posted
Suzie Q.: "I have neighbors and relatives who are homosexual. I love them and treat them with respect. However, I don't agree with their lifestyle choices, and don't think they should be allowed to further damage my society by getting married. They should learn to resist their sinful urges, and embrace Jesus Christ as their savior."
Me: "Suzie, I think you're a great person, and I totally respect you. However, I think the religion you follow is overbearing and dangerous. I don't think that your religious beliefs have any place in my society, and I'd like to restrict your ability to practice them. Ideally, I'd like it if you would realize how foolish and wrong-headed your beliefs are, and accept the superiority of purely secular ways of thinking."
I've grown increasingly tired of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument on the part of people who want to limit the rights of homosexuals. I have to wonder how they would feel if 90% of the world did unto them as they do unto others.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you start from the position of there is no god, it's essentially the same argument, isn't it?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I'm assuming person B doesn't believe in god (or at least the Christian iteration).
I get that person B is being more vehement and attacking person A, but when you boil both of them down don't you get essentially the same thing? Or did I just not get enough sleep last night?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You made up a person (straw man) in order to counter it. Naturally, you put in the mouth of your straw man only the words you think you can counter. This empty person is supposed to stand in for the real people whose arguments you wish to destroy.
If you are looking for a real characterization, then I'm afraid it fails because you do not understand where the other side is coming from. If you are looking for a place to get kicks out of vanquishing a shell you created, knock yourself out.
posted
Wow, kat, you've never heard anyone express the opinions that Suzie Q. expressed above? You really think she's just a figment of my imagination?
So, then, what would someone expressing this "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument REALLY say? As someone who understands that point of view?
Because, honestly, I've seen this exact line repeated almost verbatim time and time again, both here and in my everyday life.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't let them treat my wife or me with disrepsect.
I hate these behaviors and attitudes-- which my children persist in doing-- but love them all the same.
I DO tend to agree with you somewhat in regards to this particular issue though. I worry that the critics of homosexual marriage do NOT love the opposition, despite what they say.
In other words, it is possible to love the sin, hate the sinner, but the implementation of that attitude is rare. IMO.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayelar, do you really want to know? Because I do understand how things get reduced to sound bites and the real meaning falls away. And how when you disagree with someone, it can be hard to imagine that both can have a coherent, internally-consistent, ethical opinion and arrive in such different places.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: And the thread has moved on... That's what comes with posting when you're all flu-ey. I'll leave it, just 'cos it took me so long to type in my addled state.
Kat - I think Ayelar's point is if you accept the first argument (ie "it's ok to restrict other people's behaviour based on my religous code/ideals) then you should also accept the other (ie "it's ok to restrict other people's behaviour based on my moral code/ideals).
And I completely agree with the point she's making.
I don't agree with some religous ideas. But I would never argue to prohibit people from practising those religions (or, less radically, those facets of the religions) based on my beliefs. Just as I find it completely unacceptable that people try to regulate civil law/behaviour on the basis of their religous beliefs.
posted
I am curious, kat, yes... because I just can't see how someone could believe that denying a person equal rights and telling them that they're going to hell qualifies as loving them. I really can't.
I can't promise that I'll agree with your stance, though. So yes, I'd like to hear it, but caveat poster... Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayelar, let me just say that I can see your point. This is exactly why, while I think homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, I am not sure if it is right for me to tell them they can't be married.
If %90 of the world felt as you presented in what (I hope) was a hypothetical point of view, and they thought my hypothetical religious practices were dangerous to society, they would probably try to restrict them, and I would be very upset by that.
Is that not what happened with the Latter-day Saints and the practice of polygamy? On the one hand, the Saints should have had the religious freedom to practice polygamy as it is part of the religious beliefs. But %90 (or more) of society believed it was harmful to society. So it was strictly outlawed. Many suffered, many families were broken because of that decision. But the Saints obeyed the laws of the land. Still do.
So if gays are allowed to marry, then shouldn't people be allowed to marry more than one individual if it is a part of their religion? (As I have stated before, I am not particularly interested in being in a polygamous marriage, but I believe in its doctrinal significance). Of couse, my church is not the only religion that believes in polygamy. Muslims do also. Yet in this country, a Muslim man would be forbidden to take another wife. Can you support gay marriage and yet deny a Muslim his religious rights?
For some people, their religious code is the only basis for their belief. Whether or not the source of a belief should disqualify it is a subject for a different thread.
For other people (and here I am thinking of OSC in particular), their belief matches their religious code, but the reasons go beyond an incomprehensible edict. They have sociological and ethical reasons as well.
Should those sociological and ethical objections be dismissed because religious objections lie among them?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think that, for me, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument works. Yes, I think it's fine to feel that way.
Until...
Until one starts wanting to write one's religious beliefs into the law. Until one starts believing that it's okay to actively discriminate based on this belief. Until one starts treating the target of one's beliefs as less than a full human because their religion says so.
That's where it really breaks down for me. That's where it crosses the line.
I don't think it's any more appropriate for a religious person to try to limit the rights of gays than it is for me, a non-religious person, to try to limit the rights of Christians.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
I do agree with Scott. Like most grand, true, and divine attributes, the incidence of loving someone completely without embracing that which you believe will harm them is sadly much lower than is claimed (or aspired to).
Ayelar: *nods* That's fine. I just don't like straw men arguments. Except for...well, OSC in Ender's Game and the like (and Beren's wonderful thread), I've rarely seen the opposing argument characterized accurately.
Adds: And I've never seen the other side characterized accurately in anger.
See, this is why I wish democracy was WORKING right now. I don't care where you got your ideas or why you think it's right. The point of America should be that we put things to a vote. If the majority of the country has some religious reason for not allowing gay marriage, and it gets VOTED against, then I'm sorry, but that's how America works. If you don't like the result, you can do whatever you want to reform things, because that's ALSO how America works. But don't sit around complaining about the method we used to come up with our argument, that's pointless...and where does it lead you?
It leads to people trying to stop us from making decisions based on our religious convictions, which is OUR prerogative. They try everything they can think of to convince us that faith isn't as good as "logic" and shouldn't be considered.
And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority, and if the majority is religious, then so be it. The point of America is NOT to make a government that's the least offensive or annoying to you...that's not in the Constitution.
If, one day, the majority of America begins to decide things based entirely on secular reasons, and THAT becomes the majority of the people, then also so be it. (I may move to a private island though. )
But at this point it doesn't matter because things aren't even coming to a vote in the first place. And that's where my real concern lies. Not in the arguments for or against each side, but in the fact that we aren't even choosing the laws.
Liberals want something done? Go to the Supreme Court and they'll do whatever you want.
Conservatives want something done? Just get Bush to write up some "policy" that gives freedom to your side.
Why aren't we up in arms about the way things get decided in our country today? Why isn't THAT the main concern??? I can tell you that I'm alot more scared about that than anything else.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For other people (and here I am thinking of OSC in particular), their belief matches their religious code, but the reasons go beyond an incomprehensible edict. They have sociological and ethical reasons as well."
Kat, OSC has admitted that he's come up with sociological and ethical arguments precisely because he wanted to justify his faith-based positions. I suspect that this is true for the vast majority of people who have "sociological" arguments; they're looking for ways to justify a foregone conclusion.
The remarkably small percentage of atheists who think homosexual marriage is a bad idea implies that, at heart, this is a religious issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Until one starts treating the target of one's beliefs as less than a full human because their religion says so.
You will have to explain what you think qualifies as "human rights" in this situation. Do you think that if I don't let two eight-year-old children get married, I'm not letting them be full humans? Since when is marriage a human right?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority...."
Hm. How do you feel about Islamic fundamentalism, out of interest?
-----
As a side note, PSI, I submit that refusing to permit gays to marry is PRECISELY like refusing to permit eight-year-olds to marry; you are telling them that they are no more entitled to social recognition of their relationship than two children incapable of granting informed consent, and that society must be protected from them.
quote: However, I think the religion you follow is overbearing and dangerous. I don't think that your religious beliefs have any place in my society,
While nobody on this thread said this as themselves, as a religious person, I often feel this attitude coming from others. Such as in conversations like this. When I am told "You are free to believe whatever you want, but it is wrong for it to influence your actions/voting/polcies/etc." I feel like I am being told the above quote.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean in general. Should a country, like Iran, be allowed to dictate that a minority be required to wear heavy, restrictive clothing? Can a country, based on its democratic majority, require that all women be subjected to some form of surgery?
At what point do the voting rights of the majority stop short of persecution of the minority?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both the straw man positions given are fairly common viewpoints, but most holders of those viewpoints make it sound a lot better.
quote:I've grown increasingly tired of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument on the part of people who want to limit the rights of homosexuals. I have to wonder how they would feel if 90% of the world did unto them as they do unto others.
You'd rather they hate the sinner too?
My suspicion is that you're not really mad about the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument - that you're actually angry with the "homosexuality is a sin and should be banned" argument.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority...."
Hm. How do you feel about Islamic fundamentalism, out of interest?
Tom, what does this have to do with it? If the majority of people in a country believe in Islamic fundamentalism, then it makes sense for that to be the strongest shaping feature of that government. Doesn't mean I personally have to agree with it. Doesn't mean it might not be a valid act of war for my country to work to abolish such a government. This is an issue, though, that I don't know enough about to have an official opinion on.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
The majority of a country should be able to make laws that the minority will have to follow.
That country should in no way bar those people from leaving the country if they choose.
I know that things aren't always as cut-and-dried as this, but it pretty much sums up my feelings.
PS: You should know that my political views have changed drastically in the past month or so. I need to start a thread about this.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a side note, PSI, I submit that refusing to permit gays to marry is PRECISELY like refusing to permit eight-year-olds to marry; you are telling them that they are no more entitled to social recognition of their relationship than two children incapable of granting informed consent, and that society must be protected from them.
Well, I think it's quite possible that a majority of Americans feel a gay marriage isn't entitled to be recognized any more than the marriage of two children. So, if we can do it to children, why can't the majority rule the same way on gay marriages if it feels those are equally unworthy of the term "marriage"?
Children are just as much a minority as homosexual individuals.
posted
At one point, PSI, it was the Majorities view that people of African Heritage should be enslaved by those of European Heritage. At one point it was the majorities view that Euopean Americans had the right to forcibly remove Native Americans from thier lands, herd them into underfunded and underfed reservations, and force them into Christian Schools where they learned English, Christianity, and the fact that they would always be inferior to thier white masters. At one point it was the Majority view that Brittney Spears is a good singer.
The Majority is a cruel master. The Mob is an ugly beast when seen from the eyes of those outside.
There are basic human rights, defined in our constitution and our Declaration of Independence (which I know has no place in this countries legal system) that can not be taken away from any minority by any majority.
The question remains, is marriage one of those rights?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, it's precisely because I think marriage is NOT one of those rights, and because I don't think the government has any compelling reason to recognize marriages, that I believe the idea of civil marriage should be eliminated and replaced with personal incorporation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think it's quite possible that a majority of Americans feel a gay marriage isn't entitled to be recognized any more than the marriage of two children. So, if we can do it to children, why can't the majority rule the same way on gay marriages if it feels those are equally unworthy of the term "marriage"?
Children are just as much a minority as homosexual individuals.
Tres, I don't think anyone doubts that this COULD be done. As we see with the proposition for an amendment banning gay marriages, "we" absolutely could put this into law.
The question, then, is whether or not it is right to treat two consenting adults who contribute to our society as though they were 8-year-old children.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no argument that the majority has been wrong (or what I would consider wrong) in the past. All I'm asking is that things be reformed in a legal, democratic way. If people start making sweeping changes that don't include the citizens, regardless of whether the change is good or bad, then all the citizens lose out.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gettting back to the main question, I was going through some old school books when I ran across this debated argument:
quote: Is it holy because God loves it, or does God love it because its Holy.
The reverse of the argument is:
quote: Is it a sin because it is bad, or is it bad because it is a sin.
The first argument was asked by Socrates, 600 years before Christ.
The second is just a restating of the Conservative Christian argument versus the Liberal Christian and non-Christian argument.
The Conservatives argue "Homosexuality is bad because its a sin."
The Liberals argue "if its not bad, its not a sin."
Then each side tries to repute the others argument. The Liberals question the bible verses that proclaim homosexuality as a sin. The conservatives turn to sociology to find theories saying homosexuality is bad.
Both are usually defeated by the opposition.
I don't know what I am trying to say with this post, except to maybe shed some light on what we are arguing, and the fact that at its base, this argument has been going on longer than Christianity itself.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not be misleading here: It's not a question of treating adults like children. It's a question of treating a marriage of two gay adults as equally invalid as the marriage of two young children.
One of the arguments given in this case is that people have a fundamental right to marry who they want, and that we cannot define marriage in a way that excludes marriage from certain minority groups. The children example illustrates that this argument fails - that we can claim certain marriages just aren't valid marriages, because we do precisely that to children. Unless we're prepared to call our ban on child marriage tyranny too, we can hardly automatically say that limiting gay marriage in a similar way is tyranny.
This means the issue should now turn to "are gay marriages valid?" (rather than "isn't everyone entitled to marry?")
quote:The Conservatives argue "Homosexuality is bad because its a sin."
Or, homosexuality is a sin because it's bad for you.
God doesn't make up rules just for kicks and to aribtrarily see us restricted. They exist because he knows the best way to make us ultimately happy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, just in case that child-marriage thing was directed at me--
I wasn't contesting gay marriage. I was contesting the idea that it's impossible to hate the action, but love the actor.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI: I mean, at what point does the rule of the majority become so evil and/or repressive that the minority is justified in ignoring or rebelling against it?
------
Tres, it's the idea that the idea of a homosexual marriage is no more comprehensible to some people than a "marriage" between eight-year-olds that many of us find most insulting (and depressing) about the whole thing.
posted
PSI, I agree with you on the democratic processes. I am pretty ticked off about people in authority making these decisions regardless of whether they have the support of the majority.
quote: The question, then, is whether or not it is right to treat two consenting adults who contribute to our society as though they were 8-year-old children.
Whaa? This is a pretty big leap. No one has claimed that the reason for being against gay marriage is the same as being against 8-year-olds marrying. Only that just as one is considered unwise, the other is also, for DIFFERENT reasons.
The point is we already put some restrictions on marriage in some circumstances, and the many citizens of our country feel that gays should be restricted also. I am against writing off their opinions as somehow invalid or even comparing them to racial monstrosities. Where race is concerned, as I understand it, people either felt their race was superior, or that the idea of associating with another race was distasteful.
I really don't think those are motives for most of those against gay marriage (no doubt it is for a fanatical minority) and I am tired of the accusations that I or others have that motivation when we simply don't. Being against a race and being against homosexuality are quite different in this way. I do think that comparing it to being against a religious belief has some interesting validity. (See my above argument).
People have a right to their opinion, and people have a right to try and sway opinions. We all have a right to disagree with each other. We all have a right to vote.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Yeah.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
