posted
Ok you guys are going to hate me, since I'm starting a new thread on the topic. But Tom's thread has gone to fluff and appears to be starting to die, as it probably should, since everyone is starting to forget what was on middle ten pages anyway.
I would like to discuss the horizontal (a person interacting with other people) and vertical(person interacting with God) pre-suppositions of both sides. I'm taking a couple of Bible verses that everyone seems to agree on (whether or not you actually believe in God) as a starting point for the discussion.
This is standard King James Version from this website
quote:Matthew 22:34-40 34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Verse 39 is basically a statement of the Golden Rule. Which borrowing from C.S. Lewis, basically boils down to "Treat others as you would want to be treated."
Notice that using the concept of "tough love" you can actually justify treating someone differently than you would want to be treated, because they "need loving discipline" etc. etc.
However this pre-supposes a relationship with God. See v.37 of the passage. Now when both parties regard themselves to have said vertical relationship with God, even if they are of different varieties of religious beliefs, the only options for actual action are back to the "golden rule" or the horizontal plane. This also generally applies to atheists or agnostics. They exist only on the horizontal plane and do not add the vertical reference point to the equation. But, as far as I have seen, most of them believe that it is generally good social and moral practice to treat others as they would want to be treated.
To practice this in what I believe is its most sophisticated yet simply elegant form, is not actually trying to convince someone to change a firmly held conviction different from your own. It won't work; we already know that. It is to put yourself in that persons shoes and figure out how you would want to be treated if you were actually in their place holding their beliefs.
After engaging in this process myself I support gay marriage.
I see some possible wiggle room in the 2nd-most-important commandment.
For example, loving your neighbor does not necessarily translate into overt action that demonstrates that love. Of course, the same could also be said of our love for God (the 1st commandment).
I think that would also buck a long-standing tradition of equating the 2nd commandement with 'the golden rule.' (Which, by the way, predates Mosaic law and the production of the 10 commandments by a bit) (see code of Hammurabi)
Another possible out is that people could say that because love of God takes precedence over love of ones neighbors, we should treat our neighbors as we would want to be treated, given that God's will overrides all.
I think that's the route most Christians would have to take on this issue if they want to remain against gay marriage. This subsumes the idea that if something we personally are doing is a sin (especially if it is a serious sin) our true desire (what is truly best for us in God's eyes) would be correction. That's because if someone doesn't correct us, our error would persist and we might lose our very soul.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Bob – note that when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment he quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:17. Good stuff in those “outdated” books, no?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang, I was gonna start a metathread today, for almost the exact same reason, but I hadn't composed the post yet. Well, I'll wing it for a response instead, and maybe I'll bring up my topic later.
The first thing I noticed in your post, AJ, was disagreement with what you told me to notice.
quote:Notice that using the concept of "tough love" you can actually justify treating someone differently than you would want to be treated, because they "need loving discipline" etc. etc.
I think part of the concept of tough love is that I do to you precisely what I would, at least in theory, want done to me under the same conditions. Most anyone dishing out tough love (and willing to call it love) will believe that his actions apply directly to the situation in its entire context. That person rarely admits to finding himself in such context, though, and my guess would be that if he thinks himself that aware of his need, then tough love isn't necessary yet. An exception to this might be AA members (I believe, at least at a time, that my brother would put himself in that category). Might be something only seen in hindsight, though, and not visible when he was there.
I also might disagree with your conclusion, depending on how it manifests itself. Let us remain on the alcoholic example. When an alcoholic in question is unaware that he has a drinking problem, does the golden rule mean that I should refill his whiskey glass, because that's what he wants? I don't think so. It's not necessarily my place or responsibility to stop him from drinking, but I don't need to partake in facilitating his problem, or at least what I may conceive to be a problem. So while I wouldn't refill the glass, neither would I start preaching to him about the evils of alcohol (unless it's store-brand tequila, in which case I would have few dissenters, but wait, he was drinking whiskey wasn't he?) and rip the glass out of his hand, handcuff him and take him to an AA meeting or a rehab program. (Note -- I'm not sure what I would do if the man in question is my fifteen-year-old Mooselet, and I hope not to have to figure that out, but I'm pretty sure I won't need the handcuffs.)
I realize that this does not (except very indirectly) relate to the topic of gay marriage, but allow me to continue the false analogy. There are laws regarding alcoholic consumption. Putting aside age as a factor, these laws refer to drinking in situations where one encounters others publicly. Public intoxication, driving under the influence, etc. There isn't a law to my knowledge that says don't drink, or even don't get drunk, but there is one that says you shouldn't be drunk in public, and you shouldn't put yourself in a position where your drunkenness can be a danger to others.
Ok, changed my mind -- too many variables in where one could go with the analogy, and too many problems with trying to crowbar the analogy in to fit given situations.
Bob -- yes, I'm of the mind that the first commandment is more important than the second, and I think that carries over into the ten commandments, too. However, it's not a matter of commandment two is less important than commandment one, but rather than commandment two is encompassed by commandment one. If you are "Loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength," then loving your neighbor as yourself will naturally follow. Trying to accomplish the loving your neighbor thing without the loving God first just makes it harder.
Imagine, for example (in a very closed system), that we have the first commandment: Don't cut yourself with a knife. The second is this: When you're bleeding, apply pressure and a bandage. If you're doing the first commandment, the second becomes moot. It's not that the second is unimportant or unwise, and it's not that it shouldn't be removed from the rulebook, but simply the the first (when followed) renders it unnecessary.
I'll address my opinions about the formal legalization of gay marriages at another time, because it will be a post a lot longer than this one, and I'll be using different scripture excerpts.
quote:Hey Bob – note that when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment he quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:17. Good stuff in those “outdated” books, no?
Absolutely. Is it also not true that the best of the OT is repeated in Jesus' words in the New Testament? Meaning that one wouldn't lose too much of Jesus' message by just following the NT gospels?
(I'm deliberately trying to ignore Paul, so I'm just using the Gospels here).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be true if all either testament was was a collection of moral precepts. If it is not that, or even primarily that, but instead an identity-forming narrative, then losing the first 2/3 of the story would leave us without some pretty crucial underpinnings, and make the remaining 1/3 kind of vague.
Dang, I really have to get that longer post written. Maybe after VBS tonight. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point though is that there are a lot of different "vertical planes" out there. And because everyone can't agree on the first one, the only one we really can apply in real life is the second.
The woman at the well, was not being directly adversarial to Jesus in the entire context of the conversation. She was already in a place (or Jesus was able to say the words) that made her receptive to Jesus' teaching at that time. The Pharisees that asked this question were being adversarial. Jesus outlined principles that they couldn't disagree with because they were broader than Jesus' specific teachings. Jesus and the Pharisees, and the woman at the well, were all coming out of a culture of semi-Judaism for the time, but they (Christ, the Pharisees, and the Samarian Woman at the well) could not all see eye-to-eye on the vertical plane to God. And in absence of the vertical plane, all we have to deal with is the horizontal.
The tough love situation assumes that you know what is better for the person than they do themselves, enough to cause you to take drastic action. In an instance of an alcholic, this can be documented from a strictly biological standpoint if nothing else. This does not involve the vertical plane at at all, only a horizontal plane of us interacting with someone else. In the case of gay marriage and clergy, we have a vertical element introduced that isn't agreed upon by all. Therefore we have to treat it like it doesn't exist and only look at the common horizontal plane.
(For those of you math gurus out there, I'm sure I could explain this in terms of dot and cross products but I can't but I would lose everyone. The dot product puts everyone in the same dimension while the cross product changes the matrix but retains the dimensions. I support the implementation of the dot product for making society function rather than the cross product, though it would be boring if the cross products didn't exist.)
posted
Bob, if by "can we do a Venn diagram" you mean "can I, Bob, do a Venn diagram, and will you, Moose, point out its flaws," then certainly, by all means we can.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Pop, I've seen tough love, which is where the "wiggle room" exists twisted way to, much by the Christian right, to actually believe it is applied in the way you indicate. Those words justify stuff that is unconsionable by other standards. The extreme example is those kids in those horrible indoctrination institutions in south america that we had a thread on a while back.
Therefore I think one has to disallow tough love, because it is an inherent double standard. Even though a person can intellectually think, that it should be applied to them if they erred as well, it becomes an entire different ball of wax if they ever end up on the recieving end of "tough love." Plus even the concept of erring brings the vertical element involving god(s) back, and people disagree on that all the time.
I'm attempting to restrict the argument to the horizontal plane. As we said before the co-ordinates of the vertical plane with God are impossible for people to agree upon. You have to look at it from the perspective of people who are vertical plane-less before you can truly understand how you would want to be treated if you were them.
posted
The commandment to Love thy neighbor as thyself applies even to Christians who are not supportive of legally recognized homosexual marriages.
Permit me to explain how I understand the command:
1. Neighbor = all of my fellow human beings (see the story of the Good Samaritan).
2. I must take the course of action and assume the attitudes which will lead to the greatest chance of happiness (and the least chance for pain) for the greatest number of my fellow beings.
3. IMHO, legallized homosexual marriages will cause damage to the greater society.
4. Our society currently has a demonstrable lack of respect for the traditional mom/dad/kids family which stays together and loves eachother. This disdain has caused demonstrable damage to society already.
5. Legally recognized homosexual marriages will cause this disdain to increase.
6. Increased disdain for the traditional family (which I believe was instituted by God) will cause suffering and pain for many, many human beings.
7. Therefore, I must oppose legallized homosexual marriage.
8. My stance in #7 will cause pain to homosexual people, including some close friends of mine.
9. I must take whatever steps necessary to make sure that this pain is as small as I can possibly make it. I must treat homosexuals with kindness and respect. I must not discriminate.
10. I must do everything I can (short of allowing legalized homosexual marriage) to enhance the lives of my homosexual brothers and sisters.
11. Pain cannot ever be completely eliminated, and I am sorry for the ones who will bear the brunt of the pain. I feel that my course of action will lead to the greatest amount of human happiness and the least amount of human pain.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But don't you see William that you are still including the vertical element in your logic. I would like to see you come up with similar logic without the vertical implications of God's definition of a family.
This is exactly the crux of the matter. And the reason why the argument ends in a stalemate. Few people, who have strong vertical beliefs are willing to eliminate the vertical part of the argument.
posted
AJ, another problematic concept is applying this "horizontal" aspect to society as a whole, rather than to individuals. Jesus' instructions, as I recall, all regarded personal morality and interaction with individuals, not civil law. Legislating specifically the legality of gay marriage (legislating anything, in fact) is not solely a personal issue.
In fact, let's use a different example of Jesus' interaction rearding a woman who had sinned. I shall paraphrase.
quote:And they said, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law of Moses says we should stone her. What do you say?"
Jesus replies, "Yep, the Law says stone her, so that's what we'll do. Tell you what let's do -- the one without sin can go first. How's that sound? Yeah, let's fulfill the Law, guys."
They all leave.
Jesus then looks at the woman and says, "Ok, the Law specifies that to be found guilty in the eyes of the courts, you must first be accused. Who's accusing you?"
"Um, nobody, I guess."
"Well, then, I guess in the eyes of the Law you shouldn't be stoned. However, adultery still is a sin, so you should stop, ok?"
Yeah, it definitely has a "Book of Moose, chapter 8" feel to it. My point is, though, that Jesus didn't make any changes to the civil law to make his point and achieve what appeared to be the outcome He desired.
I have a really big problem with applying Old Testament civil laws to current day laws and/or morality. I have struggles when others do it, too, but I have more difficulty when I try it myself. The problem for me is that in a theocracy, it makes perfect sense that civil law and morality would go hand in hand. But since we aren't in a theocracy, I have a really hard time legitimately making that same correspondence, regardless of personal opinion -- mine or anyone else's.
As to the alcoholic's situation, the "documented from a strictly biological standpoint" is appealing to a different vertical issue, but it's vertical nonetheless. If the alcoholic doesn't agree with it, is it still fair to say "we know better" and treat him thus? Is the vertical issue true, regardless of his perception of it? And if there really is a God and the things told of Him in the Old and/or New Testament are true, then regardless of someone else's belief or lack, do believers then have the right to act on that truth?
posted
I think that the greatest difficulty with this horizontal and vertical idea is that it creates a false dichotomy. There is no separation between what a given individual sees as divinely mandated morality and the treatment of other human beings. This is because the "vertical" morality defines the "horizontal".
The difficulty is this: to treat someone as you would want to be treated is a good start, but it is not enough to prevent friction. For example, my wife would absolutely love to go out shopping for hours and hours at a stretch. If she treats me as she would like to be treated by taking me shopping for a long time then I will get very irate.
The "treat others as they would like to be treated" approach also fails for two reasons: 1) you can't really know how they want to be treated. 2) Treating them as they want to be treated may violate your own personal morality.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My dad always stated the Golden rule as follows:
don't do to others what they don't want you to do to them.
Or course that breaks down pretty quickly in lots of situations, but it usually works in our family. Ie. don't tease your brothers 'cause they don't want you to. etc.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say the idea was perfect. Maybe it is a false dichotomy. I was just trying the excercise to see if it was possible to get people to attempt separating the two kinds of thinking (even though they may be inextricable)
posted
... "How would you want to be treated if you didn't believe in any God."
I believe that...one should ask that question and act accordingly to the answer.
Sorry, but I completely don't get that.
How would such an approach on my part create a better outcome for me or my fellow human beings?
It's like saying: "You have some aspect of your personality which defines who you are, what choices you make, and perhaps your very existence. It has worked extremely well for you many times in the past. Let's just ignore that and start making very important decisions based upon, well, ....um, nothing."
Why must I throw away or disregard my belief system? Are the "non-believers" then required to throw away their system of "non-belief," thereby becoming believers?
Shouldn't everyone take in to account their entire life experience and knowledge and make those decisions and hold those viewpoints which they believe would be the best for themselves and ALL of their "neighbors?"
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people generally want to be treated the same regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation. Maybe like pop says it breaks down at a societal standpoint. But that is because that is exactly the point where people start bringing in the different vertical perspectives and imposing them on others.
posted
"Imposing of different vertical perspectives" is an interesting phrase.
Attempting to prevail in a discussion/debate regarding the direction of a society could be construed as an attempt to "impose a perspective."
If such is the case, are not both sides (and not just the religious side) attempting to "impose" their viewpoint upon the other?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legislating specifically the legality of gay marriage (legislating anything, in fact) is not solely a personal issue.
I am not sure I understand this statement.
Are you saying that we can't bring our personal preferences to the table when making decisions for the society as a whole?
What is a society if not the sum total of all our little personal decisions and preferences?
If I really believe that my personal preferences are what is best for society, don't I have some kind of duty to see that they are somehow included in the debate?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I think the horizontal perspectives could be made to reconcile, if the vertical perspectives weren't held so strongly.
That seems correct.
Those of us who have vertical perspectives must make sure that we only insist upon those aspects of the perspective which are absolutely necessary. (I think I kind of touched on that in points 8-10).
What good is a "vertical perspective" if you don't hold it strongly? Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal preference is that no one listen to country music anywhere near me. However, I don't think I'd legislate it out of business.
Personal opinions are fine. Like I don't think people should be able to murder others. I also don't have a problem with legislating against it. However, there are things that are a matter of personal choice. Like Country music, pink lawn flamingos and sushi. Legislating because of personal views is wrong in that situation.
I guess what others like me have been trying to point out is that we believe being homosexual isn't really a choice. And by excluding them from being able to participate in society would be very much like outlawing listening to Country music or eat sushi.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
It personally believe that being homosexual is not a choice.
However, acting out upon those homosexual desires is still a choice; just as committing adultery is a choice, but being heterosexual is not. All desires must be kept within the bounds that He has set.
Your feeling is (and correct me if I am wrong) that engaging in homosexual acts is no more harmful than listening to country music (indeed, perhaps much less harmful).
Some of us with a vertical perspective think that engaging in homosexual acts has been defined by God as sinful. As such, we think that we should encourage people to avoid the practice, and we should not, as a society condone the practice.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, to throw something else out there. Which does the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the USA endorse, the vertical or the horizontal?
posted
The horizontal, with major influence from the vertical.
We have to keep in mind that the U.S. constitution doesn't describe rights which allow us to pursue any course of action regardless of its effect upon our fellow beings.
The right of the individual to act must be balanced by the overriding good of society.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes but it does describe a pluralistic society where those of differing vertical beliefs do not have the right to impose their will on the minoritiy who only hold the horizontal beliefs.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does allow such, if the society deems that the society has a compelling and overriding interest (see the Supreme's case on Mormon polygamy).
IMHO, as relates to homosexual marriage, preventing further degradation of society's attitude toward traditional marriage and families is an extremely important overriding societal interest.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
/rant/ off the cuff comment that I know isn't applicable to everyone so don't string me up. It was however my first instinctive response.
Yeah but why bother getting married though when all it seems to do is make most people miserable, both the ones that stay married and the ones that don't. (I understand that there are happily married couples on hatrack but unfortunately I think you are the exceptions not the rule.)
I think the amount of misery in heterosexual marriages has had a heck of a lot more to do with the devaluation of marriage as a societal pillar than any homosexual marriage could. Given that the majority of the animal population is heterosexual, there will always be substantially more heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones, unless it is indeed population pressure that causes shifts towards homosexual behavior.
So, barring that exeption it is the heterosexual relationships that will likely always have the burden of upholding the institution of marriage, and right now they are doing a lousy job of it with or without gays!
Godric -- thank you. People used to like me because I looked good in tight jeans. Your reason suits me better now.
Part of the issue regarding personal versus society is that I truly believe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I, for example, personally like some country music songs. I don't think others should be forced to listen to them any more than I should be forced to listen to the rest of them. However, my wife likes many country songs that I do not. I choose to be willing (at times) to listen to those songs, out of care and concern and consideration for my wife and our marriage. There are things I choose personally that I do not feel should be legislated one way or the other for anyone else. It's also not a quid pro quo -- I don't count the number of country songs I listen to, then expect her to listen to the same number of Beatles songs to make things even. (I do count the number of Lifetime movies, though, to offset the number of times I watch The Matrix. Is this hypocrisy?)
Sweetie -- I used the term "solely" specifically to indicate that there is a relationship between the personal and civil aspects, but that they are not and should not be interchangeable. I'm not sure whether or not you're distinguishing between "personal preferences" and what we've been referring to as "vertical perspectives." I'd claim that the vertical perspectives do deserve a place at the table, and personal preferences do not.
However, as I said above, I believe society is not merely the sum of personal preferences and decisions. That may be how it gets there, but that's not what it is. It's like saying I am nothing but the combination of my mother's egg and my father's sperm. Sure, that's how I started out, but it's not what I am. And in my personal opinion, when the two combine, they are exactly at that point in time something different, something more, something better.
Another issue is the separability or inseparability of "vertical perspectives" and "personal preferences." I think it is a rare person who has a clear understanding of the differences between the two (I'm not including myself in that -- I think there is a difference, but I don't claim a clear understanding of it). It's like Cedrios's vision of how little we understand how our physiology affects what we do, or Tom's of how little we are aware of the effects of advertising.
Like Scott had Ender say in Speaker for the Dead (and Will says something similar in Wyrms), we can get to a place where things make sense, and we stop asking questions until something forces us to look at things a new way. And some of us, when confronted with something that doesn't fit, choose to discount or forget or ignore or explain away those things so that our worldview doesn't have to change.
I'm not saying everyone against gay marriage is choosing to discount or forget or ignore or explain away homosexuality so their worldviews need not change, but some do. And since those who do and those who don't can arrive at the same conclusion, it's easy to assume they used the same logic processes to get there. One of the things I've always appreciated about Hatrack is that on the whole (though not in every case), that assumption is not made. The verbal portions of society that seem to make the difference in the formation of laws often do appear to make that assumption, which I think is part of why I'm so disheartened by the entire "democratic" process in this country. Woah, how'd I get there? I'm so easily distracted....
AJ -- which do they endorse? I think they endorse people operating on the horizontal level, and that they themselves function as the vertical component. Since that "vertical component" was created through a mixture of both vertical and horizontal perspectives of the "founding fathers," both are still there.
I think I have more, but I just scared myself by accidentally deleting everything I'd typed so far, and although I was able to get it back, I don't want that happening again. So I'm posting this now.
quote: I'm not saying everyone against gay marriage is choosing to discount or forget or ignore or explain away homosexuality so their worldviews need not change, but some do. And since those who do and those who don't can arrive at the same conclusion, it's easy to assume they used the same logic processes to get there.
GO POP!!! (Out of respect for your dislike of emoticons I'm not using one here.)
posted
So here's my question -- is the die already cast?
Let me preface the thrust of this with the following disclaimers. I believe in the Christian God (or to use Steve's language, I believe that a God does exist, and He is accurately described in the Old and New Testaments). I know that there are a lot of people who say that and mean very different things, but many of those unspoken assumptions don't directly affect the topic at hand, so I won't be specifying at this time where I fall on several questionable issues. I can clarify if asked, though. Ok? Ok.
A couple hundred years ago, the people who founded this country came to a concensus that societal rules should not be based on Christian (or any other specific religion's) morality, but rather essentially on humanism -- the horizontal perspective to which we have been referring. Are we experiencing psychohistory, and we're at a place where the grand scheme of the near/far future is already pretty certain, even without a second foundation watching over us?
The reason I was thinking about this was the sermon at my church last Sunday. I'm certain (being that this is a pretty conservative church with fairly black-and-white stances on many controversial issues, including homosexuality) that my take on the topic isn't what the prospective new youth pastor who was speaking intended, but I came away with it nonetheless.
The passage used was in First Samuel chapter 8. Rather than give you the passage from the New Moose Translation, I'll just summarize (with a little bit of spin). At this point, Israel is essentially presided over by the judge Samuel. He's getting old, so he appoints his sons to take over so he can retire, but they're corrupt.
The people know Sam is old, and the sons are crooks, so they decide the "system" is no longer valid, and instead of judges they want a king. Sam goes to God, who says "Hold it -- they have a king: Me! Ok, tell them what having a human king really means, and see what they think then." And Sam proceeds to tell the people how much having a king sucks -- your kids become servants and slaves to him, he'll get the fruits of your labor (harvests and weapons and equipment), make everyone work for him, take a chunk of everything you own and everything you make, and all because you think you want a king.
The people respond "Yeah, whatever, give us a king. Then he can fight battles for us and we'll rock, and everyone will envy us, which they don't do now because our system of government is so behind the times." Sam takes that back to God, who says, "Ok, if they don't want to listen to me, let 'em make their bed and they can lie in it." And shortly thereafter, Sam picks a king.
So generations later, Israel is apparently still suffering, at least in part, because choosing to have a king and live under a human's rules is inferior to living under a righteous judge and God's rules. (Note that I assume Sam's kids could have been replaced, even though it's never said.) These future generations didn't take part in the choice of a king over a judge, but have to live with the consequences. The die had already been cast.
When our predecessors chose the form of government we now use, and composed the Constitution, did some consequences become inevitable? [Caveat -- beginning here, I'm throwing out questions, and it should not be assumed on any given one that anyone knows my answer, or that my posing of the question with preconditions means that I stand behind the preconditions.] Is it possible that all mean were not created equal, but since we've taken that as a given, some things cannot help but follow, such as (to pick a random example) legal gay marriage?
Sure, there can still be a small remnant of Israel that lives by the righteous judgeship of God, but it still must be done within the framework of the kingdom. And if there's a remnant in the U.S. (let's say Boy Scouts, just for fun) that wish to continue living under the righteous tenet that homosexuality is aberrant and not "morally straight," then they need to take the other things that go along with it. They still get to exist, but maybe the consequence of keeping the stance is that they lose tax-exempt status, and can no longer use public schools as meeting places as long as they discriminate. If the belief is as important as they say, shouldn't they be willing to accept those conditions if the only other option is weakening their stance?
Again, I probably have more, but I get lost in this little text box, and need to get back to Mooselet anyway.
--Pop
P.S. I don't dislike emoticons (well, except for maybe some of the new ones), I dislike their overuse and misuse (I realize those are subjective, though). I keep trying to make that clear.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pop, I think you just explained what I was trying to say far better than I did.
Though it may not be the Christian preference, I think that legalizing gay marriage is the logical progression from the "all men are created equal". Many of the founding fathers were Christian but there were a lot of them that were Diests too. Maybe they set it up as a logical progression even if they didn't know where it would lead. I think quite a few of them saw the Civil war around the bend though.
posted
I don't particularly see how gay marriage follows from universal equality. Perhaps someone could explain it to me.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It personally believe that being homosexual is not a choice.
However, acting out upon those homosexual desires is still a choice; just as committing adultery is a choice, but being heterosexual is not. All desires must be kept within the bounds that He has set.
I've really been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I can't do it anymore.
This (the quote above) is not at all the same thing. It assumes prohibiting some sexual activity for heterosexuals, but prohibiting all sexual activity for homosexuals. This is, as understand it, the stance of both the Catholic and Mormon churches - something along the lines of, "Well, we understand that being gay is not a choice; but we expect those of you who are gay to remain celibate throughout your life."
This makes just about as much sense to me as God finding Abel's sacrifice acceptable but finding Cain's sacrifice not acceptable. Both situations are completely arbitrary, and I do not and cannot believe that God acts in arbitrary ways.
posted
littlemissattitude, any kind of commandment will affect some class of people in arbitrary ways. Sometimes that group is large, sometimes small. We live in a world of scarcity, and inevitably someone suffers even when the right thing is done. This is called the law of unintended consequences.
One example--once divorce laws made it extremely difficult to get out of a marriage, especially for women. Naturally people wanted this changed, and eventually divorces became easier to obtain. In exchange, however, the price was larger numbers of broken homes and deadbeat dads. Was it worth it? I don't know.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always feel that, in these discussions, I should chime in with the basic fact that most people ignore or avoid.
There can, and should, exist respect in our society for homosexuals. They should be allowed to pursue their happiness, as are we all, in ways that don't impinge upon that of anyone else. I would even cede that, civilly if not religiously, they ought to be permited the same sort of legal union that is afforded all the rest of us.
However, the ultimate goal of the gay rights movement (as I see it), i.e. total acceptance of gays and a general acknowledgement that their way of life is as good and desirous as that of the heterosexual mainstream, is simply ridiculous. Why? Simply put, just as no parent would wish for his or her unborn child to be born blind, paraplegic or deaf, so no parent would actively wish for a gay child. Deep down, I venture to bet, hardly anyone sees the gay lifestyle as being on an equal par with the straight one when it comes to what we want for our children.
[ August 14, 2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB- likely someone will shortly say that the reason that few parents would want their child to be gay is due to the stigma associated therewith. However, I think that you are right. I think that the end goal for many in the Gay rights movement is for their choice to be seen as equally valid as a heterosexual lifestyle, and I agree with you that it is unlikely that ti will ever be seen as such.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Valid is only half of it. The movement wants it to be seen as a desirable, worthwhile, admirable lifestyle.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't want to disagree with you out of hand, DB, and I'm still digesting your points, there are a couple concerns that one might have. First, equating homosexuality to blindness or deafness or paraplegia might be offensive to some, and rightly so (especially depending on one's stance on the choice versus nature issue). Also, I couldn't find it (though I didn't spend too much time looking), but wasn't there a thread with a link about a deaf couple who specifically wanted a deaf child? It might be posited that the reason you don't want a gay child is that you are not gay.
I'm sure you've thought this through a little more, but might there not be a "heterosexual meme" that drives people (including you) to desire heterosexual children? You know far more about memetics than I could ever hope to, so I'm just asking you the question, not trying to "zing" you with your own ammunition or anything.
Macc -- It could be considered to follow depending on a more generic definition of marriage. It appears that most (not all, I grant) people who define it as one member of each gender do so based on religious reasons. If the society is based on discounting religious reasons for definitions, marriage could be considered a legal bond between two people choosing to profess love for and/or commitment to one another. In that more generic sense, gay people would have as much right as heterosexual people to take part in that.
I don't think I'm explaining it well, probably because I have a tendency to make logic (not necessarily logical, but logic) leaps without identifying them clearly. It wreaked havoc on my ability to "show my work" in math classes. For this, I apologize. If you need more, I'll try again, but I'm better with more specific questions.
Lma -- as devil's advocate, I'd disagree with your claim that
quote:It assumes prohibiting some sexual activity for heterosexuals, but prohibiting all sexual activity for homosexuals.
What it actually does is (ostensibly) prohibit some heterosexual activity for all people, and prohibit all homosexual activity for all people. It can be argued that both heterosexual and homosexual individuals have exactly the same rights -- they may have sex with a member of the other gender within the confines of marriage.
It's when the "person I love" clause comes in that things get more complicated. Right now, I don't have the legal ability to marry another man, at least in this state and country. That doesn't matter much to me, since I have no desire to do so. To a degree, I can never understand the difference a gay person goes through in life. I can attempt to increase my understanding, and have done so. I attended the "Gay and Bisexual Men's Drop-in Rap Group" at UCSB for several years. I felt it important to do, and while I never intentionally concealed the fact that I was (a) Christian and (b) heterosexual, my purpose there was not to preach or convert or anything.
I added the word "intentionally" up there, because when I first joined the group I told everyone there those three pieces of information. However, there was a later meeting (might have been the next year, even) where at least one person didn't know that about me. I got my first experience witnessing what many might consider heterophobia. While eye-opening, it wasn't the same thing. As what's-his-name said in Soul Man, "I could always go back."
Ok, I gotta read this whole thread again before I can figure out if there's anything else I have to say.
posted
The God Guts and Guns Newbie returns! After a brief bout with the Admin-worm, I'm back in business. However this is my last post on homosexuality, unless I am begged to return (which wont happen in this lifetime or the next).
MY BOTTOM LINE ON HOMOSEXUALITY
1. It is wrong. I believe this because it's part of my religion.
2. It is not socially advantageous. Therefore it should not be condoned by our culture.
3. It is condemned in the Bible. Therefore all gay bishops, clergymen, Popes, and parishoners are OUT OF LINE.
Here I stand, I can do no other.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, we are not asking you to change your opinions, though we sometimes ask for hard facts to back them up with. We are asking you to be openminded about understanding other people's opinions even when you strongly disagree. That is one of the things we prize here on hatrack, even while we are disagreeing.
Did you not read the beginning of this thread, where I tried to disginguish between "vertical arguments" and "horizontal arguments" and asked people, in the context of this thread, to try to confine their reasoning to "horizontal arguments" regardless of what they believe? Your post flies in the face of all the progress we made from that point, especially the wonderful discourses that Papa Moose posted.
posted
Point taken Pop. However, I think it really has the same effect, because what that says to gays is that it's okay if you have sex, but only with those individuals you are not by nature attracted to or prone to fall in love with.
I guess the bottom line is, it is fine to abide by these restrictions if one agrees that they come from God (and I am not stipulating that assumption) and are willing to forego a seuxal existence because of that agreement. Certainly many priests, monks, and nuns in the Catholic tradition have voluntarily agreed to live celibate lives. However, one's religious view should not be enforced by law on those who do not share that religious view. And no, that does not open the door to murder, because that is not a strictly religious prohibition as far as I can see.
There are some more things I would like to say about this, but I am on a library computer, and I can't stay longer right now.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
