BOSTON - Boisterous opponents of same-sex marriage sang, cheered and chanted Sunday at a rally to build support for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The demonstration on the Boston Common, a short distance from the Massachusetts Statehouse, broke out into chants of "Let the people vote!" while demonstrators held aloft banners with phrases such as "Marriage, ancient, sacred," and "Repent or perish." Police estimated the crowd at 2,000 people.
What's really ironic is that I have twenty bucks on at least half, three-quarters of these guys having problems with the KKK.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I don't see how that is bigotry. They're not necessarily intolerant of homosexuality, they just don't think homosexual marriage should be allowed.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
You think "repent or perish" is "not necessarily intolerant of homosexuality"?
I wonder what is intolerent in your world, then.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see what's wrong with wanting a vote on the matter.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Repent or parish is pretty intolerant, I think.
Of course, I would've just flipped them off. I figure, if I'm going to perish because I support gay marriage rights, then I should at least have fun with it. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And pooka -- there was a vote on the matter, when the Mass. Constitution was approved. The law has been made.
The Mass. Supreme Court has already bent the law considerably to allow time to amend the Constitution, effectively circumventing it as it now stands.
Posted by Argčn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Jim Crow: "I'm no bigot, I just don't think niggers deserve rights." How is this any different?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm sorry, I mis-read. Honestly, I didn't see that. My mistake. That is bigotry.
I just read part of the link, not all of it.
[ February 09, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, I'd hold that the very belief that homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love, especially when coupled with the desire to force the institution of marriage to reflect that belief, is inherently bigoted. "Repent or perish" is just a more dramatic example of that bigotry -- the same sentiment can be found in every belief that homosexuals should be denied equal rights, regardless of whether or not the practioner of those beliefs likes acknowledging the supremacist values that make up the belief in homosexual inferiority.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have since come to realize that homosexuals are born different. I have recently discovered that a very good friend of mine is homosexual. I actually talked to him about it. He told me it was something he was born with, and his doctor confirmed that the desires he was feeling were not acquired like I was led to believe. I still have the same belief about homosexuality, but I don't think it's a choice anymore.
But, I still believe homosexual intimacy is sinful, but then so are a lot of things I do. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Wait a second... who are we supposed to believe is the bigot here? The protesters for railing against proponents of gay marriage and claiming their beliefs are inherently inferior, or Lalo for railing against the opponents of gay marriage and claiming their beliefs are inherently inferior?
Or perhaps it would be better to simply not call anyone names, and focus on the issue at hand, rather than on attacking and/or insulting people who hold a given view.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Thank you, Tres. I think my world feels a little saner.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<deleted for snarkiness>
Tres, I agree.
[ February 09, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Nick...you know that Jim Crow wasn't quoted in the article, right?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Tres, I think there's a difference between saying that judging some-one (or something) is bad and actually judging other people based on their personal behaviour.
I know that is very confused... Ok, so Lalo is saying that these people are bigots, and so judging them in a way. But not because of any personal aspect of their lives. What I see Lalo as taking issue with is their public denouncement of other people's personal lives.
(Of course, I might be entirely misinterpreting Lalo )
The way I see it is couched in the classic rights example: everyone has a right until it infringes upon someone else's right. Does a homosexual person's right to marry in a civil ceremony infringe on any other person's rights to live their lives as they see fit (including belonging to religous organisations that do not condone homosexuality)? No.
Does an activist trying to ban homosexual marriage because it is against their religion impact on any other person's rights? Well, yes. In a big way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He's calling them bigots and make fun of them for their beliefs.
Imogen, I love that you're looking for the best spin, but I see no respect from Lalo for either their lives or their conviction.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Wait a second... who are we supposed to believe is the bigot here? The protesters for railing against proponents of gay marriage and claiming their beliefs are inherently inferior, or Lalo for railing against the opponents of gay marriage and claiming their beliefs are inherently inferior?
Tres, I love you, and I know you try to play Devil's Advocate as often as possible, but you aren't able to pretend criticism of bigotry necessitates bigotry. Does your (presumable) disapproval of the KKK mean that you yourself are a bigot? If you accurately denounce KKK members as bigots, are you a bigot? Don't be ridiculous.
These protestors are calling homosexuals inferior, and their love, not their beliefs. That's what makes them bigots, Tres. Criticizing their beliefs doesn't make me a bigot, any more than you can say I'm bigoted against you because we frequently disagree.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You make fun of Texas and the South all the time.
Are you denying that's the behavior of a bigot?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don't know Kat: I agree the title is inflammatory, but then I know Lalo often is (and on purpose).
I guess my point is there are a lot of lifestyles I personally don't agree with. Many of them happen to be religous. That doesn't mean I don't like people who are religous, or even belonging to the more 'extreme' religions (heh, I'm nominally Australian anglican - can't get less extreme than us!) - in fact I like an awful lot of them, and, especially since belonging to this forum, respect their veiws. And learn from them. Sometimes.
But regardless of that I would never march in public, saying that these people belonging to such religions were wrong in what they believed as a personal belief, let alone damning them.
I will protest people projecting their religous laws, views and morals onto other people who do not follow that same standard. That is why I do agree with what I see Lalo as saying.
(aside: Kat, one of the reasons I have really come to respect you is that I know you try really hard not to do just that. And thank you. You are one of the voices that has made me come around from my own (bigoted) stance and listen to people who are from different religous backgrounds from myself)
Edit: spacing issues. And commas.
[ February 09, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They ARE bigots for attempting to continue to deny other people's rights because of their own faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, imogen.
Calling people bigots because they believe something is a sin is just as much of a smear as calling people phobic for the same reason. It's an attempt to shade the debate. When sincere, it also displays a lack of understanding of why people may do what they do.
It's like...saying that someone should have their own beliefs but consider an antithical one as equally...true. Can you see there is no way to do that without turning into a liar? Either you don't really believe your own beliefs, or you're lying through your teeth when you say you consider an antithical one to be equally true.
You can think they are wrong, but to say they are bigots shows a lack of either understanding or imagination.
----
And Lalo, the Texas thing?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No, they aren't bigots for their beliefs, they're entirely welcome to that.
It's the attempt to deny people a right on the basis of a faith based belief that is bigoted. And then holding a public rally in order to denounce those people, and telling them to repent or die.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: It's like...saying that someone should have their own beliefs but consider an antithical one as equally...true. Can you see there is no way to do that without turning into a liar? Either you don't really believe your own beliefs, or you're lying through your teeth when you say you consider an antithical one to be equally true.
Agreed Kat. Completely.
But there is, in my view, a difference between having one's own beliefs and actively campaigning in the public arena against the opposing beliefs (or rights). I think it is possible to believe (for example) that homosexual activity is a sin without proposing a legislative ban on such behaviour (or, indeed on homosexual civil marriages).
(Edit: and as it turns out, agreed, Mack as well. )
[ February 09, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wait, is homosexuality an excercise of rights or an inborn condition? Am I guilty of hatred or intolerance?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because beliefs based on culture are more true? Because beliefs based on psychic hotlines would be better? Because beliefs based on a Joe Esterhaz movie are more defensible?
"Believe what you want, but it can only be true for you."
So, stand up for what you believe in, but if I don't approve of the source, you're a bigot for it?
[ February 09, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote: I think it is possible to believe (for example) that homosexual activity is a sin without proposing a legislative ban on such behaviour (or, indeed on homosexual civil marriages).
Exactly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then don't enact legislation against it.
-----
But "you can have your beliefs, but keep quiet about them" are NOT the words of an inclusive mindset.
[ February 09, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No, I'm talking about civil matters, where faith should NOT come into play because it isn't faith based. It's civil. Opposing a faith based marriage of homosexuals is fine for your own faith. But to demonstrate and attempt to block a civil and legal right to homosexuals IS bigoted.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, I love you, and I know you try to play Devil's Advocate as often as possible, but you aren't able to pretend criticism of bigotry necessitates bigotry.
Nor does simple criticism of homosexuality necessitate bigotry. It's bigotry when it becomes intolerance and attacking.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dang it, too many edits.
-----
mack, you're saying that we shouldn't legislate morality. Is that right?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres and others: would you also agree with this statement?
<quote>Nor does simple criticism of black skin necessitate bigotry.</quote>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think she is going further than that - saying you are a bigot if you even advocate (publicly) the legislation of anything based on a faith.
But I would think that kind of cripples the ability of religious folk to get their views heard.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, that's a false analogy. You are equating being black to choosing an action - whether or not you believe homosexual predilictions have a biological base, the criticism is of an action.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres and others: would you also agree with this statement?
<quote>Nor does simple criticism of black skin necessitate bigotry.</quote>
Yes - although it would be a strange thing to criticize unless you were trying to attack someone, seeing as we all know people can't change their skin color.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: Actually, I'd hold that the very belief that homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love...
What about the belief that sexual relations outside the confines of a traditional man-woman marriage are sinful?
Is that bigoted? Because if it is, then you expressing a dangerous degree of intolerance yourself.
Dagonee
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Because beliefs based on culture are more true? Because beliefs based on psychic hotlines would be better? Because beliefs based on a Joe Esterhaz movie are more defensible?
No. Not at all.
Kat, I don't think any beliefs are better or more true. I have mine, you have yours, many other people have many others.
What I do firmly hold to is that no belief of one group should be able to counteract the rights of another group.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about the rights of a group that believe all property should be held in common?
Aren't the anti-theft laws then infringing their rights to their beliefs?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it doesn't. It cripples the ability of people to get their voices heard solely for religious reasons. This makes a good deal of sense to me, as there are numerous people, for instance belonging to particularly odd cults, whose religious ideas are completely contrary to other people's religious ideas. And there's no way to distinguish between religious ideas on a purely religious basis.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Isn't the legislative ban, though, just an attempt to restore the status quo that was upset by a court?
If there had never been anything more than my faith that said it was wrong to have sex with certain people, and then suddenly people started proposing laws against it, that would be one thing. I've never suggested there should be laws against lying, or cursing, or any number of things that I think are wrong, because I can't control everyone's entire life.
But doesn't removing a ban, even an implicit one, act as an encouragement to suddenly jump up and do whatever used to be banned? Don't I have an obligation to myself and my beliefs and my God to say, "stop, let's hold on and think this through, maybe just because it could be made legal doesn't mean it's a good thing"? And since the court has already acted without my approval, how am I supposed to make myself heard?
[Addit: Whoa, this is a hot thread. Suddenly my thoughtful post is way down the line from what I was responding to.]
[ February 09, 2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kat: The rights rationale is only developed to work in the context of social human rights, not economic human rights.
Property rights are outside the scope: but I could give you the legal backgroud to that scenario if you wished Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I am absolutely appalled that anyone would choose to support legislation denying American citizens the basic rights that they're already paying for! It doesn't hurt anyone!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina -- I predict if you asked most of those protesters they'd still be critical of homosexual people even if those people never had homosexual sex.
But to modify my example:
<quote>Nor does simple criticism of blacks trying to marry white people necessitate bigotry.</quote>
[ February 09, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Where do rights come from? In the DofI, they were endowed by the Creator.
It hasn't even been agreed that it's a right, so the huffiness is premature.
----
fugu, I don't agree with your first statement. Most of the people I know personally, and myself, emphatically believe that temptation is not a sin, only action.
I don't know about these people, but to guess what they believe is, in fact, *grin* pre-judging.
[ February 09, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's been argued here that sin is a religious teaching. How is marriage not?
And I don't agree that marriage is a basic right.
[ February 09, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kat- I think you're fighting a losing battle over who calls who a bigot. I firmly believe that by the world's definition, I AM a bigot. Doesn't mean I hate anyone. Unfortunately, the world defines what I consider sin as a lifestyle. Therefore, my disagreement with the sin is considered an act of hatred against the lifestyle. This isn't surprising. When you hold a set of values contrary to almost everyone in the world, you have to expect some backlash. I expect to be refered to as a bigot until I die. It makes me sad because I believe that it's not correct, but I'm just not surprised.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'd find the crowd you hang out with a fair bit different than this crowd. I've met and debated with numerous people on the issue of homosexuality, and among the most vociferous opponents, particularly the ones who have attended protests (I make it a point when I have time to stop and talk to protesters of all sorts), I've found they want homosexuals to be restricted, "practicing" or not.
And do you agree or disagree with this statement: <quote>Nor does simple criticism of blacks trying to marry white people necessitate bigotry.</quote> ?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm fond of losing battles.
I refuse to be defined by terms I do not believe in, and I haven't given up on the world quite yet. This is my world, too.
-------
Fugu, it depends on their reasons. On that issue, I don't care what the reasons are, they don't matter, but it depends on their reasons.
In fact, that's why name-calling is so pointless. It could be true or not depending on the internal reasons, but if you disagree, it doesn't matter what the internal reasons are.
The only function of name-calling would be to shame and humiliate. It's degrading to everyone, but more so for the speaker. Name-calling means you ran out of arguments and are reverting to verbal brute force.
[ February 09, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What do homosexuals feel toward members of the opposite sex? Indifference? Tolerance?
I guess I have a friend who is single and has several times made friends with gay men, only to be rejected when she wants to get more involved with them. So to me, it seems like it is gays who are bigotted.
P.S. It's more commonly accepted that lesbians will have animosity toward men. I don't think that is any "better."
[ February 09, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hey kat, mind if I e-mail you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not at all. My e-mail's there for anyone/everyone.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:And I don't agree that marriage is a basic right.
The religious are welcome to keep the term "marriage" all to themselves, but the legal protections of a union between two adults should be available to all Americans.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pooka -- are you suggested anyone who's ever spurned romantic advances from anyone else is bigoted against that person?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu, you may run into problems with that statement. While I can't say that my parents were unprejudiced, I consider their advice on getting married to a member of a different race to be pure common sense: unless I plan to leave the county, don't risk it, because people will insult me and my wife and kids and maybe burn crosses in my yard. That's criticism--is it bigotry?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Race is a status protected by the U.S. constitution. Until it is determined what homosexuality actually consititutes (gender, belief or what?) I don't think it should be granted constitutional protection.
But I'm not strongly in favor of the constitutional amendments either. I find it interesting that folks who say the bible doesn't actually forbid homosexuality can turn around and extrapolate rights to privacy in the constitution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm confused by you saying that it both depends on their reasons and that their reasons don't matter on that issue.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
^^ Right to privacy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whether or not they are bigots depends on their reasons, but for the purpose of voting and public policy, it doesn't matter whether they are bigots or not. Either way, they still get to vote, and you can still vote against them.
In other words, even bigots get a voice. Since we don't/can't know their reasoning, if you disagree, it doesn't matter what it is.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ok, at the rate this topic is progressing (and the rate I'm typing: I do have a broken arm!) this post is waay to late. But anyway...
From Maccabeaus:
quote: Isn't the legislative ban, though, just an attempt to restore the status quo that was upset by a court?
There have been many a time where the courts have 'upset' a 'status quo' for good reason.
Take my country for example...we were settled in 1788, and the aboriginal population was massacred, bought into domestic servitude, or starved. We weren't like the USA: there was no recognition of any kind of indigenous culture, or rights, despite the fact that historically there is a very clear record of our indigenous civilizations.
Australia was declared terra nullius which means no man's land. In the eyes of the English settlors, no people or culture lived here.
It was over 200 years later, and with overwhelming anthropological evidence, that our High Court overturned the notion of terra nullius and recognised the idea of indigenous land rights. See Mabo (No 2)
This to Americans may seem like a competely different issue: but the entire bench were criticised as being too judicially activist. They overturned the status quo.
Since then, land rights have become accepted in Australia. Sadly, the most opposition we face is still from our Government: they still view the High Court's action as judicial activism gone too far.
It wasn't. It was simply a court asked a constitutional question and acting on it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Maccabeus -- interesting point. I'd submit that given black people are already subject to those sorts of problems (even today) it is not a valid criticism of a black person wanting to marry a white person.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Regardless of what its "status" is, the fact remains that consensual adult homosexual unions do NOTHING to harm anyone else. But NOT allowing two adults the rights and protections of a legal union DOES harm the two adults.
And yet people feel the need to deny tax-paying citizens this?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't agree with the use of "repent or perish" in this context, but I think overall it is true. I believe all people have issues they need to repent. Even those who don't do anything wrong need to continually watch against pride.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ALR, your assumptions are neither proven nor universally believed. The answer your debate seems obvious because it is defined so narrowly.
[ February 09, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see how the payment of taxes contributes to unions. And I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Certainly bigots still have the right to say what they want and vote how they want. I'm a strong defender of the KKK's (and anyone else's) right to publicly assemble, among other things.
I also have a freedom to criticize them openly for doing things I feel are very, very wrong. I would never attempt to use legal methods to stop their right to say them, though.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Imogen, I totally agree with you on the issue that you're arguing. Absolutely, sometimes the status quo is simply wrong, and the courts should overturn it. (Though I note that again we are talking about race and not behavior.)
I really think, though, that that wasn't the kind of situation I was talking about in the remainder of my post, in which a ban on some behaviors, even though unenforceable, may serve as a restraint on undesirable actions.
[ February 09, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*sigh* Please tell me WHY people spend so much ENERGY on the issue of homosexuality when there are other issues that should be focused on? You rarely see people rallying to improve the lives of children in this country. But let two men and two women want to get married. 2000 people show up with signs and the like. Why? What is so bad about two people getting married, making a commitment to each other? Technically a lot of gay people are ALREADY married. For example, one of my best friends was a 50 year old counsellor who had been with the same woman for two years. They'd give each other this sweet loving look from across the table, all this love would spark between them. Sadly she died of breast cancer but she would have loved the chance to be married to someone she loved so much. Besides, it's not gay people undermining marriage. It's all these morons who CAN get married and are irresponsible about it. Furthermore rallying against a person's right to marry IS being bigoted. They are only looking at their point of view and no one else's and it makes me so angry and frustrated.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
kat, my two good friends, Jane and Susan, have been committed partners for 10 years now. They know they will spend the rest of their lives together. However, Susan has no health insurance, and can't be put on Jane's work insurance. If anything were to happen to Jane, Susan would have no rights to the estate. She wouldn't even have the privilege of spousal visitation rights if Jane were to end up in the hospital.
So tell me, kat. How exactly would giving them these rights harm you?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If a bigot's reasoning is sound, then they should be listened to (but only insofar as their reasoning is sound). For instance, there have been several black racist bigots throughout history who have made cogent points for the establishment of equal rights for black people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, if its the actions that are objectionable would you be amicable to two homosexual people marrying and remaining abstinent?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kat, I know you don't approve of homosexual behaviour. I also know that you know, and appreciate, that your faith is not for everyone: indeed, not even everyone one this forum
But I must admit, I don't understand how you can veiw an adult, civil marriage as impinging on your own personal practice of your religion.
[edit: again, I'm behind the game: look several posts above, and I'll make sense.. I hope!]
[ February 09, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, well if you support the KKK's right to assemble, I don't have a problem with you defending homosexuality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, yay, another homosexuality thread!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Spousal rights don't exist in a vacuum. Where they exist, they supercede parental rights (as in that case where the husband wanted to terminate the wife's life). I'm not sure they are always a good idea for heterosexuals.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Syn, I wish I had some idea what to do about children who have abusive parents or are homeless or.... I'm broke. I don't have any political capital of my own, and I can't vote either way without stepping on one part of my belief system or another. All people like me can do is demonstrate, and demonstrating in favor of some particular positive action is harder to carry off, because there's always some alternative action that someone thinks will work better.
Oh, and if you ever catch Eddie considering an opinion other than his own, let me know, okay? Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?
In many cases, even carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. Is this fair?
Can we also discuss the upcoming Ender's Game Movie? Because I think the kid from the sixth sense would be perfect...
Oh, Sorry. I got carried away Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:I don't see how the payment of taxes contributes to unions. And I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
Surprisingly until this year, if both partners were earning equal incomes you were generally PENALIZED in taxes.
AJ
[ February 09, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, that's what they kept saying. I can see where you are saying that in the legal structure of society there are benefits.
Is common law marriage a real thing? If a couple cohabitates for 7 years, can spousal rights be asserted?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pooka -- as far as I know, no homosexual advocate has ever suggested a church be forced to hold a ceremony, just as I can't think of any heterosexual people who have wanted the LDS church forced to allow non-LDS marriages in the temples.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Common law marriage laws vary by state, and only apply to opposite sex couples, and are increasingly rarely invoked nowadays. But they do exist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I also know that you know, and appreciate, that your faith is not for everyone:
Actually, I do think it is for everyone. I just know and respect that not everyone is for it. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Congratulations, Ayelar, you actually said something I haven't heard before (or perhaps just didn't get a chance to respond to and eventually forgot); either way, I'm having to really think about a response. Hopefully it will come before the 18th page.
Some preliminary thoughts....
Don't these extra rights that married couples have come from the idea that marriage is some kind of sacred relationship? If the idea is really to exclude religion from the process, then maybe married couples shouldn't have them either.
Or perhaps this is an extension of family ties by "blood", but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem here to try to apply that principle somehow.
Or if all that's required to convey "family" is a long-term, caring relationship, then maybe I should be able to confer such rights on my best friend or friends, though I certainly wouldn't marry mine. Of course, blood relatives who do care about their children and aren't estranged would probably feel slighted.
Anyone else have more thoughts?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I would support the extension of common law recognition to homosexual couples who have lived together for a long time. I think common law isn't automatic, you have to apply for it still.
I was apalled at the Schindler-Schiavo case (I remembered the name) where the husband has witheld therapy and wants to withold food from his wife who had a massive head injury. I couldn't believe that other relatives couldn't override the "spousal rights".
So that's why I'm not in support of further enmeshing government and marriage, as it seems these constitutional amendments would do. But at the same time I am concerned that children have claim on their parents for support. But if a guy (or gal) really doesn't want to pay child support, it doesn't seem like we can force them to without becoming a police state.
[ February 09, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Biggest reason is it makes bookkeeping much harder.
Why not allow civil unions?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Ok, I’m at work so I haven’t been able to read all this yet. I just wanted to say some things before I get back to reading journal articles. Firstly, it’s really too bad that “bigot” has become such a dirty word somewhere along the line. If you understand the word you have, by its definition, become a bigot yourself. Who isn’t intolerant of something and who doesn’t make snap judgements and treat people differently than they would others based on something purely superficial? Be that person black, homosexual, young, old, a smoker, a janitor, whatever. People judge. Insofar as rights go, I don’t think they are either ordained by God nor confined to what is written on paper. Society picks and chooses its rights. One person says, “this, this should be a right. It’s important to me and all people should have it.” With time more and more people agree with this notion and demand that it be protected and bam, it becomes a right. In the same way as things become less important to people they can lose their status as a right. But this is probably a whole other topic of conversation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heheh.
In fact, depending on how you act to each other you may find yourself married even though you don't want to be under common law marriage laws .
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ok, kat, I understand the difference.
I don't mean to sound flippant (here, or otherwise): though I don't agree with a lot of the views (religous, or otherwise) of the "conservative" element here, I am learning everyday to be more accepting, open-minded and understanding of those, and other views. I had thought I was educated in different points of opinion. Hatrack has taught me that I wasn't , and every day I learn something more.
[ February 09, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I had thought I was educated in different points of opinion. Hatrack has taught me that I wasn't, and every day I learn something more.
Me too. That's one of the reasons I love it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
THis is why this argument is so hot and heavy.
It is feared by many traditional churches that any advance given to homosexual rights will result in mandatory marriages in their church.
On the flip side are people who see any denial of homsexual rights as an attack on people because of their sexual preference.
Here are some of my beliefs.
1) There is no way that activists or courts can demand your church perform or recognize homosexual unions. That is like asking Catholic Churches to perform a Baptist ceremony or a Lutheran Church to perform a Jewish ceremony.
Such a change can only come from with in your own church. That change is what many hope to forestall by making homosexual marriages illegal. If there are liberal elements in your Methodist church proposing to allow gay weddings and gay couples into your worship, what better way to stop them than by making such weddings and such couples illegal.
2) THere is no desire by anyone I've ever met, read of, or seen in the Gay community to make homosexual acts mandatory or to enlist more people into their lifestyle.
3) Most of the people who are against gay marriages are acting out of fear and doubt that thier church is under attack.
4) Most of the people who are for gay marriages are acting out of fear that their ideals and beliefs are under attack.
5) Fear, directed outward, is anger.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I've got to go and take care of some business--I need to get money to tide me over till my next paycheck, so I must go to one of those check-cashing places; otherwise I may starve. I hope that the thread is not on page 10 when I return.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:THere is no desire by anyone I've ever met, read of, or seen in the Gay community to make homosexual acts mandatory or to enlist more people into their lifestyle.
You mean you haven't seen the "10% is not enough" bumper stickers?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would favor some kind of common law arrangement instead of civil unions because I think where a couple has proven they want to stay together, they demonstrate a willingness to help stabilize society. But I'm kind of radical. I think folks who were at fault or in no fault divorce should not be allowed to get remarried. That is not by any means the normal view for folks in my religion. And I know it would not be enforceable.
Edit: Rearrange word order
[ February 09, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
[Edit: to Dan_Raven]
While I agree with all of your posts, I had to laugh at 5.
Hopefully that was anticipated response...
[ February 09, 2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Should we apply the same standard to heterosexual couples?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think part of the controversy does come from a desire to preserve the sanctity of marriage, in a way that is not fully appreciated.
The principle justification for allowing civil unions between any two consenting adults is the litany of rights afforded to spouses that are totally denied to homosexual couples. Some of these rights can be obtained with the execution of certain legal forms. Some of them are not obtainable under any circumstances. The denial of these civil benefits is seen (rightfully so, in my opinion) as the denial of equal protection under the law.
The problem comes about because this analysis reduces marriage to a mere collection of civil benefits, which is an offensive idea to many people. They instinctually dig in their heals against this idea.
I reconciled my beliefs on marriage (which come strictly from my religious beliefs) with the idea that civil marriage is really a legal convenience used to create default relationships that lead to civil benefits. I realized that civilly, marriage hasn’t meant much more than this for many years. No-fault divorce has made it clear that civil society does not place the same importance on marriage as most religious people do.
The sanctity of marriage should be preserved by those institutions that preserve the sacred in other areas of our society now: religious institutions. To avoid confusion, I use civil union to refer to those aspects of marriage that affect the civil and marriage for those aspects traditionally associated with religious imprimatur. Any religious marriage in America today contains both aspects, the one represented by the marriage license and the other by the religious ceremony.
In other words, I now make a distinction between the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation and the civil ramifications of marriage, which mostly affect property rights (inheritance, divorce law, etc.) and guardianship (medical treatment consent, etc.).
I don’t think advocates of civil unions for homosexual couples will succeed in changing people’s minds without acknowledging this distinction and the reason it makes people so rigid in their opposition.
In other words, focusing the battle as a fight against bigotry when bigotry is not the motivating factor behind many (not all) opponents of gay civil unions will not succeed.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That article was so sensible.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:The sanctity of marriage should be preserved by those institutions that preserve the sacred in other areas of our society now: religious institutions. To avoid confusion, I use civil union to refer to those aspects of marriage that affect the civil and marriage for those aspects traditionally associated with religious imprimatur. Any religious marriage in America today contains both aspects, the one represented by the marriage license and the other by the religious ceremony.
Yes. I am in no way arguing that churches have to accept homosexual marriage. Rather, civil marriage and church based marriage are very different creatures.
[ February 09, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
it's an interesting question, Fugu. In "Pooktopia", I guess a marriage could either be instituted by religious authority, a lengthy cohabitation, or pregnancy. I didn't want to bring up the "gay adoption" card, but there it is.
[ February 09, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, I think you are way off on your idea that the gay lobby somehow wants every church to accept it. It isn't implied in any of their rhetoric. They just want legal rights granted for relationships that, within the context of what the government controls/regulates, is not fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage.
If you can show me some evidence that this is one step toward total gay domination of the Christian Churches, I'll reconsider. Other than that I think it's conspiracy near the level of the "fake" moon landings.
As for my anecdote, my childhood church is one of those theoretically gay-friendly churches. Yet, I don't think there's been a single gay wedding there in the 5-10 years we've had the designation. Gays aren't banging on the doors of churches to get married, it seems to me.
-Bok
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote:Don't these extra rights that married couples have come from the idea that marriage is some kind of sacred relationship?
I think a lot of them come from the desire to build a stable community in which to raise healthy children. The goal of mankind is to propagate the species. To do this, you need to have children that survive to have children of their own. Therefore, making things as easy as possible on parents is the goal of society. Nearly all laws are based on the survival of children. Of course you have to realize that when thinking about certain laws. Like taxes. Part of the taxes that everyone pays goes to fund schools for children. If you don't have children, why are you paying for them to go to school? Because education is important in the development of the species. You need to make sure the kids are bright enough to survive. So, having stable relationships in the community is healthy for the children.
Since there are heterosexuals who marry and don't have children and no one sees them as threatening to their religion, why is the union of homosexuals threatening to them? After all, God did say "Go forth and multiply." Obviously, those who marry and can't or won't have children aren't living up to word of God either. And many homosexuals actually want to have children. So, they are in fact, doing more to follow the commandments of God than childless married heterosexuals.
quote: Race is a status protected by the U.S. constitution.
Where? I don't think it is. It is protected by the 1967 Civil Rights Act, but I don't think it is protected by the Constitution, nor even in the so called "Civil Rights" Amendments (13, 14, and 15) (The 14th Amendment was a nice attempt and the 15th Amendment only carries the idea of race being protected as far as voting rights are concerned, though that was countered with State "poll taxes" and "literacy tests.")
I think you might be mistaken about race being protected in the Constitution.
My thoughts as I read Dagonee's thoughts.
The idea that marriage is a sacred religious ceremony that is sanctioned by one's church is interesting. I'm all for that. I also agree that civil marriage is a legal convenience used to grant civil benefits. (So, we agree on something at least. )
So, I got to thinking, if civil marriage is only a tool to grant civil privileges and those religious folks who are married in their churches are special, why do they file for civil benefits? If their church recognizes the validity of their marriage, why do they need non-believers to recognize it? Is it for the benefits? If so, then why do they want to deny others of those same benefits? Obviously, non-believers are being denied the religious benefits of church weddings (and the approval of God and all,) but why deny them the part that has nothing to do with your religion? I mean, if you are granting those same rights to Jews, Islamics, Hindus, etc., it is obviously that your religion is willing to tolerate those of different beliefs. Just as long as they are of a different sex. Religious folks believe their faith is the right faith, and other faiths are wrong, yet don't deny those of different faith simple civil benefits. But when it comes to (some of) these same religious folk, they think that it's alright to deny people civil benefits because they disagree with their faith (I don't remember which faith it is that allows civil unions/marriages.) Why do homosexual civil unions threaten your religion, when civil unions among people of other religions don't? You (only answer this question if you agree with the statement) believe that homosexuality is a sin and if civil unions are given civil benefits, it would be like you are tacitly endorsing it. However, isn't giving civil benefits to Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc. tacitly endorsing them as correct? There can't be more than one correct way, according to some of you. Yet, you are tacitly agreeing to allow others to live differently than you do. Where is that line? How differently can one live before it is too different?
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. It was just something that occurred to me and blurted it out. I'll have to think about it some more, myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
jack,
You do realize I am in support of civil unions for homosexuals, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Part of my problem, I suppose, is that I was on the verge of speaking out in favor of ending "church weddings" (not as an official voice, of course), at least in the churches of Christ.
By all the current evidence I am aware of, there was no ecclesiastical marriage in the early church. If a couple were married in the eyes of the state (and met a few very basic qualifications, like being of different sexes), they were married in the eyes of the church as well. Since the churches of Christ are supposed to be an attempt to restore the early church, we have no basis for church weddings--except, of course, that clergy are among the personnel allowed to perform marriages by the state, which ends up being a sort of back-end way for allowing it.
Right about the time I decided to start talking about this on Beliefnet, the Hawaii courts handed down their ruling on civil unions, at which point I realized that letting the state have sole discretion on what constitutes a marriage would be a serious problem. Basically the Massachusetts decision leaves me with an inconsistency in my faith that wasn't there before.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm curious, if homosexuals could have their partner have all the rights a married couple would have legally, would that satisfy demands?
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think there is the element of social acceptability as well. I guess the question is whether gayness is really anti-family. But I don't see how you can be pro-family and not appreciate members of the opposite sex.
It's possible to be heterosexual and also have no respect for the opposite sex. I think it's worse to be promiscuous than to be homosexual.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I'm curious, if homosexuals could have their partner have all the rights a married couple would have legally, would that satisfy demands? <<
As long as all mentions of the word "marriage" were removed from laws as they pertain to heterosexuals too.
It's a very simple idea, giving everyone the same benefits.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Appreciate? Do you mean you don't see how someone could be pro-family while not being sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex?
I'm not sure at all what you mean by appreciate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes -- do I think it would satisfy everyone, or even be the perfect thing to do as far as I'm concerned? No. However, I think it would be a big step in the right direction.
Particularly as the SC has plenty of "separate but equal isn't really equal" precedents .
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Dagonee, those were just my thoughts as I read your post, but yes, I did and do realize that.
Now that you are here though, can you tell me what "the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation " means?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now that you are here though, can you tell me what "the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation " means?
In the Catholic Church, marriage is one of 7 sacrements. It is grouped with the sacrement "Holy Orders," which is the sacrement taken by a person becoming a priest or nun.
Both these sacrements are called vocational sacrements, which basically describe ways in which Catholics carry out Christ's command to love. They are seen as equally valuable yet very different ways in which aperson can answer God's call.
This extends to the entirety of marriage and procreation. As my priest delicately put it in one of our marriage preparation meetings, "the marital act is considered a prayer." Couples blessed with children acquire the duty to raise their children well as part of their marriage commitment.
I hope that's clear; I couldn't find a good explanation of the exact point I was trying to make on the net.
Dagonee
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
the problem is that the basis of the argument against homosexuality is religious-and religious arguments without foundation also in logic, without a basis of religion should not have a place in the legislative process. It's one thing to have a religious belief, and be able to prove it without religion-like it's wrong to kill, which is obviously provable whether or not god exists-but with the homosexuality argument, how do you prove it sinful except through religion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What I am seeing is "The only reasons against it are religious."
That isn't true. It's just that any other reasons proposed are dismissed because ONE of the reasons is religious.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina -- there are non-religious arguments. But there isn't much supporting evidence behind them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Explain them to me. Sound convincing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's one thing to have a religious belief, and be able to prove it without religion-like it's wrong to kill, which is obviously provable whether or not god exists
Really? What exactly is this obvious non-religious proof?
[ February 09, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Have any non-religious arguments been put forward by people who did not also oppose homosexuality itself by reason of religion?
>> What exactly is this obvious non-religious proof? <<
That since relativism doesn't work, and utilitarianism is the next best thing, then wanton killing, which does not promote much good most of the time, is generally wrong.
[ February 09, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do my secular arguments against homosexuality get disqualified because I am religious?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'd say they're less respected and less strongly weighted in the minds of non-religious people, yes.
If someone who didn't already oppose homosexuality itself put forward a non-religious argument against homosexual marriage then I think it would be far more persuasive.
Edit:
In other words, is it possible to think homosexual marriage should be disallowed without also thinking that homosexuality is wrong?
[ February 09, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'd say they're less respected and less strongly weighted in the minds of non-religious people, yes.
Twinky, why would a secular argument be less respected because it comes from someone who believes other things as well?
That sounds ... charming.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That since relativism doesn't work, and utilitarianism is the next best thing, then wanton killing, which does not promote much good most of the time, is generally wrong.
Being the "next best thing" is no proof of something's validity.
Besides, utilitarianism often DOES justify killing. That's why many people don't like it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Twinky, why would a secular argument be less respected because it comes from someone who believes other things as well? << (kat)
Because a person's reasons for believing something are important. (Edit: And affect their reasoning and judgments.)
>> Being the "next best thing" is no proof of something's validity. << (Tres)
Proof, no. But usefulness, hell yes.
>> Besides, utilitarianism often DOES justify killing. That's why many people don't like it. << (Tres)
Thus my use of words like "generally."
[ February 09, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So why isn't the argument weighed on its own merits?
Are you saying a good reason is invalidated if you don't like where it is coming from?
[ February 09, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And that is why I've promised myself not to participate in these threads very much, twinky.
Does everyone feel as twinky does?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's why I'm not really participating in this one either.
One thing I learned from the pre-marital sex thread was that if I came up with a good argument, I'd just hear "You only believe that because you believe Y, and you believe Y because of X, and all people who believe X are wrong." And every jump, every assumption was wrong.
It was so ignorant and so close-minded on every level that I'm not going to waste my breath.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> So why isn't the argument weighed on its own merits? << (kat)
Because people aren't perfectly objective, that's why. Neither the person making the argument nor the person judging it have pure motives.
>> Are you saying a good reason is invalidated if your don't like the person it is coming from? << (kat)
Nope. But like it or not, it has an effect.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well Kat, I think this:
quote:Twinky, why would a secular argument be less respected because it comes from someone who believes other things as well?
That sounds ... charming.
Sounds a darn sight similar to your insistence that my beliefs on prostitution are only worthwhile for your consideration if I could see myself as a prostitute. Twinky says that he wouldn't respect an attempt at secular reasoning from a person who lives a non-secular life just as you wouldn't respect my attempt at reasoning prostitutes' lives without allowing myself to be a prostitute.
You're both wrong
Perhaps more accurately, it is difficult to separate secular reasoning from non-secular reasons because the secular reasons often come with underlying emotions brought upon by non-secular reasons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug*
Then yeah, I agree with the topic title. Simply charming.
---------
Sun, I didn't (don't) believe you were serious, and I KNOW that some of the people arguing for your side weren't. I don't like debates where one side is arguing from the heart and the other is goofing off, playing devil's advocate.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sun, you're misconstruing me -- or applying my statement in a broader sense than it was intended.
Nobody is perfectly objective. If I don't agree with your view that homosexuality is wrong, it's going to influence my view of your arguments against homosexual marriage, even if only on the subconscious level. I can consciously try to mitigate this effect, but the fact is it'll still be there.
Anyone who claims to be objective is a liar, and a bad one at that.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I am 100% serious about my opinions on prostitutes that I stated in that thread. VERY serious. I care very deeply about it, and I was honest when I said that I had spent hundreds of hours researching this topic.
Please apologize for ignoring my resource link, refusing to take my statements as I gave them, and making me feel utterly disrespected by you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you were serious, then I apologize. It must have very frustrating when I didn't listen. I'm sorry.
----
twink, there HAS to be a difference between an unconcious bias one is fighting, and justifying dismissing arguments out of hand because the source has other arguments as well.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't say that. Read my posts again.
Edit:
The reason I generally try to stay out of these threads is simple: I don't think that homosexuality and homosexual marriage are any of my business, because I'm heterosexual. Legislation that only affects homosexuals is really none of my affair.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sorry. I edited mine to reflect what I think has been happening.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How about a religious argument for allowing homosexual marriage? Would that be dismissed?
God says to love each other.
Christ says to do onto others as you would have done on to you.
Christ says let him without sin cast the first stone.
It is my firm religious belief that God would rather have two people in love dedicated to each other get the full and equal support of our good government than to have strangers campaign to tear thier love torn in two.
This argument is not secularly logical.
It is my belief and my religious outlook.
Any two people in love, dedicated to each other, reaffirms the sanctity of marriage. Any two people who marry for money, or whim, or illusions of what the other can be, or duty to family or church, damages the sanctity of marriage. Barring two people in love from being married is a sin.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Out of curiosity, the people who believe homosexuality is wrong and yet still believe homosexuals should have the right to marry -- should their arguments also be discounted?
Oh, and just in case this thread goes the way of other ones like it, if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, please e-mail me and tell me. I'd hate to remain ignorant as long as I have at other times I stopped reading contentious threads. Thanks.
--Pop
[Edit -- Dan beat me to the punch, though the questions aren't identical.]
[ February 09, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
kat, Scott, Pop, and Dan are all suggesting the same question, and I think they answer it differently than I do.
Are approving/disapproving of homosexuality and supporting/opposing homosexual marriage related?
In other words, can the two things be considered separately?
I don't think they can. You guys seem to think differently.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I know they CAN be considered separately because I DO consider them separately. One is a matter of what actions are right, and the other is a matter of semantics. So, I think they SHOULD be considered separately.
Why not?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I disagree. I think your views of one will influence your views of the other.
In other words, I question your objectivity.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think you can consider things separately even if one influences the other.
I also think I can weigh the matter sufficiently objectively that the influence is too small to warrant consideration.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't.
*shrug*
I think people are making a bigger deal out of my statement than it merits.
[ February 09, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why not then? What is so significant about the possibility that one view effects the other that we should not discuss them separately, as if we were objective?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:not participating, not participating, not participating:
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
I'd still like to know why people are so hell bent on passing legislation to make it illegal for homosexuals to marry. What is the reasoning?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If I tried I could probably sound convincing, however, the arguments themselves aren't very convincing, in that they just aren't backed up by evidence. I can make beautiful theoretical arguments for just about anything, but until there's a hard study that backs it up that's just about meaningless.
And the studies out there generally speaking support the notion that homosexuality isn't harmful.
And Tres: there are lots of ways to invalidate that application of utilitariansism. It all depends on your premises.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The legal ramifications.
In Canada, visible minorities are legally recognized and are explicitly supposed to have exactly the same rights as everybody else. If you add homosexuals to the list of visible minorities, that means that they have to get the same rights as everyone else.
So. If, say, the people in government oppose homosexuality morally, they will then be less willing to recognize them as a visible minority and as a consequence homosexuals won't be allowed to marry. This is clearly evident in the way the issue is currently being handled by the various provinces within Canada. (Edit: IMO, this is more than enough to say that the two issues are fundamentally related for the purposes of a practical discussion.)
I'm not thinking about this morally, which may be the fundamental difference. I'm thinking about it practically.
Edit:
>> :not participating, not participating, not participating: <<
Scott, I feel like you're getting the impression that my view is a one-way street. It isn't.
[ February 09, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I tried I could probably sound convincing, however, the arguments themselves aren't very convincing,
Lots of talk, there. I'd like to see you do it. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I can make beautiful theoretical arguments for just about anything, but until there's a hard study that backs it up that's just about meaningless.
This isn't true, unless all ethical and legal questions are meaningless. You cannot do a hard study of any ethical or legal question because the rightness of something cannot be measured in any "hard" way.
quote:And Tres: there are lots of ways to invalidate that application of utilitariansism. It all depends on your premises.
This is true for any claim about anything. But which premises of mine do you disagree with and why? Because I think you will ultimately agree with them.
Just claiming some premise exists that could be denied to reject my conclusion is true of course, but it's just skirting the question.
[ February 09, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You cannot do a hard study of any ethical or legal question because the rightness of something cannot be measured in any "hard" way. <<
You could potentially do a study of a legal question. You could compare various factors between contries that allow homosexual marriage and contries that don't, if you could control for other influences well enough.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:>> :not participating, not participating, not participating: <<
Scott, I feel like you're getting the impression that my view is a one-way street. It isn't.
:shrug:
This was actually a reminder to myself to not get involved.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:twinky said: Are approving/disapproving of homosexuality and supporting/opposing homosexual marriage related?
In other words, can the two things be considered separately?
I don't think they can. You guys seem to think differently.
But you haven't articulated at all why you don't think they can. You've blatantly questioned the objectivity of everyone who disagrees with you and provided no reasoning. No wonder people seem to be a little annoyed about it.
Nor have you taken into account those who think homosexual actions are wrong but that homosexual civil unions should be allowed.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I posted this:
>> In Canada, visible minorities are legally recognized and are explicitly supposed to have exactly the same rights as everybody else. If you add homosexuals to the list of visible minorities, that means that they have to get the same rights as everyone else.
So. If, say, the people in government oppose homosexuality morally, they will then be less willing to recognize them as a visible minority and as a consequence homosexuals won't be allowed to marry. This is clearly evident in the way the issue is currently being handled by the various provinces within Canada. (Edit: IMO, this is more than enough to say that the two issues are fundamentally related for the purposes of a practical discussion.) <<
...which I believe answers your question.
Edit:
Oh, and
>> You've blatantly questioned the objectivity of everyone who disagrees with you and provided no reasoning. No wonder people seem to be a little annoyed about it. <<
I questioned the objectivity of everyone, not just people who disagree with me. Everything I've posted also applies to me, and I've made that quite clear in more than one post.
[ February 09, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Interesting that you (twinky) bring up visible minority. I'm a visible bigot, but many of the people here are not. That is, they reserve the right to think homosexuality is a sin, but still vote to extend marriage rights to them. You are saying they are wrong to do this, because their inward feelings will somehow taint a "yes" vote. Is this correct? Edit: to insert addressee
[ February 09, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: I think you'll find your wrong. I take as one of my premises that all volitional killing is more harmful than any involitional death. How does utilitarianism with that premise justify killing, again?
Kat, here you go (this one's for homosexual adoption):
Children benefit from familial exposure to both gender models, in that not having familial exposure to both gender models results in children who are less well adjusted and able to deal with issues of gender themselves. Being able to deal with personal gender issues is important to for children to function in society. It is a worthwhile goal for society to work towards for children to function in well in it. Homosexual couples in almost all cases only present one gender model. Therefore, homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt.
It wouldn't be a bad argument -- if it weren't based on a rather faulty premise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That premise being...
---
And thank you, by the way. I realized I asked in kind of a bratty way. Thanks for being so sweet.
[ February 09, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What gender roles? How dare you suggest that men or women have a role??
Seriously, I'm being sarcastic, but that argument won't actually hold up when you're talking to people who'e lifestyle is based on the fact that they don't fit into a particular "role."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you saying this is no difference in the ways a child relates to an older female from the way he/she relates to an older male?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You could potentially do a study of a legal question. You could compare various factors between contries that allow homosexual marriage and contries that don't, if you could control for other influences well enough.
That might tell you the influence of homosexual marriages on those factors, but it wouldn't tell you whether it was right or wrong, or whether it should or should not be legal.
quote:Tres: I think you'll find your wrong. I take as one of my premises that all volitional killing is more harmful than any involitional death. How does utilitarianism with that premise justify killing, again?
If me and a bunch of my friends take a whole lot of pleasure from killing you, to the point where the sum total of the pleasure we gain outweighs the suffering you and others would undergo from your death, it would be right for us to kill you under utilitarianism - just for our own pleasure!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I believe there's a definite difference between the role a woman and the role a man play in a child's life.
I'm also saying that not EVERYONE believes that. I can actually see it coming up in our threads. That is, someone trying to argue that men and women don't play any particular parts and that a child doesn't need both "male" and "female" role-models.
I don't agree with that, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm.... I think that's a question that CAN actually be answered by social science. If social science has any value at all, it describes the way human beings interact.
I know it was a central tenet of several movements that one or the other parent was dispensable, but that was wrong.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Oh please.... if children suffer from having only one gender model, all single moms should have their kids taken away. It's an incredibly lame premise.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina -- actually, I'm saying there are numerous studies showing two things: that while children's gender roles are changed by being raised by homosexual people, they're not drastically so, and that children who have their gender roles slightly altered (on average) by being raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted to society as other children.
Single mothers (and I speak from experience) DO have to worry about ensuring that their kids have suitable male role models. In cases where they do not do so, there are clear negative consequences.
And VERY few single mothers planned to BECOME single moms. There is a difference between dealing with a situation that arises and creating one deliberately.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To briefly summarize the studies, the main finding is that it isn't the gender roles that impacted childhood development all that much, but having a supportive parent (who, for instance, might expose that child to the proper role models if none were immediately available). And having a supportive parent was found to be much more likely with two parents, regardless of which gender they were.
This can be fairly well understood when you consider that if neither parent is supportive it doesn't much matter what their gender roles are, while that if even one parent is supportive he/she'll encourage exposure to good influences.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What do people mean by sex roles?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Gender roles; gender and sex are often correlated, but not always.
Sex refer's to a person's physical situation (this isn't nearly as clear as a lot of people think already).
Gender refers to their behavioral situation -- "masculine" and "feminine" tendencies.
Someone fulfilling a masculine gender role is providing a "masculine" example; similarly for fulfilling a feminine gender role.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But how is that important? Masculine and feminine. What is meant by it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Varies by whom you talk to, however in short what is meant by those terms is exactly the same as what is meant by those terms in literary analysis. Any good general English class should have covered the subject.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I never understand those distinctions. Perhaps because I am either inbetween or outside.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Oh, and just in case this thread goes the way of other ones like it, if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, please e-mail me and tell me. I'd hate to remain ignorant as long as I have at other times I stopped reading contentious threads. Thanks.
Considering I don't really post, I guess I don't count. I already had my affair that made me feel it's not worth posting here. Some posts in this thread make me not want to read any more, though.
Really, people. This seriously makes me sick. There are people being denied real rights for being a minority. And don't give me this "lifestyle" line of bull, either: we let people who choose to live secular lifestyles get married (including "alternative" people: tattooed, pierced, odd dress, whatever), so the argument about it not being "real" bigotry is stupid. STUPID. There is no way around it, this is flat-out bigotry, and denying people civil rights because you don't like what they believe.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
what are the secular arguments against homosexual marraige?
Run through every test of ethics i could remember from out unit in ethics, homosexual marraige seems an ethical action. What are the harms, what are the secular arguments against it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> That is, they reserve the right to think homosexuality is a sin, but still vote to extend marriage rights to them. You are saying they are wrong to do this, because their inward feelings will somehow taint a "yes" vote. Is this correct? << (pooka)
No, even this is stronger than what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that their view of homosexuality influences their view of homosexual marriage. i.e., I'm saying that the two issues are interrelated and should be considered together, because of the question of the legal status of homosexuals. (Edit: This doesn't imply that a person can't support homosexual marriage while considering homosexuality to be a sin.)
>> That might tell you the influence of homosexual marriages on those factors, but it wouldn't tell you whether it was right or wrong, or whether it should or should not be legal. <<
If it is shown to have no negative impact while making homosexuals happier, that would imply that it should be legal.
[ February 09, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It makes no sense. There is no logical reason to deny gay marriage! It's not something that's about doctrine, it's about human beings. Putting yourself in someone else's position enough to toss doctrine aside a bit and focus on what counts!
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
"Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000" Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2002. 43, 335-351
quote:Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
I'm posting the pdf here 'cause it's hard to get to otherwise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It makes no sense. There is no logical reason to deny gay marriage!
I'm not picking on Synesthesia, here - there have been lots of comments similar to this. THis one is just closest to the bottom.
The problem here is that most of the supporters of homosexual marriage see this issue in only one way. That's fine as far as it goes, but you cannot convince people on the other side if you refuse to see it from their point of view.
In one of my previous posts I tried to explain some of the fundamental reasons many have for opposing homosexual marriage. Namely, that the reasons for supporting homosexual marriage all stem from an admission that the institution of marriage from a civil perspective is merely a legal convenience that generates legal rights and privileges. The fundamental attack on marriage in their eyes is not that gay people will be married, but rather that marriage is no longer a sacred covenant.
The issue involves asking people to examine fundamental beliefs, not about homosexuality, but about the fundamental organizational unit from which most people take their identity. Civil marriage is now reduced to a list of benefits, not a committment.
My solution to that was to acknowledge the civil/sacred dichotomy of marriage described above. But it required a fundamental shift in my thinking about marriage and my expected vocation in life. It did not require a fundamental shift in my thinking about homosexuality.
There are civil rights aspects to this issue - it's why I believe any couple should have access to the civil benefits of marriage. People who genuinely want to change people's minds on the issue would do well to understand that there are logical reasons to deny gay marriage. Understanding those reasons is the first step to refuting them.
Those who choose to revel in their self-righteousness should not be surprised when they convince no one.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*sighs and wonders why I do this to myself* I'm trying to see it... I honestly am... Trying o see things from the other side, but it still makes no sense to me... I'm trying to understand it but I just can't... This is called... asking for something impossible...
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Syn: you're not able to see the issue from someone else's point of view, and yet you're asking those who disagree with you to see it from your point of view? Am I interpreting that correctly?
Edit: the above came out snarkier than I intended; I'm really just wondering if I understood your post correctly.
[ February 10, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I find "marriage" to be a convenient term to use. Especially since it seems that the dictionary.com definition jives with what I thought the definition of marriage was, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock." I'd certainly like for one day soon to be able to say that the dictionary definition of marriage is "The legal union of two people." Lets leave out polygamy and the like for the moment (I have no problems with them besides figuring out legal logistics).
What was pointed out to me in a recent article on cnn about unions is that state-mandated "civil unions" between homosexuals unfortunately do not encompass all the rights given to a man and a woman in a "civil marriage." There are federal laws that prevent two women in a civil union from benefitting from social security, for example.
So if the federal government is willing to call ALL unions/marriages "civil marriages" with the same rights across the board, I'd be happy with that. I'd be happy if they wanted to call it all "civil unions," whether they be between two men, two women, or one of each.
If there is this insistence on marriage being a Church-affiliated act, then it seems reasonable to suggest that neither legally-bound pairing be called marriage by the government. Certainly colloquial use will suggest people will keep calling themselves "married." In fact, many same-sex couples who have lived together for years do call themselves "married," in an effort to celebrate their own spiritual union.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I largely agree with that analysis, Sun. That is why I the only type of marital relationship that should be recognized by the law is a "civil union," represented by a government issued license.
"Marriages" would then be those marital relationships sanctioned by some religious (or non-religious) institution and will carry exactly the meaning that institution and the couple wish to give it. I would suspect that most of these would also wish to obtain a civil union license at the same time.
Government and "secular" institutions would recognize the existance of a civil union or not, without taking into account the marriage aspect of it in any way. Religious institutions would probably recognize only the marriage aspects. There would have to be means for private associations to be protected in their right to limit memberships to marriages they find acceptable, while public accomodations, housing, insurance, hospital visitation, etc. would have to extend privileges universally to all civil union spouses.
Colloquially, some people would just use the word marriage for both aspects and some would preserve the word for a subset of marital relationships. But legally, civil unions would be it.
Dagonee P.S., Making polygamy legally viable is a lot harder than some may think - there's a lot of subtle traps there based on the ubiquitous legal assumption that each person has 0 or 1 spouse.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not really. I really ought to just stop. It won't do any good. For example, I've been posting on message boards on this topic for years. The people there were rude to the point of barbaric. Using all sorts of slurs and name calling. This is more civil. But still... I really, really can't understand it... It doesn't make even the smallest bit of sense to me. This is my phillosophy- People are basically people. If they want to make a commit to each other spiritually and mentally and get benefits for it like being able to visit their partner in the hospital when they say, "family only" or being able to add their partner to their insurance, then why stop them? I really, really don't see how gayness is wrong... Maybe because I have no exact religion. Or because I'm caught in between... Or too close to the issue... I really am trying to understand...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, To answer that perspective, I'm a strong supportor of marriage as a commitment that is very important to our society. However, I don't see that restricting people who truely want to enter into this commitment could be construed as "defending" the commitment.
Let's be honest, the reduction of marriage into just civil benefits is hardly the only central issue about homosexual marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married are concerned about their civil rights that are being denied them, but they also want to enter into a sacred relationship with the person they love.
The dicussion around homosexual marriage comes down to its civil aspects because, for many people, it seems that this is a very clear case where anti-homosexual marriage people don't really have a leg to stand on, other than a might makes right type of injustice. That's doesn't mean that this is all that it's about.
I've asked before if people think that two homosexuals can experience love for each other comparable to that of two heterosexuals. If they can, I can't see any reason (other that God says, nu-huh, the exclusion of which our country was founded on) why their marriages are any less sacred than a heterosexual one.
Love is a main issue here. Gay people want the transcendental union with their spouse as much as heteros do. They are offended when someone who knows nothing about them spits on their love, calling the best thing that ever happened to them sick and evil.
Marriage, in general, is in a awful state because actual, non-self-centered love is in extremely short supply in our culture. I think it's safe to say, looking at it objectively, marriage has historically never been in a good state. We're 50 years out from where it was accepted practice for husbands to beat their wives and children. The majority of marriage has never been sacred. For the longest time, it was even about love at all, but rather property rights. I say people who are fighting so much against adversity to be gain the right to marriage can only make it better, make it more sacred.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I like that idea, Mr. McSquicky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've asked before if people think that two homosexuals can experience love for each other comparable to that of two heterosexuals. If they can, I can't see any reason (other that God says, nu-huh, the exclusion of which our country was founded on) why their marriages are any less sacred than a heterosexual one.
But I think the sacredness cannot come from the government, nor should it. You're mixing arguments for civil marriage and sacred marriage in the same sentence.
Right now, there's nothing stopping two homosexuals from "enter[ing] into a sacred relationship with the person they love" except the beliefs and practices of individual religious institutions. What is lacking now are the civil benefits.
There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, I intentionally mixed the civil and sacred aspects. If you think about it, I'm not the one who started doing it. That is exactly what the whole big debate is about.
People who believe that homosexuals can't have a sacred marriage are trying to prevent them from having a civil one. You've brought up the idea that people are offended that we're now reducing marriage only to it's civil side. I responded by saying that this is not at all what we're doing. It's just that the civil side is the only one we really have a right to legislate on. That's what I was trying to reference in mixing the two above, as well as the idea that people really aren't justified in claiming what is or is not sacred for other people. As I said, I, and many other people regard a homosexual marriage founded on love just as sacred as a loving heterosexual one.
We're fighting most strongly for the legal rights. Those are extremely important. The other aspect is that, just like religious people don't like people mocking their belief or calling their sacred things evil or disgusting, gay people and those who love them likewise can get offended by people spitting on their sacred union. I quite honestly couldn't care less what some bigot from Texas thinks, but I understand why this bothers other people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree about the sacredness not coming from the government. A large part of my point is that sacredness is not the province of the government. I, personally, don't think that it comes from a church either. Sacredness is a matter of the people involved (and God, if you hold with that sort of thing). The best a church can do is recognize and celebrate the sacredness. Of course, I can understand why other people would feel differently.
Syn, You've got to remember that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you. Life can be really ugly, but it can be really beautiful too. Care about the ugliness, but never let it dominate your thinking. Just some presumptious advice.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are. <<
Why would anyone draft a law that forced churces to recognize and/or perform homosexual marriages?
"Marriage" is used by convention in the Western world to denote both civil and spiritual unions. Changing the legal definition of "marriage" doesn't imply that all of a sudden churches where homosexuality is considered a sin must begin to recognize homosexual marriages spiritually.
As you say, it's about the civil benefits. I just don't see the problem with calling it "marriage," since a shotgun wedding in Vegas is also a "marriage." I don't accept your arguments that allowing homosexual marriage affects the marriages of heterosexuals, religious or secular.
Here's the text of the draft bill that the Canadian government has submitted to our Supreme Court (to get their opinion):
>> “Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes:
WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;
WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended to couples of the same sex;
AND WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.” <<
I really don't see how anyone can justify opposing that piece of legislation.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
hey twinky man, these people pretty much agree with you on the essentials.
(I s'pose it depends on how you define essentials)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I wanted to return to the original point of the thread, because it seems to me that there's a big point that people aren't getting. I'm really returning to a point I was trying to make on Bob's thread.
That is, I believe, and I think the Bible supports me on this, that the basis for immorality is a lack of love for other people. It seems to me that, for some people, homosexual sex or showing a breast on tv have become sort of a symbol for all the immorality in our society. I wholeheartedly disagree. It's the hatred that many people in the anti-gay marriage (and many in the anti-anti-gay marriage) crowd are showing.
For me, you want to improve morality in society, that's exactly where you want to start. But the people clamoring most loudly about morality aren't. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite. They are supporting it. Maybe they aren't themselves hating, but they are certainly sheltering hate-filled people. They are letting people hate others and call it righteousness, and all because they agree on an issue.
I picked up The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. the other day and I'm working my way through it. Forget about What Would Jesus Do? People aren't even living up to the example of the most moral public figure (ok, tie with Gandhi) of at least the last hundred years. In a much worse situation than any existing in America today, Dr. King constantly spoke out against hating your enemy, relying instead on the Biblical injunction to love them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Scott and kat don't, though. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't either, but that's only because I had a bad relationship with a Canadian chick once and I've come to believe that any Candians marrying is an affront to God and nature.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
*cough cough* they're asleep now
Anyhow. It's been fun. Don't let my Lesbians Raise Children Just Fine article get lost in the hullaballoo... Night!
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:But I think the sacredness cannot come from the government, nor should it. You're mixing arguments for civil marriage and sacred marriage in the same sentence.
Right now, there's nothing stopping two homosexuals from "enter[ing] into a sacred relationship with the person they love" except the beliefs and practices of individual religious institutions. What is lacking now are the civil benefits.
There is no law that's ever going to force a church that beleives "God says, nu-huh" (to use your oversimplified phrasing) to provide the sacred type of marriage, no matter what the civil union rules are.
...except that nobody's proposing the law force any church to reverse their declarations of inherent homosexual sinfulness. Homosexuals can be married now, actually, by several churches that got past their homophobic tendencies. Only, those marriages aren't legally recognized as marriages by the law -- which is all equal rights movements are demanding.
Though I should elaborate, I'm against settling for seperate-but-equal "civil unions" if they're set apart from heterosexual marriage. Both must be one, or both must be the other. Both must be equal.
The most critical reason why homophobic churches cannot allow legal equality of homosexuals is eventual and inevitable tolerance of homosexuals -- legal recognition is an important step in fighting anti-homosexual sentiment in this country, and should the Religious Right lose its ability to persecute homosexuals through the law, it stands great risk of eventually having its homophobic policies recognized for what they are. Do you really think young believers will be able to flip both sides of the coin and pay more than lip service to both the idea that homosexuals are equal and the inaccurate stereotypes of deviant sinners?
Ever since black people won their rights from the righteous Christian majority in the sixties, Christian policy across all denominations has reformed to acknowledge blacks as equals -- even if, as Macc said, interracial marriage is still discouraged, both out of hate and out of fear of that hate.
The same is going to happen with homosexuality, be it tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. Do you truly believe the children of these protestors, or their grandchildren, are going to look back with pride on their relatives shrilling "Repent or perish" at couples who want nothing more than the freedom to love each other with the same benefits we afford all heterosexuals in this country? I'm serious about this question -- do you believe in fifty years people will look back at these bigots with anything less than the contempt we now have for the white supremacists of days gone by?
I really don't see it happening. Kat earlier asked me if the stereotypes I grew up with about the South, and my occasional flickering belief in them, qualify as bigotry. Yes, they do. Even today, when I think of the South, I get images of white supremacy, of suburban housewives clucking their tongues over Mary Sue Jo Bob marrying that nigger, of corrupt cops participating in the Southern good-ol'-boy system.
That's bigotry. What keeps me from being a bigot is that I constantly check these stereotypes whenever they enter my head, remembering that the vocal minority doesn't necessarily represent the majority. Whenever I unconsciously revert to stereotypes, I do my damndest to remember that the history of the South aside, not all or most Southerners are the self-righteous, Bible-thumping, nigger-lynching hatemongers that so many of their political blocs try to represent. Hell, I'm considering a move to the South soon -- while I'm not decided on New Orleans, I'll not let the stereotypes I've heard about Southerners decide my appraisal of their value.
I only wish some of the self-righteous Bible-thumpers would do the same for homosexuals. Unlike the South, homosexuals have never earned the stereotypes thrust upon them of deviant sinner or flamboyant, limp-wristed prattler. The South, by contrast, has a long and unfortunately unvaried history of prejudice and hatred in some form or another -- while I won't judge Southerners today by the bigots of the past, there's at least history to back up the stereotypes of the South. What stereotypes can homophobes fall back on? Jack from Will and Grace?
I'd be very surprised if any significant number of self-righteous bigots know homosexuals. Even on this fairly well-represented forum, the only openly homosexual people we have that I know of are KarlEd and Caleb. Neither fit the popular stereotypes of homosexuals. Actually, virtually none of my homosexual friends do -- and those who do rely on their sexual orientation as an identity, since they were identified solely as "that fag" for most of their lives. It's sad, really, and infuriates me against the widespread anti-homosexual bigotry that we so casually write off as religious belief.
I hope I haven't rambled too much -- I've written this post over the course of an hour and several conversations, and tried to address most of the concerns expressed in the thread thus far.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:...except that nobody's proposing the law force any church to reverse their declarations of inherent homosexual sinfulness. Homosexuals can be married now, actually, by several churches that got past their homophobic tendencies. Only, those marriages aren't legally recognized as marriages by the law -- which is all equal rights movements are demanding.
Lalo, I've never said anyone is proposing that law. If you read through the chain of my posts you will see that I stand in favor of a single, unified civil union.
I was responding to a post from MrSquicky saying that the civil union was not enough, pointing out the civil unions are all that anyone is going to get from the government. I also pointed out that homosexuals are getting married in churches now. Are you just reiterating my post or agreeing with me?
quote: Though I should elaborate, I'm against settling for seperate-but-equal "civil unions" if they're set apart from heterosexual marriage. Both must be one, or both must be the other. Both must be equal.
Again, thanks for agreeing with me.
quote: The same is going to happen with homosexuality, be it tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. Do you truly believe the children of these protestors, or their grandchildren, are going to look back with pride on their relatives shrilling "Repent or perish" at couples who want nothing more than the freedom to love each other with the same benefits we afford all heterosexuals in this country? I'm serious about this question -- do you believe in fifty years people will look back at these bigots with anything less than the contempt we now have for the white supremacists of days gone by?
I have nothing but contempt for the repent or perish crowd. But you’re only partially right about future attitudes. While I think the idea of government discrimination of homosexuals will be looked back on without pride, 50 years from now most Christian churches will still be teaching that homosexual actions are sinful. More specifically, they’ll be teaching that sexual actions outside a traditional marriage between a man and a woman are sinful. You’re right
quote: I'd be very surprised if any significant number of self-righteous bigots know homosexuals.
You need to define “self-righteous bigot.” I’ll ask the question I asked 3 pages ago – do you equate the belief that homosexual actions are sinful with bigotry? If you do, then almost any moral judgment qualifies as bigotry. If you don’t, then you need to make that clear.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do try to do the same, Lalo as i have relatives that have been lynched in the past... I see little difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and between whatever causes law abiding, religious citizens to look like that as they hang a man from a tree. They may not be hanging up gays and lesbians, but they are basically contributing to the attitude that gays are less than human and hiding behind the bible and 5,000 year old verses to justify it. I know this is not a lot of people's intentions, that they do have a concept of right and wrong, that is respectable, but they are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to gays and lesbians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see little difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and between whatever causes law abiding, religious citizens to look like that as they hang a man from a tree.
Assuming by homosexuality you mean homosexual actions, then we have nothing meaningful to talk about, because apparently I'm a lynching KKK white supremecist. So you shouldn't want to hear anything I have to say.
quote:They may not be hanging up gays and lesbians, but they are basically contributing to the attitude that gays are less than human and hiding behind the bible and 5,000 year old verses to justify it.
Hiding? Who's hiding? And there's a lot of sinful behavior in the world. I think some people focus too much on one particular sin, but that doesn't change whether it is a sin or not.
quote:I know this is not a lot of people's intentions, that they do have a concept of right and wrong, that is respectable, but they are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to gays and lesbians.
What do you mean by barking up the wrong tree? Do you mean by obsessing about this one particular sin, no better or worse than many others? Then I might agree with you.
But somehow I don't think that's what you mean. I think you really do mean that thinking homosexual actions are sinful is just flat out wrong. You will not convince people of this, especially by telling them they're bigots and not providing any analysis about why their view is wrong.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am not saying that you are a lynching KKK member. I am saying that the concept of homosexuality being a sin erodes a person's humanity which makes it easier for some stupid thug teenager to beat a person up just for being gay. Just like back in the past people kept stating blacks are inferior made it easier to beat up, kill and lynch many blacks. It turns a person from being a human being to a thing that can be hated without reason. It's difficult to explain WHY gayness is not a sin... There are books like Stranger at the Gate to consider, the accounts of people who have had extreme things done to them just to change their sexuality. It didn't work. It just wore them out and made them threadbare, made them hate themselves. The shock treatments, the celibacy, the fasting. Did no good. There is simply a percentage of people who are attracted to the same sex, jusst as there are those that are attracted to both. That's the weather of things. Gayness is not caused by useless fathers and domineering mothers. Who knows if it's even genetic? It's there. It exists. I can try to explain why it is not a sin five ways till tuesday, but it does no good... Which is why I should really, really retire from these sort of discussions... It's just that there are human beings to consider. You may think I am being a bigot, but I am not... All I want is for not one group of people to be hated, beat up, tortured, to torture themselves internally because they are different.
Plus no one can really tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin... There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All I want is for not one group of people to be hated, beat up, tortured, to torture themselves internally because they are different.
And to equate the identifying of an action as sin with these things is really inaccurate. Lots of people who regularly commit what most Christians view as sin are not beaten up or tortured. The question needs to be "Why was this sin singled out so that the people who commit it suffer such treatment?" I don't know.
quote:Plus no one can really tell me WHY homosexuality is a sin.
As to why homosexual actions are a sin (at least in the Catholic Church): Sexual relations outside a marriage are sinful. Marriage, as part of its definition and purpose, is associated with procreation. While its true that heterosexual couples unable to reproduce may still marry, the idea is that the possibility, however remote, still remains. It represents a covenant not only with my wife-to-be but also with God, as a means to carry on his work. The sexual act within a marriage is considered a prayer.
Note that by this definition, homosexual actions are always considered sinful. As are any other forms of extra-marital sex. In this view, such acts are not sinful because sex is "bad" but because it is outside its proper place. It's similar to the reason gluttony is considered a sin - desire mastering the person, rather than serving the person. There are also corrollary beliefs that sex is far less satisfying to humans since the Fall because they have lost the true understanding of its place and purpose.
I'm not saying everyone needs to believe it. I don't think it's the type of morality that should be enforced by the legal system. And the purpose of marriage as an institution in civil society is quite different (hence my support for civil unions). But as one of the 7 sacrements, marriage is intensely crucial to my faith.
For my conception of the vocation of my life to be called bigotry, especially when no attempt has been made to comprehend it, is quite disturbing.
quote:There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place?
Not touching that one
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe it's hard for me to see because I don't have a particular religion. I don't, for example, believe in casual sex, but I do believe people should only do it if they love and care about a person. I don't believe it's just for reproduction, otherwise humans would go into heat like animals and be pregnant almost all the time... Really sexuality in humans is hyper-complex. Like people who cannot distiguish between the genders in terms of sexual desirability.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Scott and kat don't, though.
Twink, you know I like and respect you, but you don't know what I think, and I'm not going to share it here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd find your comments on the studies mentioned (far) above interesting, kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head* No dearie, I don't think so. I see nothing good coming of it. Whatever I thought would be dismissed anyway.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are people who see masturbation as a sin and that never makes much sense to me... What makes a sin a sin in the first place? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not touching that one
You don't have to. That's how it works.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If it is shown to have no negative impact while making homosexuals happier, that would imply that it should be legal.
Yes, but still no study can tell us what is negative and what isn't - thus you can't 'show' a negative impact. You can show homosexual marriages cause X to happen, and then use religious and/or ethical theories to claim X is bad or good, but that entails faith in some theory unproven by any study. Ultimately, you're going to have to resort to calling upon religion or one of its non-religious equivalents.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm glad someone gets my jokes. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How do we measure success in raising a child, then?
Happiness? Independence?
Ability to form and maintain relationships and achieve their own dreams, whatever those may be? <-- my theory
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dagnabbit, I posted. * to self*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina, I promise you I wouldn't dismiss it. Contest it, yes, but not dismiss. However, I understand the choice.
On a more general note, notice how the argument I gave can be beautiful, consistent, and yet wrong (I will not pretend the evidence is uncontestable, though it is abundant; however, that the evidence could be correct is evident, and thus the argument could be wrong).
I have seen this a lot in non-religious arguments against homosexuality; they take premises that simply aren't born out by reality, as obvious as they seem.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would not assume that everyone is working from the same definition of reality.
---
Thank you, though, but no, I don't think I will. I can't. I'd be talking to myself, and... it's not that kind of thread.
[ February 10, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina -- check out those studies, several specifically assessed exactly what you just said you found to be valuable and found it to occured in children with hom parents just as much as with het parents.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, not everyone is. However, the studies pointed to cover a wide assortment of measures of well-adjusted, including such useful criteria as happiness and having typical interactions with agemates.
edit: better word choice
[ February 10, 2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Don't goad, Russ.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am NOT goading, except in the most general and innocent sense.
I am hoping to have a discussion with someone who has a developed opinion on the subject that is dissimilar to my own; however, I have found that in every case where I find someone I think to be such a person on the issue of homosexuality they have chosen to never share the criteria they are evaluating on and evidence they use to support that criteria beyond the religious in a serious discussion. This vexes me somewhat, yes, and means that if I am ever to have a frank discussion I must utilize some gentle prodding.
However, I believe my prodding is separated from goading on several levels: it has no intent to harm, I do not assume intellectual fallacy on the other's part, I try to avoid pressing very hard, I don't make ad hominem attacks, and I only continue the discussion as far as the other person does; if katharina makes no further replies you won't see any further comments from me in this thread directed at her (unless some new thought comes to me on what she has said; I mean there will be no repetition for provocation's sake).
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
When the intent is stated that someone does not want to open themself to attack and degredation on the board, it's would be in everyone's best interests to respect that. If you wish to pursue the discussion privately, try email. If you still meet with resistence there, give it up. It's called common courtesy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe it's hard for me to see because I don't have a particular religion. I don't, for example, believe in casual sex, but I do believe people should only do it if they love and care about a person.
That position is one along a broad continuum of beliefs that sex is not appropriate under all circumstances between consenting adults – it’s different in degree, not kind from the Catholic position that “people should only do it is they love and care about a person and have made a sacred covenant of marriage with that person.” I’m assuming that you don’t think people who engaged in casual sex should be punished by the law. Neither do I.
quote:I don't believe it's just for reproduction, otherwise humans would go into heat like animals and be pregnant almost all the time…
I understand that you have very different beliefs than I do about sexuality. That’s fine. All I’m asking is that you acknowledge that people who hold similar beliefs to mine can be motivated by love, not bigotry.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've always had a problem with private discussion on public topics when a public venue is available, largely because the principles are rarely persuaded but the bystanders often are. I do understand the point, however I don't think I have been carrying this conversation on beyond kat's wishes. What I've said has been almost entirely in direct response to her, including going through an exercise on possible arguments against homosexuality at her urging. The only non direct response I made was a summary of what I saw as the relevance of the example I put forward at her urging after her withdrawal from the conversation, and that was a comment on my comments, not on hers.
She's kept up the conversation until now, and if she doesn't continue responding I certainly won't. However, given that I do want to continue the conversation I consider it perfectly reasonable to respond to points she brings up after she says she wants to stop the conversation; this is not disrespectful.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*wants to hug Taal*
Fugu, apparently undiagnosed OCD is making me post. But Taalcon is right.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
If you, the reader, believes that homosexual parenting is worse than heterosexual parenting, then I have found research to suggest that that assumption is incorrect. I simply wish you, the reader who thinks that homosexual parenting is worse, to back up that assumption just as I have backed up my assumption.
A study looked at 23 prior studies which used various criteria, including: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning
"Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000" Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2002. 43, 335-351
quote:Twenty-three empirical studies published between 1978 and 2000 on nonclinical children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers were reviewed (one Belgian/Dutch, one Danish, three British, and 18 North American). Twenty reported on offspring of lesbian mothers, and three on offspring of gay fathers. The studies encompassed a total of 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews. Seven types of outcomes were found to be typical: emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning. Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done.
I'm posting the pdf here 'cause it's hard to get to otherwise.
Because it has been shown that gay parents raise children similarly as straight parents under those 7 criteria, gay parents should be allowed to adopt. (In the article it comments that this is definitely true for lesbian parents. Only 3 gay father studies have been done, but so far those studies show the same to be true for gay fathers).
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Fugu, I love you, man, but you sound like a telemarketer who won't stop talking to a consumer who is polite enough not to hang up on you. I understand your desire, but maybe you could shift your request to finding someone else with whom you can discuss the issue -- someone who fits the mindset/worldview/whatever you're hoping to see.
--Pop
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When the intent is stated that someone does not want to open themself to attack and degredation on the board, it's would be in everyone's best interests to respect that.
Everyone is open to attack and degredation just by being on this forum, if someone chooses to attack or degrade them. Giving an opinion does not alter that.
Truthfully, I think it is disrespectful to leave a discussion on the assumption that the other person will dismiss whatever you say out of hand - especially once you have told him you think he is wrong. Within your rights as a participant, of course, but a bit disrepectful nonetheless, based on the reason.
[ February 10, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Truthfully, I think it is disrespectful to leave a discussion on the assumption that the other person will dismiss whatever you say out of hand - especially once you have told him you think he is wrong. <<
I think kat's basing her decision in part on what I said on Page 4, which is fair enough.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know..ve trouble seeing it as love due to just how miserable trying to change ones sexuality can make a person. I read a book written by 2 ex gays talking about advising the people to remain celibate and how hard it would be and how it would depress them. I just can't justify people forcing themselves to go through something like that... that horrible personal hell...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Suneun: I know I said I wouldn't participate, but a particular line in your study begs for comment:
Last paragraph, last sentence in Conclusion:
quote:For men, there are too few studies to provide substantive evidence, although the same probably holds for them.
Hate to cry bias, but this study obviously (to me) started out biased, found what it was looking for, and ended with its predicted, foregone conclusion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
C'mon Scott, don't just pop in here and say that, provide some evidence for it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
fugu- Read the study-- maybe you'll come to different conclusions than I did.
However, the section titled 'Comments on Research Questions' is informative, and goes to support my point of view, in my opinion.
My opinion being that this study (which really isn't a study, but an analysis of other studies which were chosen by the authors) is clearly biased.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Would you argue that in the absence of sufficiently unbiased data, homosexual marriage should be disallowed because of uncertain consequences? That's certainly sensible enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Seems to me they're using that section to rather forthrightly discuss the situation surrounding the studies involved. For instance, your quote illustrates them directly admitting that there is insufficient evidence for the same claims as applied to homosexual men (since most studies are of homosexual women, there being more of them with kids), and then speculating that it would be similarly with men.
Furthermore, comments sections in published reports are exactly that: comments. They're a place for researchers to discuss issues which are more vague than the level of the study, personal opinions, and suggestions. And this study is very careful about establishing its weaknesses -- notice above that where they admit many of the studies had structural weaknesses.
Also, they did not pick and choose in an unreasonable way at all; take a look at the selection criteria:
quote:To be included in the review, the material had to be published in an available journal or book and based on empirical data collected from nonclinical samples of children raised by one or two lesbian or gay parents, with or without proxy information from parents and teachers, with or without control groups, with or without children born in a setting of heterosexual marriage or cohabitation (with later change in parental lifestyles), and recruited through self-identified lesbian or gay parents. Excluded from the review were reports with limited circulation, such as master and doctoral theses and conference proceedings.
This wasn't an arbitrary selection of studies, all 23 of the studies that met those rather open criteria were included, yet
quote:none of the reviewed studies reported substantial differences in outcome among groups of children.
They didn't pick and choose obscurely at all, they're very open about their methodology, they admit the weaknesses in the studies directly.
Their procedure seems pretty normal and sound to me.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I would hazard to guess that gays make BETTER parents, as a whole, than do heterosexual parents.
Why?
Because gays don't have "accidental" children. They have to really want a child, and be willing to go through a heck of a lot of hoops to get one.
That, in my opinion, is a pretty good indication that they'd be be a heck of a lot better at raising kids than a lot of the hetero couples or single parents who didn't really think the whole child-rearing thing through before they started knocking boots.
Posted by Polly (Member # 6044) on :
Twinky:
quote:Scott and kat don't, though.
OOH, OOH, OOH.... can you guess what I think?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Having witnessed the participation of both Scott and kat in multiple homosexuality threads over the past four years, I'm willing to bet that they don't agree with my views on this matter.
Which is all I said in that post.
(Edit: Actually, I might be mistaken about Scott. Homosexuality threads on Hatrack all blur together after a while.)
[ February 10, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Well, no. You've only got 18 posts, most of which aren't on this topic. Compared to Scott and Kat who've got a huge number of posts on the subject, most of which are along the lines of "I think ...". I don't think it's unreasonable at all for him to take a stab at what they're thinking, considering they've told everyone their thoughts on it countless times already.
Edit: Beaten by the man, the myth, the legend himself.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Whenever I see a screen name I don't recognize, I always wonder whether it's really a new person, or just another incarnation of Jon Boy or Pat.
Multiple screen names are really annoying. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Twinky, that's not me or Pat. Pat's been sticking to Pat and Trogdor, and I've been sticking to a few that are (I hope) recognizably me.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is why I don't like these discussions.
A very clear bias is shown by the authors of the study.
Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument.
Apparently, the same requirements are not required of proponents of homosexual marriage.
Kinsey, anyone?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No, Scott, that isn't what was said. There's a difference between colouring and invalidating. All that was said is that it's important to know where a person is coming from. How that got turned into this monstrous, taken-to-heart, insulting thing is beyond me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They cite, with full journal references, 23 studies with statistics. That's a fair amount of statistics. I'm still waiting for the first statistics that support your position.
And I do think statistics matter from you, however that doesn't much matter as you haven't supplied any.
Posted by Polly (Member # 6044) on :
My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob,
The repeated condemnation the belief that homosexual actions are sinful as bigotry may have made some people a wee bit sensitive, ya think?
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Earlier, it was stated that opponents of homosexual marriage need not supply statistics (I think I used secular arguments rather than statistics), because their bias invalidates their argument. << (Scott)
Scott, that's not what I said. I said that their bias influences their views. In fact, I said that the biases of both opponents and proponents of homosexual marriage affect their views. I also said that it affects the judgment of anyone listening to the argument, subconsciously or otherwise, and that while these things can be mitigated they can't be fully compensated for.
In short, I said that bias is always going to be a factor for everyone who participates in this debate. I think it's important to be aware of that.
Additionally, I said that I think homosexuality and homosexual marriage need to be considered in tandem, though I did not suggest that a person can't disapprove of one while supporting the other.
>> My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish. << (Polly)
How is it trolling if I do in fact know? Or even if I have a fair idea? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me, particularly if you take the post you quoted in context.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kinsey's studies were highly restricted by the attitudes and postal regulations of the time. Also, though he occasionally generated statistics, his primary interest was in uncovering new aspects of sexuality, which is likely why he applied methodologies generally known to be statistically flawed -- because he wasn't very interested in the statistics. None of his work asserts that such studies were statistically authoritative, but instead presents the studies as collections of individual accounts.
Edit: this is just a side remark; Kinsey's research was fascinating but is often misconstrued. It was cited for a long time, however, because there simply weren't any other sources of statistics on those subjects. This is not surprising, as he established the modern field of sexual research.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you seriously arguing that the researchers in the study are not biased?
Twink-- I agree with you. I don't think a study CAN be done (by either POV) without the taint of bias.
However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias.
Fugu- Kinsey and his researchers were monsters. I don't know a better way to put it.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> However, the view that I am seeing (as was seen in the Legalize Prostitution thread) is that conservative think tanks are NOT allowed to do studies; while liberal think tanks are praised for their bias. <<
I mostly missed that thread, but I would certainly be annoyed if I saw the opposite trend in a debate I was invested in. That's fair enough.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Katharina, is your "undiagnosed OCD" a disability which we all have to put up with? If you are in a thread, are we not allowed to comment on what you say? Are you just allowed to announce that you know what you know and nothing we say will change your mind, but not be allowed to respond to it?
quote: One thing I learned from the pre-marital sex thread was that if I came up with a good argument, I'd just hear "You only believe that because you believe Y, and you believe Y because of X, and all people who believe X are wrong." And every jump, every assumption was wrong.
It was so ignorant and so close-minded on every level that I'm not going to waste my breath.
So, because whoever was in that thread was ignorant, you are publicly stating in this thread that you won't participate? Are we the ones being ignorant and closed minded? Or was it someone else and you are taking it out on us? And isn't it rather silly to state that you aren't participating and then still participate? Or is that the OCD disability that we need to ignore? It seems more like tourettes. You know, you just have to shout out obscenities in a quiet library type of thing. You came into this thread and made the assumption that either the participants or the arguments would be "ignorant and closed minded." It's like a black man walking in the KKK headquarters and telling them they are ignorant rednecks. So, how it got to be fugu who shouldn't be harassing you is beyond all comprehension to me.
Polly,
quote: My point was that for you to state what anyone thinks is trollish.
I didn't notice you chiding Katharina when she stated that everyone else would merely dismiss whatever she thought. Isn't that the same thing? Seems to me, she said we weren't worth talking to because she knew what we thought.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:So you think that accidental children are worse off than planned children? My older brother and I were accidental, and I think we turned out better than my two younger, planned siblings.
Not in every case, of course. But I do think that, in general, parents who sit down and decide that now is a good time to raise a kid, and are willing to go through a lot of bureaucracy to get one, are generally better prepared than a lot of parents for whom childbirth was an unexpected consequence of sex.
In other words, even if a lot of "accidental" children are well-raised by responsible adult, a lot aren't. With gay couples, accidental childbirth is not even a possibility. Gay couples with children made the conscious decision that they wanted children. AND had to undergo screening to ensure that they met the basic standards for adopting a child! That's a lot more than you can say for a lot of kids born to heterosexual couples.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I'm arguing that they're both forthright about their bias and there is no reason to suggest they let their bias influence those conclusions which they do not explicitly mark as biased (notice that they are quite scrupulous about saying things like "we believe" and "we don't think" when its a not fully supported conclusion).
Show me a study (in anything, but particularly social science) where the researchers were unbiased and I'll show you a blank sheet of paper.
Aren't you the one saying any statistics you produce should be considered despite your bias? Show these researchers the same respect you ask for. You aren't arguing about the facts of the study at all -- for instance, where I showed that they had very broad criteria for inclusion and included all studies meeting those criteria.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Any evidence to support such a claim, Ayelar? Even Suneun's article doesn't claim that children of gay parents are better off than children of heterosexual parents.
[ February 10, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Just to be clear, you're making no statement about inherent parental ability, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Did they include only studies that showed the data that fit their agenda?
Paranoia 101, over here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They specifically cover all 23 studies that met the above mentioned criteria:
quote:The typical outcomes in the 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review were emotional adjustment (12 studies), sexual preference (nine studies), stigmatization (nine studies), gender role behavior (eight studies), behavioral adjustment (seven studies), gender identity (six studies), and cognitive functioning (three studies).
All 23 studies are on the chart they include.
They include their very specific methodology (just under the inclusion criteria) for discovering the studies to be included -- if you have access to a research library with appropriate subscriptions, such as at a University, feel free to replicate their searches.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
After looking at the table, I have to say I was kind of hoping that more of the studies would be blind at at least one stage. About half of them were blind on the researcher's end in some way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
Yes, the component studies are far from perfect, as this study repeats numerous times (if they were letting their bias get to them, one might expect them to, perhaps, ignore such problems instead of stating them straight up). This limitation is hardly their fault as by their criteria blind studies are perfectly acceptable -- its just there weren't any. As for it resulting in potentially bad results, yes, that's possible. However, they note that while all the studies had problems, some minor and others bigger, the problems and methodologies varied greatly and still resulted in the same basic results.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:So it's not so much that gays make better parents than heterosexuals - it's that one class of bad parent (unprepared parents who end up not coping well) is not represented in the gay population.
Yes, Dagonee, that's what I was trying to say. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the clarification.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was re-reading MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail and thinking about this issue. To get it out of the way, I've stated repeatedly that I'm sure that it is possible to be against homosexual sex and marriage without being a bigot. I've still been accused of thinking otherwise, but that's what I've said.
However, I think that it's clear that, if not a majority, than at least a very large minority of people are invested in this issue specifically because they are bigots. I think, as I've said, that the bigotry and hatred that they demonstrate are the real fundamental causes of immorality, both in my view and in that of the Bible (and I'll throw in MLK, arguably the best Christian our country has ever produced, too).
However, from my view, instead of identifying these bigots as the bearers of hatred and sin, people are at the very least condoning them, and, in many cases actively embracing them. Like at the rally we're talking about, people are walking arm in arm with obvious bigots and calling them brother. They meet bigots and call them Christians. Is it any wonder that other people think that Christians are bigots?
I don't define what it means to be Christian. You, as a Christian, do. When you support hatred and call it Christian, you may not yourself be a bigot, but you're certainly a supporter of bigotry. When you place thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love, you are saying that Christianity is first about being anti-homosexuality and, if there's room, then about loving others. You bear a responsiblity for what people are doing in your name.
In the midst of the civil rights movement, when people (many (most more likely) of them calling themselves Christians) where behaving horribly towards him and his people, Martin Luther King constantly stressed the need to love your enemies and condemned violence and hatred, no matter what the reason. He, the leader of the powerless, specifically emphasized these points. Now it seems that the preeminence of these virtues has been forgotten by the powerful in their struggle against the weak.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When you support hatred and call it Christian, you may not yourself be a bigot, but you're certainly a supporter of bigotry.
Is this a general or a specific "you?" If the latter, please specify.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, What would the point of me using a specific you? Of couse I meant a general you. I describe general conditions I see. It's up to the individual people whether what I say exists and whether it applies to them. I don't really care.
So, what do you (specific there, because no other religious people here will address my points) think of my analysis? Am I wrong about any of the important parts of it? If I'm not wrong, why is this situation ok? If it's not ok, what do we do about it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What would the point of me using a specific you? Of couse I meant a general you.
I couldn't tell, especially with some of the goings on in this thread (not by you). So I thought I'd be sure before replying.
quote:So, what do you (specific there, because no other religious people here will address my points) think of my analysis? Am I wrong about any of the important parts of it? If I'm not wrong, why is this situation ok? If it's not ok, what do we do about it?
I don't have time to go in depth right now. Let me address one point and see if I can get back to it tomorrow.
quote:When you place thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love, you are saying that Christianity is first about being anti-homosexuality and, if there's room, then about loving others.
You know from previous discussions I have difficulty with this characterization. As far as the people in the article that started your thread, I'd say your probably right in characterizing them that way (although judging anyone else's true motives and heart is hard).
I personally don't think I would participate in a rally to condemn a particular type of sin. I think it's presumptious, given that I've got my own set of sins I struggle with, and I think it's counterproductive in the sense that a large group of people can't really convince anyone of anything. The only exception I can think of is for a sin that produces human victims (racism or abortion, say) or when I feel associated with a group that has committed a sin and need to stand up and say, "I don't condone this."
Even then, I think one-on-one action is better. For example, to satisfy my anti-abortion stance, I helped out at a home for expecting mothers who would otherwise have likely aborted.
Let me see if I can present a plausible possibility how the actions described in Lalo's link (misguided though I think they are) might arise from love.
(In the following supposition, these beliefs are NOT my own, although they could be characterized that way in a gross oversimplification). Suppose the people in the crowd really do think that there are only two alternatives after death: eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Further, suppose they believe that practicing, unrepentant homosexuals will definitely end up with the latter. Further suppose that these people honestly think that standing around with a "Repent or Perish" sign will actually cause some of them to repent. Wouldn't doing something that seems so hurtful then actually be an act of love? Or, at minimum, be an act motivated by love?
Ignore the practical question of whether holding up a sign like that could actually make someone repent - if the person doing it believes it might work, can they be motivated by love?
Let me emphasize that I agree that some, if not most of the people at that rally were there out of hatred or, more likely, a strange mix of hatred and love. But I'm unwilling to write off the whole crowd as having "place[d] thinking homosexuality is a sin over the fundamental rule of love."
Dagonee P.S., I realize I've rambled all over the place here. So let me reiterate - attending such a rally is something I would not do, and I think the rally was a bad idea.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, My specific concern is about those people at the rally who aren't there out of hatred. They don't hate, but they are supporting the hatred of the people standing right next to them. They are at a rally to combat a smaller sin right alongside people violating the central commandment of the Christian religion and they seem to have no problem with this.
Read MLK's speaches. The man always goes out of his way to emphasize that love is the only justifiable Christian attitude. If you gave such speaches at an anti-homosexuality rally, I think that you'd lose maybe half of the audience.
These people, the non-haters, are abandoning their responsibility, not just towards the homosexuals, but towards the hating Christians as well.
edit: I'm focusing on the rally because it is a very concrete example, but I believe that this attitude goes far beyond the anti-homosexual rallies or even the anti-homosexual issue.
[ February 11, 2004, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
My problem is loving and caring about another human being is putting yourself in their place. Trying to understand how difficult it is to be gay in a society that hates you, that tells you your love or attractions are wrong and evil without really giving a clear reason why. What do they do if their child turns out to be gay or a best friend? Or even, much to their shock, a parent?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My post was all about putting yourself in the place of the other - in this case, those who think that homosexuals need to repent. Based on their basic beliefs, they think that the difficulty in "being gay in a society that hates you" is not nearly as bad as the difficulty to be faced in eternity if the morality of homosexual actions is not addressed.
I'm not saying that this view is correct. I'm saying that it's way too simple to say "love implies never telling someone that what they do is wrong." You have to take into account the percieved harms to the individual of doing the wrong thing.
Dagonee
Edit: changed "worse" to "not nearly as bad as" in first paragraph.
[ February 12, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, I've got two problems with that view of things. First, I've been there. In my youth, I went to a couple Catholic pro-life marches/rallies. I'm still anti-abortion, but I would never associate with the blatant hatred I experienced at those rallies.
Second, I believe that people are a lot more purposive that people seem to give them credit for. That is, there's a definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think this is extremely applicable to the astounding bad conversion strategies that many religious movements use.
I don't think that these people have any reasonable expectation that their attending this rally and the attendent activies are going to presuade any homosexuals to stop being homosexual. This is not to say that they are insane, but rather that they go to these rallies for reasons other than trying to convert homosexuals. If there paramount concern was to convince homosexuals not to sin, I would hope that they'd use some other tactic that has a success rate of over say 1%.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Love also implies giving freedom to choose. These rally people want to prevent homosexuals from having the option of marraige, not to convince them not to marry.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
He re is a photo of the first gay marriage. The Mayor of SF didn't want Mass to get all the publicity, so he decided to make it legal.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, I really would like answers to my questions. To restate, I think that the many of the Christian anti-homosexual stuff movements ally or even embrace bigots. I think that some of them even deliberately try to inflame bigotry against homosexuals. From my perspective, some Christians aren't just throwing their pearls before swine, they're dressing the swine up in a pearl necklace and telling everyone that it's their date. Do you think that this is an accurate description?
If it is accurate, isn't it a much bigger problem for Christians than homosexual marriage (I'm not saying you should just say that homosexuality is ok because you have bigger fish to fry.)?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Are you willing for the same estimations to be made of the gay rights crowd, Mr. Squick?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Give me a little credit, Scott. Of course I am. I'm against bigotry no matter what it's source. However, even the 10 year olds I work with know that the "I can do bad stuff because he does worse stuff." defense is both stupid and immature. In our culture, we reerve stuff like that for adults in politics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MrSquicky,
I need to get back to you later today - I let this thread slip off my radar while concentrating on the Ashcroft and In Your Face threads.
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
See? See? I posted the link first, Lalo!
Just that no one reads it...
and I still think it's a very cute photo that I linked to. But no one's ever commented on that historic first couple but me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not looking to make an excuse for anyone, Squicky.
Did you think I was?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To restate, I think that the many of the Christian anti-homosexual stuff movements ally or even embrace bigots. I think that some of them even deliberately try to inflame bigotry against homosexuals. From my perspective, some Christians aren't just throwing their pearls before swine, they're dressing the swine up in a pearl necklace and telling everyone that it's their date. Do you think that this is an accurate description?
I think this is an accurate description of some of them. However, I think many more of them inflame bigotry against homosexuals unintentionally than do so intentionally – I still think many of them are motivated by love. I’m not denying that the effect of their actions is to inflame bigotry. That being the case, it is the duty of Christians’ who think such rhetoric is hateful to argue against it. However, such arguments should take place not in public, but in private. (Frankly, that’s my main argument against many “anti-homosexual” or “anti-anything-else” rallies, anyway.)
quote:If it is accurate, isn't it a much bigger problem for Christians than homosexual marriage (I'm not saying you should just say that homosexuality is ok because you have bigger fish to fry.)?
Well, of course it is, especially since I don’t think homosexual marriage is a big problem for Christianity. Christianity has lived with numerous compromises of the sanctity of marriage with civil authority, the two biggest being the lack of any precautions that marriages not be entered into lightly and the corresponding rise of no-fault divorce. Civil marriage of homosexuals is not any more damaging to marriage as sacrament than these are.
However, the situation here has been complicated by two factors. First, you may have noticed I have reiterated on several occasions here that I think homosexual actions are wrong. This is not normally something I go around doing with regard to this or any other sin. The reason I have done it in these threads is that I am making other arguments that could lead a person to believe that I don’t think homosexual actions are sinful, and I do not want to be put in a false position unintentionally. In other words, I don’t care if the average person doesn’t know my stance on homosexual actions. But in a situation where a different belief than the one I know may be inferred from my actions, I have an obligation to clarify that possible misunderstanding. I honestly think many Christians oppose allowing civil unions because they see it as “condoning” homosexuality, which they see as a repudiation of their faith. And frankly, it’s a hard, hair-splitting argument to arrive at the opposite conclusion – luckily I like hard, hair-splitting argument, so this wasn’t a problem for me.
The second complicating factor is the almost continual blurring of the lines between “homosexual marriage is OK” and “the civil benefits of civil marriage should not be denied to homosexual couples.” This is why I haven’t signed any petitions on this subject – not one has made this distinction clear. It’s also why I’ll probably never go to a rally on the subject – my opinion on the matter is not expressible in pithy sign. I’ll write to my representatives and consider the issue when voting (although it won’t be a litmus issue) and continue to make reasoned arguments where it might possibly do some good. But I won’t be grouped in with the ancillary arguments that often accompany political events related to this issue.
The actions of the protestors must be viewed in the context of people claiming that thinking homosexual actions are sinful is automatically a bigoted position. This is a direct attack on their faith. As a Catholic, I painfully remember ACT-UP desecrating the Eucharist to protest Cardinal O’Connor’s stance on condoms. This is not a reason to hate homosexuals (there is no valid reason to hate homosexuals). But it is a reminder that there are people in direct opposition to our faith. Check out this link for an understanding of the context. The link also demonstrates some of the pitfall in responding to such rhetoric. Do you stop after every sentence condemning their actions and say, “but we still love you.” I don’t know – I think the article gets a little too strident at the end and doesn’t emphasize the need for helping AIDS patients because they are sick, regardless of how they got that way. “I'm not saying we shouldn't be helpful, loving or sympathetic” isn’t quite enough in that regard.
Frankly, anyone who wants to convince a Christian to support civil unions for all couples is never going to succeed by trying to convince them that holding a belief about somebody’s actions as sinful is bigotry. Moral standards are part and parcel to the Christian faith. Under such a fundamental attack, I have a hard time faulting people who go entirely defensive rather than parceling out the issue into separate little packages. Do I wish they would? Yes. Do I try to convince them of that? Yes, either in private or in forums where my view on such matters is, if not solicited, then at least expected.
To get back to your final question after such a winding road, actions that demonstrate hate in the name of Christianity border on blasphemy. But mere condemnation of a particular action is not necessarily showing hatred. I think that actions that give implicit or explicit approval to oppression of homosexuals need to be publicly repudiated. But that repudiation must be clear enough that any aspect of the message that is accurate, even if uncomfortable, is not repudiated, either implicitly or explicitly. And frankly, I don’t know how to do that effectively.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dagonee, I'm beginning to fear that I'm harping on the same thing long past its due. I think you and I basically agree, although we're approaching it from very different angles.
I'm going to sum up. While I'm concerned about the gay rights issue, that's not my primary concern with this line of reasoning. I'm a big believer in the bsis of morality that I've been harping on, love for another. Or, as I like talk about it, love combined with understanding that we call empathy.
I tihnk that Christian morality has historically diverged widely from this idea and that it is still sufferring from a lack of importance or an outright denial of this concept. For far too many people, Christian morality is concenred about following a list of rules and not about the underlying concepts behind those rules. Thus, for them, it is perfectly acceptable to hate as long as they are supporting so-called Christian causes.
A lot of Christians are bigots. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, Christians are more likely to be prejudiced than non-religious people. However, from that earlier thread, a small minority of Christians are even less prejudiced than the non-religious. To be honest, I think that a large part of the responsiblity of the linking of bigotry to Christianity falls on these people. For various reasons, they haven't really opposed this. MLK, who I regard as probably the best Christian this country has produced, constanly fought against the idea that you could be acting as a Christian and hating. I honestly don't see this message being pushed today. Rather, I see the current conception of Christianity as being largely a matter of whether you go to church and how you stand on certain issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MrSquicky,
I understand what you're saying here. What I haven't seen you address is what you consider the "proper" Christian response when it becomes necessary for a Christian to assert his beliefs in some of those rules.
In other words, without diminishing the primacy of love in Christian doctrine, how does a Christian go about making it clear that the "rules" do matter? Or, that the love and tolerance being shown is only being extended to the people, not to the rule-breaking?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's an interesting question. I'm starting to understand our diffrences from the beginning of this in Bob's thread. I wonder, is it posssible to teach a semi-absolute list of rules of right and wrong without reference to how they relate to the underlying principle of love and still maintain love as the primary objective?
It's difficult for me to come up with a good answer for this because 1)I've never had kids and 2) perhaps because of this, I don't believe in teaching rules without meaning.
I really don't know. With children, you can make the meaning a trust in your parents and you'll understand later type thing, but I don't know how well this works in a religious sense. I mean, you can trust in God, but, excepting the after-life, which is kind of a black hole as long as living people are concerned, I don't know about understanding later. I mean, if you can't understand why a person who genuininely loves everyone would never be homosexual, I don't know how you could link it to love. And yet, from certain Christian perspectives, there is a need to regard this as a sin.
I can see how this is a matter of balancing like you were saying before. The best answer I can come up with is teaching the two things in tandem, but always emphasizing the focus on love over all things. I feel like that's a cop-out, but it's the best I can come up with now. I'll think about it some more.
edit: I should add that I'm an idealistic anarchist, which makes the whole rules thing sort of a slippery concept for me. I don't believe that a perfect human society would need rules. Rather, they'd rely entirely on empathy and responsibility/ That's one part of me that intially grew out of Paul's decription of what a Christian community should be like and by Josephus's description of the socialistic early Christian communities.
edit the second: One thing I should emphasize is that I strongly disagree with what I see as the current method of teaching sins without meaning, which is the use of a punishment/reward system. Not only am I philosophically opposed to such a thing, but psychological research has shown to far beyond my satisfaction that such systems don't actually work and pervert whatever they are attached to.
[ February 18, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
How can Christians be more likely to be bigots than non-Christians? In fact, how can a Christian be a bigot at all?
After all, aren't Christ's teachings and bigotry mutually exclusive?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think that's fair, MrSquicky. This has been an interesting intellectual journey so far.
Xaposert, I think it's pretty clear that Christians can do things antithetical to Christian teachings. Then it becomes a question of how much someone can deviate from those teachings and still be a Christian.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We've argued on this board before whether certain groups can be called Christian, despite substantial deviation from the norm; the consensus is that it's merely polite to consider those who self-identify as Christians to be Christian, even if their beliefs are not entirely consistent with the mainstream of the faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's my take on the subject as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm coming at it from a group dynamics perspective, so when I say Christian here, I mean people who self-indentify as members of a group and are in turn indentified by that group as a member. I've tried various ways to distinguish this group from people who actually actively follow Jesus' teachings, but I haven't really come across a clear way of doing this. Actually, now that I think of it, that fits in pretty well with my point. People in general are doing a bad job of making this distinction or, in many cases, not acknowledging that there is a difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, making that distinction becomes judgmental at the most basic level. Looking at a single act and saying, "I think that's wrong" is one thing. Looking at a person's actions over the course of their life and saying, "that person is really living as a Christian" is quite another. So who should make that distinction?
Besides, ultimately Christians believe that anyone who receives salvation does so via grace, not because anyone actually deserves it. This does not excuse anyone from trying to live as a Christian should. It just means no one is above reproach.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
to self*
![[Mad]](mad.gif)