to come to the table of tolerance and free expression?

All parties of X are "wrong" to other members of X, just as all subjects of Y are wrong to most members of X. Why is it, do you think, that homosexuals and their beliefs are not also members of group X?

Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
So is this a gay marriage thread or a gay thread? I ducked out of the other thread when I thought a lot of folks were apparently replying that hadn't read the front part of the thread. Also people kept saying there was no new info when I had introducted 3 new pieces of info. Anyway. I don't "prefer" diversity in either religion or sexuality. I keep being told they are not the same at all. I tend to agree since you can choose your religion, and having chosen it most people find it quite easy to abandon.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Storm,

I think this is a fascinating twist on the gay marriage argument, and I can't believe I hadn't heard it before. Honestly, you've got me utterly convinced by it.

The Protestants, for example, were persecuted and even killed by the Catholics because the Catholics thought they were saving their souls, and were worried because they thought Protestants would "corrupt" the Catholic Church and ultimately demean the religion.

Seems to me the arguments against gay marriage are awfully similar. We don't presume to legislate on the morality of an atheist as opposed to a religious person, and it seems to me that the whole gay marriage thing is a legislation on morality.

Although, I suppose, you could look at it as legislating a major social institution -- which it is -- but then Stormy's analogy only gets stronger. The Catholic Church, after all, was *the* major Western social institution. Those Protestants, man, they really messed with the social structure of society.

Seems to me we're a lot better for it.

I doubt many Mormons on this board would appreciate the government legislating as the Catholic Church yet, and dictating exactly which social institutions are and are not acceptable.

The world changes, people. Naturally, and inevitably. This change, like the evolution of freedom of religion, is a positive, life-affirming, liberty-enhancing change. What's not to embrace?

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
All parties of X are "wrong" to other members of X, just as all subjects of Y are wrong to most members of X. Why is it, do you think, that homosexuals and their beliefs are not also members of group X?
Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"

You can't just say we did it with religion, so we can do it with whatever. There are many many things in our culture that we don't tolerate, in the way we tolerate religious differences. Homosexuality is not a religion. We can't expect everyone to treat it like they treat religions, any more than we expect them to treat anything else like the treat religions.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnKeats
Member
Member # 1261

 - posted      Profile for JohnKeats           Edit/Delete Post 
I have tried on numerous occasions to point out the irony present when a Mormon tries to argue that the State has a right to limit a person's freedom to marriage.

The real problem here is fear. X1 can get along with X2 thru X16 because they have no fear that X7's religion, though wrong in its beliefs, will have a detrimental effect on society, or cause god to rain fire down upon our country.

...

Homosexuals remain in the Y group because people are afraid of them; afraid of what we represent, afraid of a world where their children could choose to express non-traditional sexuality without consequence (and the corresponding fear that their children could somehow be enticed into participating in those relationships), and they are also afraid that their own faiths are in danger of evolving if large numbers of X members become sympathetic to Y beliefs.

Though I've been told not to assign motives to others, so I'll leave that as just being my opinion.

Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have tried on numerous occasions to point out the irony present when a Mormon tries to argue that the State has a right to limit a person's freedom to marriage.
To be fair, the Mormons can easily respond that they adapted their marriage practices for the good of society. This still leaves the question as to whether banning gay marriages is for the good of society, of course.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Homosexuals remain in the Y group because people are afraid of them; afraid of what we represent, afraid of a world where their children could choose to express non-traditional sexuality without consequence (and the corresponding fear that their children could somehow be enticed into participating in those relationships)
Well, yes, that is why. And so the question becomes "Should we be afraid of such a world, or should we not?"
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, in all honesty, I think there's a major flaw in the argument that "society" is going to be negatively affected by allowing gay marriage.

The problem is that everyone treats "society" as static -- like it's always been this way, always will be this way, it won't change unless we actively work to change it.

That's baloney (to use the nice version of the word).

Society is *always changing* I think maybe some of the resistance to it comes from people who are afraid of change and feel powerless in the face of it. But honestly people, society is always changing and always evolving, and clinging desperately to the past ain't gonna change it. This whole human race thing is one giant experiment -- yes, there is bad and good within every culture and every society, but the whole thing in itself is neither one. We're not going to desecrate the human race or our "society" by letting gay people get married. Please. We don't have that sort of power.

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"

Tres, I think it's fair, in the case of this discussion, to assume that the participants know that this isn't being implied. This particular "slippery slope" arguement is tired - at least I'm tired of explaining it to people who should know better.

Homosexuality is not terrorism, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc. It is not sex with children. In that it is something between two consenting adults, and does not harm a third party in any clear or demonstrable way, such "logic" above is pointless and insulting to just about everyone who has posted on this topic before.

quote:
You can't just say we did it with religion, so we can do it with whatever.
He isn't saying "whatever". YOU are, and slyly attempting to credit him with the generality. He is saying specifically "we did it with religion, why can't we do it with homosexuality (gay marriage, etc.) This is a perfectly valid question and he points out common facets of the two situations to clarify his point.

In this regard, by throwing in the "whatever" you cheapen and dismiss the valid arguements of others in a way that should be beneath you. By specifically throwing in terrorism, shoplifting and pedophilia, you are making an insulting and tired comparison that adds nothing to this discussion.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnKeats
Member
Member # 1261

 - posted      Profile for JohnKeats           Edit/Delete Post 
Dag,

The irony isn't that that they got what they wanted. The irony is that they were persecuted for not living under the same social or spiritual norms as other American members of X, and in some cases the persecution was carried out by State entities. Today the rights of homosexuals are being legislated against in states around the country, and the prevailing attitude among Mormons is that it is within the State's power to do so.

[ April 19, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]

Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Homosexuality is not terrorism, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc. It is not sex with children. In that it is something between two consenting adults, and does not harm a third party in any clear or demonstrable way, such "logic" above is pointless and insulting to just about everyone who has posted on this topic before.
But to those against it, homosexuality IS like these things.

This argument is attempting to circumvent discussion over whether homosexuality is actually a bad thing, and instead argue that people who consider it bad should just tolerate it anyway. But it's unfair to expect them to do that in the case of homosexuality, and yet not do it yourself in the cases I listed above, when the difference between homosexuality and the cases I listed is the very thing you disagree upon (the wrongness of and harm caused by homosexuality.)

In short, this argument just collapses into the division of two sides that it means to circumvent. To answer the question in the title of the thread, I suspect people don't apply the same tolerance of homosexuality that they do with religion because they think tolerating homosexuality harms society but tolerating other religions does not.

quote:
He isn't saying "whatever". YOU are, and slyly attempting to credit him with the generality.
If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair. Whenever you make an argument, this is true.

[ April 19, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnKeats
Member
Member # 1261

 - posted      Profile for JohnKeats           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why not terrorists, for that matter? Or why not shoplifters, or drug dealers, and so on and so on? What if we were to ask "if we have diversity in religion, why not diversity in our attitudes about sex with young children?"
...

quote:
If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair.
At what intersection do assumptions about homosexuality and assumptions about terrorists meet, Tres?

quote:
But to those against it, homosexuality IS like these things.
I doubt that. I know a lot of members of X that, while believing homosexuality to be a sin, are intelligent enough to realize that people don't fall in love with each other with the desire to break laws, tear down moral codes or intentionally harm others.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
JohnKeats said:
The irony isn't that that they got what they wanted. The irony is that they were persecuted for not living under the same social or spiritual norms as other American members of X, and in some cases the persecution was carried out by State entities. Today the rights of homosexuals are being legislated against in states around the country, and the prevailing attitude among Mormons is that it is within the State's power to do so.

I agree, but they are at least insulated from a charge of hypocrisy by their prior acquiescence over bigamy, irony notwithstanding.

quote:
Xaposert said:
In short, this argument just collapses into the division of two sides that it means to circumvent. To answer the question in the title of the thread, I suspect people don't apply the same tolerance of homosexuality that they do with religion because they think tolerating homosexuality harms society but tolerating other religions does not.

If you apply the argument to homosexuality, you must be willing to apply it generally to everything to which the same assumptions hold true, or else you are being unfair. Whenever you make an argument, this is true.

Alright, I’ll outline what I assume Storm’s underlying assumptions were:

1. Religion is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others. (i.e., no human sacrifices, at least with unwilling victims, no religiously mandated stealing.)
2. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others.

Of terrorists, shoplifters, and drug dealers, only drug dealers have a colorable claim to the same tolerance, since the case can at least be made that private use of drugs which harms no one but the user should be tolerated. They can argue the societal ills anti-drug argument by pointing out that many of the ills result from illegalization and there are mechanisms in place to punish drug users who overstep the “not harming anyone else” boundary.

But terrorists and shoplifters both cause tangible harm. I guess Storm was assuming people reading his post would be able and willing to make that distinction if it wasn’t spelled out.

There seems to be a growing trend on this board to purposely stretch analogies until they break, and then batter the person who proposed the analogy with the inconsistencies introduced by the original extender.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
At what intersection do assumptions about homosexuality and assumptions about terrorists meet, Tres?
They are both behaviors that that people disagree upon and feel strongly about - which were the assumptions of the argument given.

quote:
I know a lot of members of X that, while believing homosexuality to be a sin, are intelligent enough to realize that people don't fall in love with each other with the desire to break laws, tear down moral codes or intentionally harm others.
The other illegal things I mentioned aren't done simply to intentionally harm others, break laws, or tear down moral codes either, with the exception of terrorism. Shoplifting is done because of a desire to have something you don't want to pay for. Drug dealing is done because of a desire to get money and the availability of drugs. Child molestation is done to fulfill desires. And so on. Few cases of any law-braking are done simply for the sake of breaking laws or harming people.

quote:
Alright, I’ll outline what I assume Storm’s underlying assumptions were:

1. Religion is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others. (i.e., no human sacrifices, at least with unwilling victims, no religiously mandated stealing.)
2. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is a private choice whose practice should be tolerated when it does not tangibly harm others.

Yes, I suspected that these were the underlaying assumptions - but they weren't given and I think they significantly alter the effectiveness of the argument. The reason I say this is because assumption #2 is one that people on the anti-homosexuality side probably won't accept if they realize it's implicit in the argument - which means the argument really is only going to hold true for people who already accept homosexuality. Do you see why this is a problem, given what it is trying to convince us of?

[ April 19, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
It's different to disagree with an underlying assumption than to ignore it's existence. The purpose served by Storm's analogy is to focus the argument on that assumption, which isn't where it has been.

After all, religious differences could result in someone going to hell for all eternity. From some people's perspectives, LDS missionaries are actively trying to convince someone to take action that will result in his/her eternal damnation. Yet most of these people still manage to avoid calling for the illegalization of the LDS church. Why? Because almost everyone in this country realizes they could be vulnerable to the same complaint and argument. I.e., freedom of religion benefits everyone.

Now compare the possible consequences of allowing free proselytizing with the possible consequences of homosexual marriage. No matter how badly they are cast, they don't come close to active solicitation of people for damnation.

So why the disproportionate response?

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's different to disagree with an underlying assumption than to ignore it's existence. The purpose served by Storm's analogy is to focus the argument on that assumption, which isn't where it has been.
Well, that isn't what I had interpretted the argument to be getting at, but perhaps I'm wrong.

quote:
Now compare the possible consequences of allowing free proselytizing with the possible consequences of homosexual marriage. No matter how badly they are cast, they don't come close to active solicitation of people for damnation.
Well, quite true.

But maybe the idea is that tolerance of proselytizing is nevertheless good for society, because although it protects "wrong" religions, it would also protect your religion as well - and also because it avoids religious warfare. Maybe folks don't think there are analogous benefits to tolerance of homosexual marriage.

Also... if we are talking about homosexual marriage rather than homosexuality, I'd add that the issue goes beyond tolerance. It's also a question of the government ENDORSING marriages, which is a little different. People might be more okay with homosexuals calling themselves married, but they might feel that if their government steps out to agree that they are married, then they are somehow being forced to endorse homosexual marriages themselves.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Also... if we are talking about homosexual marriage rather than homosexuality, I'd add that the issue goes beyond tolerance. It's also a question of the government ENDORSING marriages, which is a little different. People might be more okay with homosexuals calling themselves married, but they might feel that if their government steps out to agree that they are married, then they are somehow being forced to endorse homosexual marriages themselves.

Actually, for a lot of people, it's about getting the government out of the business of endorsing marriages. Both I and Dagonee specifically addressed this point. Also, to bring your statement to within the context of my first post, why is freedom of adult sexuality and the right of gay people to marry the equivalent of state endorsement? We have the same situation with religion, don' we? People are free to worship as they please exactly because the state endorses no one religion. Now, you say that some people consider homosexuality different than religion. Of course they do, and of course it is, in many ways. But my point speaks to this fact. Many people consider how it is best to worship God, or deny the existence of God, or believe in a different God. So it is with sexuality. My post is addressed specifically to this idea, and that by allowing freedom of religion and sexuality, those who oppose religion are supposedly forced to accept it or will be forced to practice it. My point is that if people can be tolerant of other religions, why not homosexuality and gay marriage. If you say that that is not so, give reasons why homosexuality and gay marriage cannot coexist like religions can. What makes the idea and practice of homosexuality such that heteros and homos can't live together?

And for the record, even though I said it explicitly in my second post regarding a marriage amendment, I'm not talking about legalizing sex with children or forcing people to have sex against their will, or any such sillyness. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that using such ideas to argue against homosexuality and gay marriage is absurd. It's not the aim of anyone in the pro-gay marriage camp. It's not a hidden agenda. Once people start explicitly arguing for those, feel free to rebut those arguments.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Unmaker
Member
Member # 1641

 - posted      Profile for Unmaker   Email Unmaker         Edit/Delete Post 
Storm Saxon, you and I actually agree on something. You have put the question of homosexual marriage in some cold hard terms that I agree with all the way: if I can trust people of other faiths (or none) to raise their children without my interference, why can't I trust people to live their married lives likewise (and, by further extension, gays to raise their children! whoa).

Very well laid out, bro.

EDIT: withOUT, du

[ April 19, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]

Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, David.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnKeats
Member
Member # 1261

 - posted      Profile for JohnKeats           Edit/Delete Post 
Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse Christianity when my government endorses faith-based charities for the public good? Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse a god because I'm a citizen and our pledge of allegience contains the line "one nation under god"? Should I feel as if I'm forced to endorse Christianity if I'm a postal manager who can't ask employees to come in to work on Christmas Day?

Or here's another one:

If the government is allowed to "endorse" divorce and non-religious marriage, why would people only now ask that their government begin restricting marital rights based on their individual--and differing--religious ideals?

Tres, no matter how you word your way around it, I do not accept that gay marriage is on equal footing with terrorism, child molestation or shoplifting, even to Christians. These other things you mention are all punishable offenses that are illegal. Show me a gay man who's in prison because he's gay and I'll let you slide with saying "to some people, they ARE the same thing."

Because they are not. Terrorists and Child Molestors end up on CNN, NPR, and America's Most Wanted. Gays end up on NBC, ABC, Bravo and Showtime. Significant difference in public opinion between the two.

Child molestors and the terrorists break specific rules and, in our society, they give up almost all of their rights in return for carrying out their actions. I am a member of group Y, here, and I take on exactly zero characteristics of your group Z, thank you very much.

Frankly, Tres, I'm having trouble understanding how you miss the basic premise here: that our beliefs about sexuality can be just as contradictory yet peacefully coexistant as our beliefs about, say, Baptisms.

Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Show me a gay man who's in prison because he's gay and I'll let you slide with saying "to some people, they ARE the same thing."
That doesnt' make sense. Just because they are not legally the same doesn't make "to some people, they ARE the same thing" false.

Here's some speculation as to why people are willing to tolerate other religions more than other sexualities. Perhaps it's because most religious people realize that if it weren't because of religious toleraion, then their religion wouldn't have been able to come into existence. At least, that's the case for all non-catholic Christian religions. That's the majority of the US.

But the majority of Americans do not have a similar vested interest in sexual tolerance.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for an honest appraisal, mph. [Smile] I really appreciate it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Xaposert said:
But maybe the idea is that tolerance of proselytizing is nevertheless good for society, because although it protects "wrong" religions, it would also protect your religion as well - and also because it avoids religious warfare. Maybe folks don't think there are analogous benefits to tolerance of homosexual marriage.

quote:
mr_porteiro_head said:
Here's some speculation as to why people are willing to tolerate other religions more than other sexualities. Perhaps it's because most religious people realize that if it weren't because of religious toleraion, then their religion wouldn't have been able to come into existence.

But the majority of Americans do not have a similar vested interest in sexual tolerance.

Both these sentiments are even more disturbing, because they recognize the need for incredible tolerance in order for society to remain civil and for people to be able to follow their individual consciences, but only when it affects them.

I mean, the reason we’re not worried about a sexual war is that homosexuals are vastly outnumbered, so there’s no real mutuality of threat. Do we really want to say that we don’t repress other beliefs only because the opposing believers have the capacity to do us harm if we try to repress them?

In other words, do we limit tolerance only to that which we have a vested interest in? Sounds like a hollow form of tolerance to me.

quote:
mr_porteiro_head said:
At least, that's the case for all non-catholic Christian religions. That's the majority of the US.

In the U.S., Catholics had to rely on that tolerance a lot more than most Protestants.

Dagonee

[ April 19, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Dags, it's one reason, I think, that when anti-gay marriage people talk about why hetero relationships are more legitimate than gay relationships, they bring in potentiality of biological children. I think they know that if they tried to say that all childless marriages were illegitimate until children came into the picture, their base of support would collapse.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And for the record, even though I said it explicitly in my second post regarding a marriage amendment, I'm not talking about legalizing sex with children or forcing people to have sex against their will, or any such sillyness. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that using such ideas to argue against homosexuality and gay marriage is absurd. It's not the aim of anyone in the pro-gay marriage camp. It's not a hidden agenda. Once people start explicitly arguing for those, feel free to rebut those arguments.
I think you miss the point of those sort of arguments. It's not that allowing homosexuality is some secret plot to also allow sex with children. It's that if gay marriage should be allowed for reasons that also apply to sex with children, then sex with children should be allowed if we are being fair and impartial. You can't allow one thing and not allow another if the same argument applies the same to both, even if you want to.

This is the same type of argument as you are using here. You say if we treat religion a given way, we should treat homosexuality the same way. It has the same basic argument structure as saying that if we treat homosexuality a given way, we should treat sex with children the same way.

The difference just comes down to lines being drawn. You say children can't consent to sex. You say sex with children is by definition harmful. You say this is enough to make it intolerable. They say gay marriage is unholy and dirties marriage. They say gay marriage is by nature harmful and wrong. They say this is enough to make it intolerable. Then you say your lines are obviously far less trivial than their lines. But is that how they feel?

This is why such arguments about child sex and so on are brought up: To point out that you too have lines that you won't cross in the name of tolerance, so one can't give blanket statements like intolerance is always wrong or so noone can claim they don't ever enforce morality upon the population - and ultimately to bring the argument to the question of who's lines are right and who's are mistaken? That is the real question, in my view, but I have no idea how to go about proving mine are better than theirs.

quote:
Tres, no matter how you word your way around it, I do not accept that gay marriage is on equal footing with terrorism, child molestation or shoplifting, even to Christians.
I don't expect you to. I'm just saying that you should not expect the anti-homosexuality camp to accept that religious opinion is on equal footing with gay marriage either. They can draw distinctions between different issues too - even if they have to use religious claims to do it, or whatever.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Edit: To Storm.

My friend (the one I discussed in my first post in this thread) admitted the difficulty of limited the definition based on procreation, since we allow the elderly to marry as well as the infertile. His response was that the male/female rule for legal marriage an overinclusive concept. This is a common feature of bright line legal rules, and is not as squishy as it sounds. But I still think the equities of the situation, and the nature of the benefits currently extended to married couples, speaks against removing the rule.

Dagonee

[ April 19, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In other words, do we limit tolerance only to that which we have a vested interest in?
No, but I was just speculating on what their reasons might be, not whether I think they are good reasons. [Wink]
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Fair enough.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
I understand what you are saying, Tres. If that is the case, then why don't we, then, hear these same arguments being used to nullify freedom of religion, or the right to vote, or driving, or anything else? See, you are bringing in a standard of impartiality and fairness that isn't being used for anything else. Your standard might be useful if it was used by society, but it's already a clear principle in society NOT bound to sex, that is, sex being an outgrowth of this principle, that children are not adults and that they are not privy to all the rights of adults--and this includes sex in general. So, I don't see how your point is useful.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
Karl Ed-

"So the arguement is "We'd better keep the legal discrimination in tact because if we don't we won't be able to discriminate verbally either"? Sorry, I don't care how inconvenient it will be for people to wag their fingers at me in public."

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for legal discrimination. I was simply responding to the comment that "I also have never worried that homosexual marriage will lead to "homosexuality is OK" being taught in schools." I think this statement is false because inevitably legalization of homosexual marriage will certainly lead to "homosexuality is ok" being taught in schools. Teachers are a part of society, and when same sex marraiges become societally acceptable, teachers will indeed teach that it's ok. I'm not saying it's going to be in a curriculum, but it will be taught nonetheless. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see any point to ignoring the truth of it.

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I never said it wouldn't happen. I said I wasn't worried about it. There's a difference.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I think this statement is false because inevitably legalization of homosexual marriage will certainly lead to "homosexuality is ok" being taught in schools. Teachers are a part of society, and when same sex marraiges become societally acceptable, teachers will indeed teach that it's ok. I'm not saying it's going to be in a curriculum, but it will be taught nonetheless. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see any point to ignoring the truth of it.

To extend the analogy I've created between religion and sexuality, if your statement is true, why wouldn't we see teachers advocating Catholicism, or Mormonism,etc, explicitly in public schools? I don't see them doing so because religion is regarded as a private matter, up to the conscience of the individual. Couldn't sexuality and gay marriage be looked at in the same way?

Your phrase 'homosexuality is o.k.' is a little confusing to me. Are you saying that our schools will say that it exists and not condemn it, which to you means that they will endorse it? Or are you saying that our schools must, or will, actually advocate it?

I look at it in terms of, say, a Religion 101 class being taught. Sure, in the survey of the religions that are out there, a teacher will say, here's what's out there, people believe these things and do them. The teacher can, and should, teach the class in such a way that no religion is advocated or denounced. Why not the same way for sexuality and gay marriage? If it has to be talked about in schools at all, why can't it be talked about using the same standard that our society used, by and large, regarding religion, or the clothes we wear, or the cars we drive? That is, it's a personal choice.

I want to point out, incidentally, that this whole problem could be avoided if you just had schools tailored to individual groups, rather than schools designed to be unobjectionable to everyone in society. For instance, if we as a society handed out vouchers to families and said, spend this on the school of your choice, wouldn't everyone be able to get what they want? If society said, we don't care what your school teaches as long as your child has 'X' standard of literacy and mathematical ability, and leave all the moral standards up to the group that family belongs to or, god help us, the family itself, wouldn't it avoid all the problems of 'bad teachers' that both sides fear?

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Is it absurd to think that as homosexuality and homosexual marriage becomes more and more accpeted by society, we will see more textbooks with examples of Bob and Doug's daughter Jill or Sue and Jane's son Mike? It would be un-PC not to include such examples. There will be more pictures depicting families with same-sex parents.

Would that harm or help society? I imagine how you answer that question has a lot to do with your feelings on homosexuality.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2