Thought this might be an interesting news tidbit, apparently California is having a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage which coincides with the general election (did I miss this somewhere on Hatrack, I tried the search function):
quote:According to an article in today’s San Jose Mercury News, a poll taken by researchers across California reports that Asian Americans are soundly against California’s Proposition 8, a referendum designed to end same-sex marriage by putting in an amendment in California’s constitution. Their findings conclude that 57% of those polled (out of 1100 Asian Americans) would be voting against the proposition.
quote:… a public opinion poll published this month found 47 per cent of respondents favoured the measure, with 42 per cent opposed and 10 per cent undecided. The result was based on polls conducted through the summer in this usually liberal-minded state.
That second article is a rather long and potentially interesting read. LDS members, how legitimate do the actual PDFs of these articles look?
Selected interesting opponents
quote: Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Barack Obama said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law....And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states". ... Google has announced their official corporate opposition to Proposition 8, viewing the question "fundamentally as an issue of equality." ... Southern California's largest collection of rabbis voted overwhelmingly to oppose Proposition 8. Leaders of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California -- with representatives from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements -- said they wanted to protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The resolution did not address the sanctity of gay marriage. Instead, it urged a no vote on Proposition 8 so that same-sex couples can continue to marry under civil law.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'd been managing not to think about this for the most part.. except, you know when I saw a "yes on 8" banner or something (there's one where I walk every day.)
If the polls are showing that the "yes" side has a slight lead, then we're doomed. People are more likely to be tolerant when talking to a pollster (or any other stranger) than they are when they're alone in the poling booth. They don't want to seem like a bigot to the pollster, but your ballot is anonymous.
They say that current marriages will be grandfathered in (though I'm sure that will require a court challenge too)... That's good for my co-workers who rushed out to get married, but not good for gays and lesbians who weren't with Mr/Mrs Right during this brief window...
The whole thing makes me physically sick. That otherwise good people are so full of hate toward gay people (especially if they blame their hate on God) that they would deny them a basic right like Marriage.
And they love to call it "protecting" marriage as if gays getting married destroys their marriage. They're not protecting marriage, they're just destroying it for the people they don't like. If they really cared about protecting marriage they'd all stop getting so many divorces.
Sorry.. I'm pretty full of rage right now...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not for Prop 8, but I can easily see how someone could be and still not hate gay people.
Demonizing people who feel differently than you do is not the way to promote tolerance.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Being calm about it obviously hasn't worked, since 8 is about to pass.
And demonizing racists has worked pretty well, I mean, no one wants to be a racist.
Maybe it's time to go after the tax excempt status of churches who have thrown their collection plates behind this political issue.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
As far as I know, it is against the rules to endorse a candidate, not to back a political issue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As far as I know, it is against the rules to endorse a candidate, not to back a political issue.
Maybe it's time to change that. Seems to me that would be pretty easy to get on the ballot.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think you'd find significant opposition from those who feel political organizations shouldn't be taxed anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A look at the Mormon support of the proposition:
quote: ... the Pattersons recently made a huge financial sacrifice – they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.
"It was a decision we made very prayerfully and carefully," said Pam Patterson, 48. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children."
Mormons such as the Pattersons have emerged as the leading financial contributors to the controversial Nov. 4 ballot measure. Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the "yes" campaign.
Other religious groups have contributed, including a Catholic fraternal service organization – the Knights of Columbus – which donated more than $1 million. But no group has given more than the Mormons.
In a June letter to members, top church leaders urged them to "do what you can do" to support Prop. 8. Members have answered the call.
I'm stepping out of this conversation right now. Between prop 8 and the fiasco with social services over this summer I've lost all faith in humanity and I don't feel like getting suicidally depressed right now.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Good. Because your attitude is a major part of the problem.
ETA: I mean on the issue in general. Your attitude on the thread hasn't been a problem yet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I think of all the worthwhile things that people of good will could have done with $50,000...
I just went and made a (considerably smaller) donation against the proposition.
ETA: Pixie, I don't know if you are still reading, but I entirely sympathize with your "attitude".
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You sympathize with Pixie's feeling that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is if you hate gays?
That, specifically, is the conclusion of hers that I find to be a big part of the problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I may not entirely agree with it, but I certainly sympathize with it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
You're right. Overreaction is certainly "part of the problem."
But I can recognize that and at the same time sympathize with Pixiest's reaction. It's not like she's acting on that anger in any significant way. She, like many people when confronted with something they're passionate about, finds it difficult to separate the anger she feels toward certain people and the actual issue. At least she recognizes that and removed herself from the situation rather than doing something immature.
I think it's pretty obvious she doesn't believe all people who are for the proposition hate gay people. If not from this thread then it can at least be inferred from her previous participation on this forum that she's more reasonable and intelligent than that.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I'd have more respect for the pro-gay-marriage position if they would admit they are seeking to redefine the word "marriage."
2 men, or 2 women, couldn't marry each other for all of US history, not because of laws saying "gay people can't get married," but because it didn't even occur to anyone that they could: that sort of relationship was not included in the definition of the word "marriage."
The goal here is to create an additional definition of the word marriage and apply it to a different type of relationship, because by doing so, it will cause people to think the two things are equivalent.
It's not about granting rights (the 2-men or 2-women relationship is already granted in California all the rights that the marriage relationship has), it's about granting legitimacy, achieved by changing the language, for the purpose of changing the way people think.
Don't worry though, I don't think there's much chance of prop 8 passing. The media has been *very* vocal around here, and while I know many people who support prop 8 that are not bigots, fear of being called one keeps them from speaking their mind. One person reported all of the "yes on prop 8" signs on their whole block were ripped up, sliced up, and thrown against the houses.
Also, while I'm saying unpopular things, I'm rather tired of the false comparison to race relations. Demonizing racism has no parallel to demonizing anti-same-sex-marriage people, because the former was always a personal judgment, while the latter is frequently a moral judgment.
I think homosexual sex is wrong, but I don't hate people that engage in it. I think getting drunk is wrong too, but I don't hate alcoholics. My dad is one. Or am I just bigoted against alcoholics too?
Don't worry though. Prop 8 will fail, because we live in a world now where people who aren't bigots are presumed to be a priori because they hold opinions that differ from the Right Ones, and they end up having to explain why they aren't bigots, which means they have already lost.
Besides, marriage got destroyed years ago anyway.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I'd have more respect for the pro-gay-marriage position if they would admit they are seeking to redefine the word "marriage."
Civil marriage has a definition as a government institution. And as such, you can't deny it to citizens just because they have the wrong number of penises.
That the word also has social and religious meanings isn't the fault of the people who want access to the institutions that they as citizens deserve access to.
quote:2 men, or 2 women, couldn't marry each other for all of US history, not because of laws saying "gay people can't get married," but because it didn't even occur to anyone that they could: that sort of relationship was not included in the definition of the word "marriage."
I think you are leaving out a major point...most people thought there was no need for same-sex marriages, because people figured that almost no one wanted them, and that there was something wrong with whoever did.
The people who have gone from this issue not even being on the radar to supporting same-sex marriage didn't change their minds because they thought that marriage had changed. They changed their minds because they realized there was a real need that wasn't being met, and there was no reason on earth not to meet it.
quote:The goal here is to create an additional definition of the word marriage and apply it to a different type of relationship, because by doing so, it will cause people to think the two things are equivalent.
But supporters of same-sex marraige don't think that same-sex couples are a "different" kind of relationship. Sure, same-sex couples have a different number of penises than opposite sex-couples do, but they view that as not a fundamental difference, and the Constitution is pretty clear that only under extreme circumstances is the government supposed to look down your pants when determining what civil rights you are allowed access to. And marriage is not going to be such a cetegory.
quote:It's not about granting rights (the 2-men or 2-women relationship is already granted in California all the rights that the marriage relationship has),
Come on. That's plainly false, and a five minute google proves it. California marriages gain no federal benefits of marriage, and it's unclear if other states will honor them either.
quote:it's about granting legitimacy, achieved by changing the language, for the purpose of changing the way people think.
That might be a nice side benefit, but its about equal access to government insitutions. Institutions that as tax paying citizens, all citizens should have access to. And no, being only able to marry someone that you don't actually love isn't equal access.
quote:and while I know many people who support prop 8 that are not bigots, fear of being called one keeps them from speaking their mind.
I read a story on another website, about a guy whose partner was dying of AIDS. The family rushed in, cut off the guy's pain medication, and when he died, the creamted the body, against his wishes, and flushed the ashes down the toilet. Then they cut off the partner from the joint bank account, and changed the locks on the house they had together. The couple's dog would have starved to death if the partner hadn't broken into his own home, and rescued the dog.
And these guys had all the legal paperwork they had available to them at the time. It wasn't enough to stop the family from trumping it all.
So your friends feel bad because when they express a desire to cut off their fellow citizens from their civil rights, they suffer the social reprecusions of being viewed as morally backwards?
quote:One person reported all of the "yes on prop 8" signs on their whole block were ripped up, sliced up, and thrown against the houses.
That's crappy behavior. But you insult a whole swath of people, indicate your intention to hurt a whole swath of people, expect some of them to insult you right back. It's just common sense.
quote:Also, while I'm saying unpopular things, I'm rather tired of the false comparison to race relations. Demonizing racism has no parallel to demonizing anti-same-sex-marriage people, because the former was always a personal judgment, while the latter is frequently a moral judgment.
Ah. Stuff you care about = moral differences, stuff you don't = personal differences.
What's the moral componant behind wanting to prevent, say, two lesbian parapalgics from marrying? What exactly is the immoral thing they will be doing?
quote:I think homosexual sex is wrong, but I don't hate people that engage in it. I think getting drunk is wrong too, but I don't hate alcoholics. My dad is one. Or am I just bigoted against alcoholics too? Don't worry though. Prop 8 will fail, because we live in a world now where people who aren't bigots are presumed to be a priori because they hold opinions that differ from the Right Ones, and they end up having to explain why they aren't bigots, which means they have already lost.
You just compared gay people to alcoholics. I think you've explained your position with a nice succinctness.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: the former was always a personal judgment, while the latter is frequently a moral judgment.
Are moral judgments not inherently personal?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Marriage has not always been defined as it is now. Changing what marriage means is hardly a new thing.
I am going to decide not to comment on the rest of your post for the time being.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'll agree that people should be more open about what they intend to do, but there's a very practical reason why they aren't.
The goal for pro-ssm people is, well, for same-sex marriages to be legally equivalent to heterosexual marriages. This has to be done by either defining "marriage" more equally or eliminating the term entirely and instituting a new universal term (such as "civil union"). The former appears to be the easiest way to accomplish this goal, but those who support it usually aren't forthright about their intentions because they rightly fear the anti-ssm rhetoric.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
How about we all look at this from the perspective of a religion whose religious rights have been repeatedly stomped on throughout American history.
There are very vocal proponents of SSM that have all but admitted their ultimate goal would be to force religious institutions to be quiet in their opposition to homosexual relationships and possibly forcing acceptance of homosexual unions. Now, as I said, the LDS church has a long history of getting crapped on as far as rights are concerned.
I don't hate gays. One of my best friends is gay. I don't believe that their actions are out of their control. I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I don't believe that homosexuals cannot change their orientation. To claim otherwise is pure rhetoric without factual support. At *most* there are only hypothesis that support the idea of natural homosexuality in humans.
Regardless of what you think, individuals do *not* have a right to be married. Individuals do not have a right to find love (I haven't. I'm going to sue someone because I'm 28 and have never been in love). They do not have a right to be happy. Only to pursue it. If you can't be happy on your own, getting married isn't going to change things.
Getting back to the point here, this is ultimately going to be a battle between rights that have never been defined as rights, and the right to believe as you wish. A right which is one of the major reasons for the founding of the United States.
And don't tell me that the government is going to run to my side when people start telling me what I can and can't believe. I'm a member of a religion that it was legal to *kill* members of in one part of this country during the 19th century. A religion that had one of its practices outlawed. That law didn't affect anyone but Mormons at the time, and the Federal government of the time worked diligently to break up the families that practiced polygamy. Don't tell me this crap isn't going to happen again.
If I have to choose between two men and two women being able to marry each other and my right to believe what I want to...guess which one I'm going to pick.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am LDS.
I believe that male same-sex attraction is largely genetic/determined before birth. I believe that homosexual partnerships should have legal rights equal with heterosexual couples. I believe they should get health and death benefits, be able to foster and adopt (heaven knows we have enough kids in need of loving homes, I don't care who's taking care of them as long as they're taken care of and well!) I believe that civil unions should be legally equivalent to marriage-- as they are in the state of California.
I also believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and that churches should not have to marry people who do not meet their criteria for marriage, whether that's same-sex, remaining chaste before marriage, both members of their church, or whatever the requirements might be.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Oh Boris, I can't wait for the critical responses to your post. I am already popping the corn.
quote:And don't tell me that the government is going to run to my side when people start telling me what I can and can't believe. I'm a member of a religion that it was legal to *kill* members of in one part of this country during the 19th century. A religion that had one of its practices outlawed. That law didn't affect anyone but Mormons at the time, and the Federal government of the time worked diligently to break up the families that practiced polygamy. Don't tell me this crap isn't going to happen again.
Mormon's and their persecution complex. That was the 19th century. You should of seen what happened with minorities back then. Even the LDS church officially opposed the equal rights amendment.
quote: If I have to choose between two men and two women being able to marry each other and my right to believe what I want to...guess which one I'm going to pick.
Why is that mutually exclusive? You can think something is wrong and not participate in it. I am guessing you think premarital sex is wrong, but you are not pushing to make it illegal...are you?
EDIT:
I liked Ketchupqueen's post. Since they would have the same legal rights, I think government marriages should all be called civil unions and religions can call civil unions whatever they want. If you are married in the LDS church, it is called marriage and needs to be heterosexual. No one should force them to marry gay couples.
If you are married in a liberal church, it can be called marriage and include homosexuals. I always believed marriage is self defined anyway.
If you are married by a government employee, it is a civil union--understanding all rights are equal.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: I liked Ketchupqueen's post. Since they would have the same legal rights, I think government marriages should all be called civil unions and religions can call civil unions whatever they want. If you are married in the LDS church, it is called marriage and needs to be heterosexual. No one should force them to marry gay couples.
If you are married in a liberal church, it can be called marriage and include homosexuals. I always believed marriage is self defined anyway.
If you are married by a government employee, it is a civil union--understanding all rights are equal.
This seems like the best solution to me. I know other people may disagree, obviously, but has anyone come up with a better compromise?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Mormon's and their persecution complex. That was the 19th century. You should of seen what happened with minorities back then. Even the LDS church officially opposed the equal rights amendment.
Oh sure. And how is the extremely common view of religious people as idiots whose opinions should be demonized and ignored not a step *back* in the direction of 19th century idiocy? Or do you actually believe that people have evolved beyond this type of thing? The only thing different between then and now is that now, lawyers do all the fighting and determine who is right and who is wrong. You want to ignore what happened in the 19th century and say that can't possibly happen now because we're enlightened people? Right. That's a nice big load of crap. But hey. You go ahead and keep on believing it. That's your right, after all.
edit: I should mention I don't really have a problem with civil unions for homosexuals. But let me tell you something. We're getting really close to a cliff that I really don't like being close to. There's a very real line that, once it gets crossed, will result in a very serious battle of rights. I don't see anything in the way of us right now and that little line. That's my biggest problem.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I meant "opposite-sex" or "not same-sex" in my last part of my previous post, not "same sex."
Please read accordingly.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote: I liked Ketchupqueen's post. Since they would have the same legal rights, I think government marriages should all be called civil unions and religions can call civil unions whatever they want. If you are married in the LDS church, it is called marriage and needs to be heterosexual. No one should force them to marry gay couples.
If you are married in a liberal church, it can be called marriage and include homosexuals. I always believed marriage is self defined anyway.
If you are married by a government employee, it is a civil union--understanding all rights are equal.
This seems like the best solution to me. I know other people may disagree, obviously, but has anyone come up with a better compromise?
It is the solution that I think the majority of reasonable people who are informed on the issue would support. Unfortunately, we are not (yet at least) the majority of the voting public.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And lem, might I also question you on your statement "Mormons and their persecution complex"... Do you say anything similar when African Americans talk about slavery?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And how is the extremely common view of religious people as idiots whose opinions should be demonized and ignored not a step *back* in the direction of 19th century idiocy?
One might observe that considering religious opinions to be deserving only of being ignored is pretty much the opposite of the 19th-century idiocy that gave the Mormons so much trouble.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... I don't hate gays. One of my best friends is gay.
Ah yes, the "one of my best friends is gay" meme. A better known relation of the "one of my best friends is Black"meme or the "I have a Chinese friend" meme.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
One of my best friends is a gay, black Chinese man. I'm completely serious about this.
------
But, yeah, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is the last recourse of bigots everywhere.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Actually, Tom, at its heart, it is very much the same kind of stupidity. The idea that one person's opinion is completely correct and another person's is not is at the very heart of what happened during that time. The desire to ensure that the person who holds that opinion is silenced so as to prevent it from affecting your own version of the truth. It's the same thing that's been going on for 1000s of years, and it's still going on today.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tom: Don't make me break out the "I used to be an atheist but ..."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... I don't hate gays. One of my best friends is gay.
Ah yes, the "one of my best friends is gay" meme. A better known relation of the "one of my best friends is Black"meme or the "I have a Chinese friend" meme.
Oh. I guess I'm not allowed to state the truth, then? Thank you for also attempting to marginalize my opinion by ridiculing what I say. Very mature.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
It is so cool to hit F5 and see 3 more replies, in under 2 minutes. We're setting a new record here!
I don't see how people can refute separation of church and state but they are somehow it seems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The idea that one person's opinion is completely correct and another person's is not is at the very heart of what happened during that time.
Yes. And that is why religious opinions -- which cannot be justified without further appeals to a higher power, which in turn cannot be questioned or reasoned with -- are perfectly worthless and should be ignored.
Ethical opinions are always welcome. But I've still never seen a sensible ethical argument against the full recognition of homosexual relationships.
---------
quote:The desire to ensure that the person who holds that opinion is silenced so as to prevent it from affecting your own version of the truth.
Which side of this debate is attempting to use the law to silence the other side? As far as I can tell, Mormons can still enjoy all the heterosexual marriages they want in California, regardless of how the Proposition goes; the Proposition is designed to slam the door in the face of uppity gay people. You really want to side with the oppressors on this one?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Which side of this debate is attempting to use the law to silence the other side? As far as I can tell, Mormons can still enjoy all the heterosexual marriages they want in California, regardless of how the Proposition goes; the Proposition is designed to slam the door in the face of uppity gay people. You really want to side with the oppressors on this one?
How about the question of whether citizens when they form a majority are permitted to vote for the social contract they all live under? Remember Proposition 8 is a vote to reenact a law that was already on the books and struck down by the California Supreme Court.
I personally have alot of difficulty with this particular question. On the one hand I think that states must be allowed to conduct many of their affairs without the federal government stepping in. The tyranny of the majority is also something that worries me, but in this case those who favor and oppose proposition 8 are close in number.
Most importantly I do think that mutual respect for both sides of this issue is essential. If you find nothing truthful in the other side's position, I think the most common answer is that you just have not looked hard enough.
Play nice Mucus. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, yeah, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is the last recourse of bigots everywhere.
That isn't fair. If we can't hate the sin love the sinner either we have to hate everyone or we can't believe in sin.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That does seem to be how it generally winds up working, yeah. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: It is so cool to hit F5 and see 3 more replies, in under 2 minutes. We're setting a new record here!
I prefer mouse gestures. I know it's technically more work, but it's much more comfortable for me to hold down the right mouse button and move up+down on the touchpad rather than go all the way up there to F5 or stretch to hit Ctrl+R.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And that is why religious opinions -- which cannot be justified without further appeals to a higher power, which in turn cannot be questioned or reasoned with -- are perfectly worthless and should be ignored.
So...basically, every opinion but your own is incorrect and should be ignored and ultimately silenced... is that what you're saying, Tom? Thank you for proving my point.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Play nice Mucus.
Hmmmm, I guess I can be satisfied to know that there are at least a few of us that can appreciate those that bring up with a straight face, the "I have an X friend" line.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Maybe I mentioned it to forestall the "You must not know any gay people" argument that always seems to pop up. Ya think? And I do have a very good friend who is gay.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: edit: I should mention I don't really have a problem with civil unions for homosexuals. But let me tell you something. We're getting really close to a cliff that I really don't like being close to. There's a very real line that, once it gets crossed, will result in a very serious battle of rights. I don't see anything in the way of us right now and that little line. That's my biggest problem.
This line you're referring to, is it that you're worried that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Not that they'll be forced to perform them, but that they'll be forced to recognize them.
Let's take this as a for-instance. It's probably pretty unlikely, I know, but still...
A newly married gay person is approached by a couple of LDS missionaries. He likes what he hears and wants to get baptized. He gets through all the discussions and reveals that he is gay. The LDS missionaries inform him that they would not be able to baptize him unless he is willing to give up his current lifestyle. Said gay person refuses and then sues the church for discrimination.
Do you see a problem with this scenario? (Aside from the obvious fact that he would probably already know the church doesn't agree with homosexuality and likely wouldn't be inclined to listen in the first place) I bring this up because it's very likely that a frivolous lawsuit like this would arise that would eventually result in
1. The church losing whatever protections and privileges are afforded it by being a religious institution.
2. In order to keep said protections and privileges, the church has to give in to the gay person's demands and allow the baptism, thus resulting in a litigated forced change of a religious belief.
I have huge problems with that.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I didn't think you could sue a church for requiring preconditions before conversion.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You can sue anyone for anything. Whether it is successful or not depends entirely upon the lawyers involved and the atmosphere in which the lawsuit is argued.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Okay. Regardless of how you feel about prop 8, I just saw the stupidest looking yes on 8 banner ad. They have a guy doing this on it.
I saw it in the debate thread if you want to try and see it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Said gay person refuses and then sues the church for discrimination.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is even legally possible. For the gay person to win anyway. What would his measurable losses be?
Regardless, would the church not use the same argument many anti-ssm people already use to defend their position - namely that it's not discriminatory because baptism (marriage) is open to anyone who chooses not to engage in homosexual behavior (marries a person of the opposite sex)?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Not that they'll be forced to perform them, but that they'll be forced to recognize them.
Let's take this as a for-instance. It's probably pretty unlikely, I know, but still...
A newly married gay person is approached by a couple of LDS missionaries. He likes what he hears and wants to get baptized. He gets through all the discussions and reveals that he is gay. The LDS missionaries inform him that they would not be able to baptize him unless he is willing to give up his current lifestyle. Said gay person refuses and then sues the church for discrimination.
Do you see a problem with this scenario? (Aside from the obvious fact that he would probably already know the church doesn't agree with homosexuality and likely wouldn't be inclined to listen in the first place) I bring this up because it's very likely that a frivolous lawsuit like this would arise that would eventually result in
1. The church losing whatever protections and privileges are afforded it by being a religious institution.
2. In order to keep said protections and privileges, the church has to give in to the gay person's demands and allow the baptism, thus resulting in a litigated forced change of a religious belief.
I have huge problems with that.
What if, right now, the missionaries try to convert someone who spends his weekends getting hammered on Jagermeister and hitting the local orgies. Is he looking at some easy cash?
Once that lawsuit pays out I'll concede your argument. Meantime, your scenario seems like the silliest straw-grasping slippery slopage I've ever heard.
Just out of curiosity, is there any part of your church's doctrine that you don't think needs to be legally mandated by the same argument? If Prop 8, or (God forbid) a national Federal Marriage Amendment passes, are you going to see that as the first step in the establishment of an American theocracy? Do you see anything wrong with the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia, other than the fact that they chose the wrong religion to force on their citizens?
I can just see Muslim extremists making the same argument. "What if we let a woman show her face, get a job or shake hands with a man? Then if she wanted to join our church but refused to cover her face and quit her job, she could sue us. We'd better make some laws, quick."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So...basically, every opinion but your own is incorrect and should be ignored and ultimately silenced... is that what you're saying, Tom?
No. I'm saying that religious opinions speak from a position of unverifiable authority and should be ignored in any public policy discussion. I'm not speaking of "silencing" them at all; I think they're self-marginalizing because they're so useless.
And unless you have only religious justifications for your opinions, I welcome your opinions to the table. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Demonizing people who feel differently than you do is not the way to promote tolerance."
Cockroaches are scarcely demonic. And Prop8 is just another in a long long long line of "Look at me, I'm gullible gullible gullible!!!" initiatives designed solely to lure the cockroaches out of the cracks long enough to vote Republican.
Which would work great, except shining a spotlight on the cockroaches tends to shock people who would otherwise have absolutely no interest in politics. And they tend to vote Democrat. Not because they like Democrats -- as I said, they're not much interested in politics: barely enough to distinguish between Democrat and Republican; and just enough to know that neither represents their interests -- but because it's embarrassing to have the whole world know that ones home is infested with cockroaches. And for that, they blame the Republicans.
So it's the same ol', same ol'. And a generally losing strategy in the long run. Cuz each time the scam is run, ever more Republicans get disgusted with being lumped in with the cockroaches. Eventually ya end up with a Republican state like Colorado shifting into the Democratic column.
In a Democratic state, Republican philosphy becomes ever more irrelevant. eg Even Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is more Democrat than the overwhelming majority of USCongressional Democrats. And a near shoe-in for the USSenate when California's term-limits kicks in, which is why current Democrat USSenator Feinstein is already exploring a run for the governorship.
[ October 16, 2008, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am taking solace in the possiblility that the Patterson's $50 could have been donated to the McCain/Palin campaign instead.
Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: There are very vocal proponents of SSM that have all but admitted their ultimate goal would be to force religious institutions to be quiet in their opposition to homosexual relationships and possibly forcing acceptance of homosexual unions.
I'm not aware of any movement to legally force churches to recognize homosexual marriages. I'm sure there are movements to put social pressure on churches to recognize such marriages but they have no legal backing. If your church decides to recognize homosexual marriages I doubt it will be by force of law.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Getting back to the point here, this is ultimately going to be a battle between rights that have never been defined as rights, and the right to believe as you wish. A right which is one of the major reasons for the founding of the United States.
[snip]
If I have to choose between two men and two women being able to marry each other and my right to believe what I want to...guess which one I'm going to pick.
This is a false dichotomy. This has to do with the right of gay people to marry each other. It has nothing to do with the right to believe that they should or shouldn't.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And how is the extremely common view of religious people as idiots whose opinions should be demonized and ignored not a step *back* in the direction of 19th century idiocy?
"Extremely common"? The majority of this country IS religious. 15% of this country identifies as non-religious and I'm pretty sure not all of them think that religious people are idiot. Maybe you're talking about beliefs like young earth creationism? I think that polls reveal that only around half of the country potentially views those beliefs as wacky (meaning a lot of religious people view them as wacky too). Even then it is much more 19th century to actually hold those beliefs than it is to consider them wacky.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The desire to ensure that the person who holds that opinion is silenced so as to prevent it from affecting your own version of the truth. It's the same thing that's been going on for 1000s of years, and it's still going on today.
What movements are there to "silence" religious opinions? Are they significant? Do you consider the movement to keep intelligent design out of schools to be an attempt to silence religious opinions?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am taking solace in the possiblility that the Patterson's $50 could have been donated to the McCain/Palin campaign instead.
Make that $50,000!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I'm not aware of any movement to legally force churches to recognize homosexual marriages. I'm sure there are movements to put social pressure on churches to recognize such marriages but they have no legal backing. If your church decides to recognize homosexual marriages I doubt it will be by force of law.
Some churches already recognize ssm. Shouldn't we be concerned about Prop8 stifling their religious rights by not allowing them the religious freedom to marry same sex couples?
ETA: Ooop! Yes. I forgot to add the "grand" in there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm absolutely not at all worried about churches being forced to recognize in any way shape or form gay marriages, other than some realistic recognition that they exist in the world, but then so does evil, and hethens, and they can't really do anything about that.
Personally I favor civil unions but don't particularly care if they call it marriage, a civil union, or a flickenflaken; the name is much less relevent to me than the actual rights and privileges involved. So long as the legal protections are all equal, they can call it whatever they want.
A homosexual could TRY and sue a church for denying baptism I guess, but he'd lose. Unless he's a janitor that was fired for being gay, under which circumstances I think he'd probably have a decent wrongful termination case, I don't see how he'd bring a case before the court that literally argued unequal protection as a result of religious doctrine. It'd be dismissed out of hand, and though I support civil union rights, I'd be on the front lines of vocal dissenters against the lawsuit, which is probably the first time I'd find myself on the philosophical front lines with the religious right.
As far as gay rights go, I'm a small government states rights conservative. Government has no right to interfere with what you choose to do. And on the other side of it, government has no right to force churches to make doctrinal changes or to officially recognize gay unions, they just have to live with it. But that's the magic of living in a free plural democratic society. Sometimes things happen that you don't like. Blacks and women can vote, slavery was outlawed, etc, but the world keeps turning and other than a lot of jawboning, no one suffers when people get equal access to rights.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As no one yet has forced the Catholic Church to marry divorced people, I really think this whole argument is a red herring.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.
Here's one: God told me that gay people shouldn't marry. That's perfectly internally logical, given all the necessary premises.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The first premise being that God canvasses neighborhoods telling folks how to vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.
Here's one: God told me that gay people shouldn't marry. That's perfectly internally logical, given all the necessary premises.
Internally logical is not the same thing as sensible.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Not that they'll be forced to perform them, but that they'll be forced to recognize them.
Let's take this as a for-instance. It's probably pretty unlikely, I know, but still...
A newly married gay person is approached by a couple of LDS missionaries. He likes what he hears and wants to get baptized. He gets through all the discussions and reveals that he is gay. The LDS missionaries inform him that they would not be able to baptize him unless he is willing to give up his current lifestyle. Said gay person refuses and then sues the church for discrimination.
Right...just like the Catholic church is constantly being sued for refusing to marry divorced Catholics, and non-Christians...
Oh right, it's not that it happens all the time...it's that it never happens, ever.
How do you expect your argument to be taken seriously when it's been obvious for decades that you can't sue churches over refusing to include you in their rituals?
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
I don't mind Civil Union, or if they want to call it marrige but many who vote for prop 8 are doing so because of this Video. I think the father took things a little too far.Personally I would've just taken my kids out of that school and would have made it purely a parents rights issue and not a gay rights issue. But I would leave any state or country that told me they could talk and teach my kids about any thing that I didn't want them too.
As far as sueing religions, there was one case of a gay couple sueing a church because the prist/pastor told them they could pick any room in the church to be married in except the chapel. I moved out of California before I heard how the lawsuit ended.I agree that winning such lawsuits are highly unlikely....at least for the near future, but they will come up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I would leave any state or country that told me they could talk and teach my kids about any thing that I didn't want them too.
Really? Which state do you plan to move to in order to escape the mathematics requirements? Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I just watched the Video Catseye put up.
I have seen better more consistent logic in parody ads on SNL.
The big argument...A school in Mass. sent home a book on "Who is a parent" along with many other things in a "diversity" backpack. One of the pages in the book deals with a 2-man household.
The parents of one Kindergartner complained, and demanded to be notified before any homosexual issues were brought up in school. The father was so defiant that the police were called, and he was arrested.
From this, they argue that SSM will effect EVERY FAMILY.
How?
Well, they believe that once SSM is legal, homosexuality will be promoted as morally equivalent as married heterosexuality.
And they don't want to have to tell their children that under their beliefs, it is not equal.
They don't want to have to tell their children that while it might be legal, it is not moral according to their beliefs.
Kind of like, while not going to church is legal, it is not moral under their beliefs.
Kind of like, while working Sundays is legal, it is not moral under their beliefs.
Kind of like, while not believing in Jesus is legal, its not moral under their beliefs.
And somehow, fear of having that talk with their small children is such an overwhelming thing, that its going to ruin everyone's life.
I love how they keep calling the teachers, and the administration, and anyone who disagrees "intolerant."
"I may be intolerant of homosexuals, but you are intolerant of people who are intolerant of homosexuals." That may be, but I am not stopping you from getting married.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families.
I do think that the school could have been more diplomatic than what the parents in the video are portraying.
That "to make a long story short" part is a little worrisome. I wonder what the school's reason was for calling in the police.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
He was arrested because he refused to leave the school. Link. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families."
Ummmmm.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families.
Why?
In general I'm not sure that schools are promoting moral equivalence so much as social equivalence in these situations. It's certainly possible to view Jews or divorced people as social equals but not moral equals. The moral part is your call.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: He was arrested because he refused to leave the school. Link.
That's my school district. From my perspective, both the principal and the father unnecessarily escalated the situation.
Parker filed a joint suit against the district with some friends of mine, the Wirthlins. In the Wirthlins' case (which I know about primarily through firsthand discussions with the father), he asked the teacher to be notified in the future when politically sensitive subject matter was discussed (with his second grader). When the teacher replied that she would not, he took the issue to the principal. When the principal refused to compel the teacher, they took the issue to the state. While the suit was in process, the district replaced both the teacher and the principal. When the suit was won by the district, they initiated a "diversity curriculum," specifically to address the issue of same-sex marriage. The curriculum will be integrated across all grade school levels, starting with kindergarten.
Personally, I think the school is in the wrong. I think parents retain the right to be informed about what their children are being taught, as well as the right to remove their children from class on days that subject matter they deem inappropriate is being discussed. They may have to face repercussions for the removal (the child doesn't get credit for that learning module), but the decision should reside with the parent, and the information should be required to be given to the parent. However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:You just compared gay people to alcoholics. I think you've explained your position with a nice succinctness.
Nope, I said that engaging in homosexual sex is an action, and one can judge that action to be wrong, just as one can judge the abuse of alcohol to be wrong.
Making a moral judgment about an action a person engages in is not the same thing as making a pre-judgment based on non-actions, which is what racists do. They don't look at what a person says or does, they look at what they *look like*, and make a judgment.
Judging someone for something they *do* is completely, utterly, and totally different, and I'm quite tired of people equating the two things.
Most people don't call me a bigot for judging alcohol abusers negatively (they may disagree, or call me judgmental (the irony of which always delights me), or think I have no rational basis for making such a judgment, etc, but they generally recognize that we all make moral judgments and the difference is simply whether they agree or not.
But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot. I'm not simply making a controversial moral judgment, now I'm motivated by hate and it's called prejudice, even thought it isn't *pre* judging at all.
Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.
And by the way, and this is not addressed to anyone in particular, it is pretty poor debating to accuse someone of prejudice, knowing that such an accusation tends to paint people guilty until proven innocent, and also knowing that any attempt to defend oneself will only serve to cement the accusation!
I recognize the "some of my best friends are [group]" line as being historically used by prejudiced people claiming not to be, but what if, for example, someone really isn't prejudiced, how would you have them defend themselves? They can't prove a negative.
I mean, if a white person is accused of racism against black people, for example, how do they prove otherwise? They aren't racist, but how do they prove it? What if they really do have a lot of black friends? That really does seem to indicate they aren't racist, but of course they can't use that argument, it's been tainted and it's a cliché, so it doesn't count. What else is there? Just a quiet denial is all they can do.
Which makes the accusation of prejudice, unsubstantiated, nothing more than a smear, worthy of a politician, and deserving of about as much respect.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter."
Any? Or subject matter about tolerating other students?
Yeah, the school should have informed parents... but they also should have said "this isn't optional. Some kids in our school are in this situation, and all students need to be tolerant of those students."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot. I'm not simply making a controversial moral judgment, now I'm motivated by hate and it's called prejudice, even thought it isn't *pre* judging at all.
Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.
I agree with everything you said except for this point (which is basically a straw man). I assume you're aware that there are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage than "patently false epithets and projections of motive".
[ October 16, 2008, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" but what if, for example, someone really isn't prejudiced, how would you have them defend themselves? "
In the case of the same sex marriage debate, there's a few prominent public policy statements.
1) Maintain status quo on marriage. 2) Constitutionally define marriage to be between a man and a woman. 3) Allow civil unions to opposite sex couples, civil marriage and civil unions to straight couples. 4) get rid of civil marriage, allow civil unions to SS or OS couples. 5) Allow both SS and OS couples to enter into civil marriage.
options 1, 2, 3 are all discriminatory positions. Allowing disciminatory law requires, at least in my mind and the minds of most people on the left side of the spectrum, a remarkable defense of why the discrimanatory law should exist rather then something that does not discriminate.
Holding that a law should discriminate requires that the whole group being discriminated against be, in this case, unworthy of entering into a legal institution for some reason. This requires that you judge the whole group, not the individual members of the group.
Supporting such policy means that you are at least "judiced," if not prejudiced.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I agree with everything you said except for this point (which is basically a straw man). I assume you're aware that there are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage than "patently false epithets and projections of motive".
Indeed, many people present arguments in favor of SSM which are not based on straw-manning the other side. While I am not persuaded by those arguments, I don't dismiss them, indeed, I am refreshed to know there are reasoning people who disagree with me; it's less lonely that way.
There are also plenty of anti-SSM arguments that I find unpersuasive as well. And of course, it *is* entirely possible to really be prejudiced and against SSM. I take issue that it's necessarily so. Perhaps the prejudiced people are even in the majority, I do not think so, but then I don't hang out with prejudiced people so you can't go by me.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter."
Any? Or subject matter about tolerating other students?
Yeah, the school should have informed parents... but they also should have said "this isn't optional. Some kids in our school are in this situation, and all students need to be tolerant of those students."
Ideally I think all course materials should be available to the public (hopefully online). I don't see any intellectual property worth preserving in any school or university course.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Ideally I think all course materials should be available to the public (hopefully online). I don't see any intellectual property worth preserving in any school or university course."
I agree. Things are moving a little that ways. I suspect in 10 years this will be the case, only because so many teachers will have most of their curriculum online for kids to access at home. Especially at the high school level.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Here seems to be the lynch pin of the debate.
Seats believes that homosexual acts are a sin.
I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.
Is it a sin for two men to be in love with each other, even if they refrain from intimate contact?
Why aren't we talking about constitutional amendments to outlay homosexual acts, and not marriage?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)?
I, personally, am persuaded by the arguments on both sides, which leaves me a bit torn. When I look at the individual cases and stories, there seems to be very good reason to allow these couples to have the formal status they desire, especially when it comes to the litany of legal rights that are involved in the marriage issue.
But at the same time, I think that the survival value of marriage is heavily tied up in its benefit in creating stable environments around children, and the effect of same-sex marriage on that is hard to predict. On one hand, it provides more potential adoptive households for otherwise parentless children, which is great. But at the same time, I'm not entirely comfortable with making a change that reinforces the idea that marriage is all about the desire of any two consenting adults to be recognized as a couple, and not about protecting the next generation.
Obviously, not every marriage includes children, but there used to be a strong sense that if a couple became pregnant, the only honorable thing to do, in the interest of the child, was to marry and provide a home for that child. I'm concerned that this, and other cultural changes, are redefining marriage to the point where a pregnant couple might more often say, "Marriage? What does that have to do with being pregnant? I'm ready to have a kid, but ... I don't know. Are we in love with each other enough to be married?"
That attitude bothers me because it places the romantic feelings of the adults above the emotional and physical needs of the children, and I'm concerned that the legal changes we're talking about could cement that kind of attitude in an incredibly permanent way. It's not just gay marriage that contributes to this problem ... it's been a long process that has gotten us here. But it seems like once we step over that boundary, it will be a lot harder to compensate for this particular downside.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's something we should take into account. Personally, I think the net result will be better if the word "marriage" is removed from the legal equation and left in the hands of individual subcultures to define as they like, allowing those who are concerned about issues like this to continue to promote their ideals about marriage and family, while the government at the same time provides all the disputed legal benefits, under some other name, to everyone who desires them.
I know "marriage" is just a word, but words are the means by which humans transmit culture, and culture has incredible power to either help human society survive and prosper, or allow it to decay and decline. There are times when culture needs to change, but we'd be foolish to abandon all the benefits of an older form of our culture in favor of a new and untested one, if by some small means we could preserve the best of both.
[ October 16, 2008, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.
Sexual unity is inherent in the concept of marriage. (At least at the beginning... )
But legitimizing SSM includes legitimizing the sexual activity it entails. If one believes the activity is wrong, the relationship could not be condoned either.
quote:Is it a sin for two men to be in love with each other, even if they refrain from intimate contact?
What sort or love? Agape? Phileo? Not a problem. Eros? Could be a problem. But I don't read minds and I'm not God, so how would I even have a basis for a judgment in that case? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't try.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Nope, I said that engaging in homosexual sex is an action, and one can judge that action to be wrong, just as one can judge the abuse of alcohol to be wrong.
Sure. And here you run smack into the major moral development of the 20th century...the idea that it makes no sense to call behavior morally wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody.
If you reject that development, fine. But you know perfectly well that lots of other people hold to it, and you know that you are being insulting when you claim that some kinds of consentual physical acts are inherently as harmful as poisoning yourself with a mind-altering, liver killing, dependancy-forming drug.
quote:Making a moral judgment about an action a person engages in is not the same thing as making a pre-judgment based on non-actions, which is what racists do.
Oh really?
So what moral judgment would you make about the desire of two parapalygic women to marry?
What action prompts your judgment there?
quote:Judging someone for something they *do* is completely, utterly, and totally different, and I'm quite tired of people equating the two things.
Okay, so what are those two parapalygic women doing that makes you judge them unfit to be married to each other?
quote:Most people don't call me a bigot for judging alcohol abusers negatively
Becuase alcoholism causes objectively negative consequences. Biological damage, personality alterations, the inability to keep a job, or to keep up one's relationships. Alcohol impairs brain function, that's biological fact.
Being in a gay relationship doesn't cause any of these.
quote:or think I have no rational basis for making such a judgment, etc, but they generally recognize that we all make moral judgments and the difference is simply whether they agree or not.
Sure, we all make judgments, but we don't all want to keep our fellow citizens from exercising their civil rights because our subjective judgements say that they don't deserve them.
You think that alcoholics are making mistakes. Do you think that they should be thrown in jail for what they do? Do you think that everyone who drinks at all should be thrown in jail? What behaviors do you indulge in that some people might find morally wrong? How willing are you to lose your civil rights to the moral judgements of strangers?
quote:But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot.
It's not the judging. You can judge peope negatively all you want. For their sexual behavior, for their liking of Heroes and Lost, for their cooking activities, or their political activites, or their religious activities. Judge all you want.
But you try to keep people from having their civil rights based on your judgements, that's a different story. You vote to deny someone their civil rights based on your moral judgment, you will have no one to complain to when someone else votes to take away your civil rights, because you engaged in behavior they found immoral.
quote:Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.
Oh, that's logical. I'm sure the guy who broke into his own home to save his dog from the story I told earlier would totally understand.
quote:And by the way, and this is not addressed to anyone in particular, it is pretty poor debating to accuse someone of prejudice, knowing that such an accusation tends to paint people guilty until proven innocent, and also knowing that any attempt to defend oneself will only serve to cement the accusation!
Worry not. Your equalizing of gay people and alcoholics has made your point of view perfectly clear. No one need read anyone else's words to figure out what you believe. Your own words do the job perfectly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.
Sexual unity is inherent in the concept of marriage. (At least at the beginning... )
But legitimizing SSM includes legitimizing the sexual activity it entails. If one believes the activity is wrong, the relationship could not be condoned either.
If one believes that, then they can continue to believe that.
As the act isn't illegal (at least not any more), that argument doesn't fly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families."
Ummmmm.
I really should have added the eye-rolly thingy so the sarcasm would be clearer.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Having something not be illegal and having something be condoned and legitimized and sanctioned are two very different things.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Why aren't we talking about constitutional amendments to outlay homosexual acts, and not marriage?
Possibly because that would undeniably expose their bigotry.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
swbarnes2, you seem to be talking to me as if I am arguing that prop 8 should pass, and ludicrously implying I'm in favor of throwing people in jail for moral offenses.
I'm addressing the idea that making a moral judgment about homosexuality is inherently bigoted. What if I told you that I wasn't going to vote on the issue at all? But simply state my opinion on the morality (not the legality) of it? Still bigoted?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Possibly because that would undeniably expose their bigotry.
Lines like this are the most poisonous part of this debate. Quashing your opposition with ad hominem attacks rather than engaging him on the issues helps you win in the short term, but if this is really the standard of discourse in our society, we will quickly become completely incapable of any kind of legitimate progress.
Even if every person in the world who disagrees with you about anything is secretly a bigot and a bad person, that doesn't make your opinions correct. If you can't see that, then you have no place trying to have a rational discussion with anyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We let people who are never going to have children marry.
We let people who have been divorced marry.
We let people marry for money, status, security or whatever the heck reason they choose.
We let people who don't even like each other marry.
How is ssm so detrimental to society?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
First, I would ask you why you think we do all those other things Why do we support marriage at all? What is it's value? Is it just the fact that people want it that makes it valuable? And if so, why do people want it?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
hmmm, lets take another look at the Alcoholism comparison.
Many believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Many believe that drinking alcohol is morally wrong, especially by someone prone to Alcoholism.
So what is the appropriate response of the state?
Well, with alcoholism, we tried Prohibition. It worked real well...er maybe not. It took a wrong and drove it underground where it festered and corrupted the society that the law was meant to protect.
Since Prohibition was ended the State moved to control the excesses that Alcohol could create--death from poorly manufactured Alcohol, limiting drinking ages and public drinking times, curtailing drunk driving, etc.
If two men find each other attractive not allowing them to be married will not stop them from living together or practicing their "wrong" behavior. However, with marriage you reduce some of the worst effects of that behavior, limiting the spread of disease by limiting the number of sexual partners, requiring blood tests to better control the HIV epidemic, limiting the number of suicides and depressive episodes of those who participate in that "wrong" behavior.
And what is the cost?
Those against SSM say the cost is that it "Condones behavior we think is wrong." Does legalizing alcohol mean the state condones the abuse of alcoholics?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: First, I would ask you why you think we do all those other things Why do we support marriage at all? What is it's value? Is it just the fact that people want it that makes it valuable? And if so, why do people want it?
For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.
And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.
Why do you think we have legal marriage?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
If suggesting a possible motive from a hypothetical action of a nonspecific group of people is being taken by anyone as an ad hominem attack, then I apologize.
I still stand by what I said, but I'll try to clarify a bit. My comment wasn't intended to be an end-all parting shot but to point out the ridiculousness of arguing that homosexual acts as opposed to same-sex civil unions should be singled out and outlawed. I don't know anybody who would support that.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: swbarnes2, you seem to be talking to me as if I am arguing that prop 8 should pass, and ludicrously implying I'm in favor of throwing people in jail for moral offenses.
Having equal access to the government's civil insitutions is a civil right. If you are oppsoed to people having their civil rights, then you are opposed to people having their civil rights.
If you aren't opposed, then great.
quote:I'm addressing the idea that making a moral judgment about homosexuality is inherently bigoted.
Make whatever judgment you like. Just don't think that you are going to get applauded for saying that innocent gay people are just as "immoral" as alcoholics.
quote:What if I told you that I wasn't going to vote on the issue at all? But simply state my opinion on the morality (not the legality) of it? Still bigoted?
You state whatever you like. It's your right. and I state whatever I like. That's my right too. And it's the right of citizens to have equal access to govenment institutions, like civil marriage.
See how that works??
What exactly do you expect? Someone to ride in a on a white horse and say "No one is ever allowed to express a critical opinion of anything that is labeled a 'moral judgment'. Now, continue your argument on why gay people are like alcoholics"?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
swbarnes2, I didn't ask you whether I could make judgments. I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry, if it has nothing to do with passing or repealing laws. C'mon, be brave and answer that question.
As for what I expect, it's prejudice against moralists, actually, which I'm getting from you quite nicely. :-)
Also, since you seem to be of the "if it doesn't hurt people it's not wrong" mindset, I take it you are in favor of legalizing marriage for sibling and parent/child relationships? (We'll assume they're sterile, so no possibility of birth defects to qualify as harm.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry, if it has nothing to do with passing or repealing laws.
I don't think that whether it has something to do with passing laws is a factor in determining whether or not it's bigotry.
quote:it's prejudice against moralists
I'm not remotely prejudiced against moralists. I am a moralist. I completely reject the argument that religion correlates consistently with morality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.
What does that have to do with consenting adults.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I don't think that whether it has something to do with passing laws is a factor in determining whether or not it's bigotry.
I didn't say that I thought it did, but a discussion of what is or isn't bigotry led swbarnes2 to bring up all kinds of hypotheticals about passing laws, so swbarnes2 seems to think the two are related.
quote:I'm not remotely prejudiced against moralists. I am a moralist.
Terrific. Then, while I'm sure we disagree mightily on what actually is or isn't moral, I assume that means you think making a moral judgment isn't a priori bigoted, right? Perhaps unsound (but valid based on premises you disagree with), perhaps even invalid (due to faulty reasoning, regardless of the truth of the premises), but not necessarily motivated by bigotry?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.
Adults are still the children of the parents. I'm talking about adults. Say a 22 year old and their 37 year old parent, for example, wanting to get married. Where's the harm?
Edit: [still thunderstruck at a totally unexpected, unintending interpretation of my words]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Nowhere.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Strictly legally speaking, I see nothing wrong with it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: swbarnes2, I didn't ask you whether I could make judgments. I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry
People assess you based on what you type here. If you type that gay people are as "immoral" as alcoholics...well, they are going to come to certain conclusions.
What am I supposed to do about that?
quote:As for what I expect, it's prejudice against moralists, actually, which I'm getting from you quite nicely. :-)
No, you aren't. What this is, as I already said, and you have ignored twice, is a differece in how "morality" is defined. Much of the modern world has moved onto a definition that is about harm and concent, and the Golden Rule. By that definition, there's nothing immoral about gay people or what they do at all.
So when you say you are being "moral", I say you are being morally backwards, and by hurting innocent people, it is you who are the immoral one.
And you want to flay me for making a moral judgment, go right on ahead. Say how awful and relativistic and perverted I am for not wanting to punish innocent people who aren't hurting anyone, but are only being stepped on by the "moral" righteous. I won't complain. I may try to rebut, but I won't whine.
quote:Also, since you seem to be of the "if it doesn't hurt people it's not wrong" mindset, I take it you are in favor of legalizing marriage for sibling and parent/child relationships?
The point of civil marriage is, in part, to form a legal bond where there is no family one. So siblings and parent/child pairs don't really need them.
Biologically, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a worry. And because of that, when it does come up, it's because someone is being coerced (and yes, adults can be coerced too), which would obviosuly negate a contract which requires two consenting parties.
What's your answer: "No, because I say so"? "No, because my favorite religious book says not to"? "No, because I think it's icky, and no one should be allowed to do things I find icky"?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
:sighs:
Okay, I'll try to talk about this.
I hesitate to. Because I know that some people have absolutely set in stone feelings on this issue, and I have no desire to make them feel like I have any reason to believe they're bad, or that I don't understand why they feel the way they do.
I do. For a long time, I supported same sex marriage. I actually saw it as a freedom of religion issue, believe it or not. If someone belived that God, Nature, or their own morality told them they should be able to marry someone of their own gender, who was I to argue with them?
So I respect everybody's opinion on this.
In the past few years, I've come to feel differently. Because I realized that I was thinking about things purely from the point of view of the rights of adults.
I hadn't been considering the rights of kids.
It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender.
Even if you were fortunate enough to have two parents who stayed together, you either can see the unique influence they each brought to your life or you've seen the emotions it caused in your friends who lacked the influence of both parents.
Kids deserve to be able to have, if at all possible, a mom and a dad. Each brings a unique perspective to the child, because men and women are different.
If men and women weren't different, it wouldn't matter so much to people which gender they wanted to pair off with.
This does not inherently suggest that homosexuals are bad parents. If my wife were to die, and one of my brothers were to move in with me to help me raise my children, no one would argue we didn't love our kids. No one would say were less capable, and certainly no one would hate us.
They would just feel sad that the children had lost the influence of a mother in their lives.
This would not neccessarily imply any hostility, bigotry, or bad feelings towards us. No one would be saying we were bad caretakers. They'd just be acknowling we couldn't be something we weren't: a Mom.
That's what preserving the current defition of marriage could offer future generations of children: That men and women are different, and bring different things to a parenting union, we'll continue to consider that as being the ideal, for the sake of children.
I know people toss around studies that show how many times a child in this type of situation or that type of situation end up getting good grades and staying well adjusted.
As my analogy above indicates, I'm not talking about what groups are capable of raising well-adjusted children. I'm going for a deeper goal here than simply having the kids turn out okay.
Those arguements are silly anyway--if studies showed that gay marriages, say, increased global warming, would the advocates of gay marriage really back down? Of course not. Because in the end, their goal isn't about doing what studies have shown is best--it's about granting what they feel to be fundamental rights.
It's the same way for me.
I believe that children have the right to be born into a family with a mother and a father. It's a basic desire in all humans, probably even more universal than heterosexuality.
It's a right that legislation can never enforce. Laws cannot prevent death or separation or divorce. Laws can't even reduce the death rater or the divorce rate.
But at least, by preserving the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we're still acknowledging as a society that we recognize that we're putting the rights of children first.
Someone here is going to have to give up something they want. I think it should be the grown-ups.
****
What about gays and adoption?
I think that gay adoption should be viewed in exactly the same way as the situation I described earlier with me and my brother. If the state would, in that scenario, allow my brother and I to adopt a child, they should allow homosexuals to do the same.
Since most states have adoption scenarios roughly equivalent to the number of children availabe for adoption, it would still give children the best chance of being raised in traditonal mother-father households, but not take away from another child the chance to be raised by two people who would love him, rather than be shuttled between foster families or being a ward of the state.
*****
The comparison is often made: If marriage is about children, then what about couples who, because of age or health, are unable to have children? Should their union not be called a "marriage" either?
I hope you can see why, from what I describe above, that doesn't apply. Anyone is free to marry who is capable of proving that man-woman union that children both need and desire.
This is also why same sex marriage is different than interraccial marriage, interfaith marriage, or any of the other scenarios described.
None of those could possibly be argued as interfering with the desire/right of a child to have a parent of each gender.
--------------
This whole idea that having a parent of each gender is a right, a right that isn't enforcable, but only promotable--is that up for discussion?
Of course it is.
Some will dismiss it out of hand, of course, without giving it any thought.
Others will leap on it immediately, accepting it simply because it reinforces their previous beliefs.
But amidst all this discussion about which grown up deserves what, I think it's a discussion that isn't being given nearly enough serious analysis.
Not justification. Not just people on one side or the other coming up with all the reasons why, off the top of their head, their view is the right one.
But we're leaping headlong into this whole thing about the rights of adults based on their bilogical and psycological desires without any serious discussion being given to the biological and psycological desires of children.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.
Adults are still the children of the parents. I'm talking about adults. Say a 22 year old and their 37 year old parent, for example, wanting to get married. Where's the harm?
Edit: [still thunderstruck at a totally unexpected, unintending interpretation of my words]
It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality. A 22 year old will still have been the 37 year old's child. Will still have been an eight year old when his 23 year old mother was telling him to clean his room. Or a 2 year old when her 17 year old dad was trying to potty train her.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
docmagik,
quote:Anyone is free to marry who is capable of proving that man-woman union that children both need and desire.
It's not the children who need and desire it...it's the parents. I have yet to see any study that indicates children with two gay parents are any less healthy or happy than children of straight parents.
Now, if your goal is to continue the existence of "These are the things that women do, and these are the things that men do", then it makes perfect sense to want to keep the gays from raising children. Because when gays have children, they consistently show that they can fulfill all the roles that straight parents fill, just not in the conventional ways.
So if you can show me a study that demonstrates that straight parents are objectively better than the equivalent gay parents for the health of the children, I'll be behind you.
Otherwise, to me it just looks like an excuse to continue the status quo.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
Doc magik...
Let's say that you had a gay son, and a straight daughter.
What would you tell them you think the laws should be regarding their ability to get married, and raise children?
Would you really say "Jimmy, you will go to your sister's wedding some day. She will never go to yours, you won't have one"?
Or if your son-in-law confessed "I'm really gay, but I had to marry some girl, so I picked your daughter", would that be okay with you?
Yes, it's a hypothetical, but it happens to millions of families. What do you think those parents, in an ideal world, would tell their children?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Or if your son-in-law confessed "I'm really gay, but I had to marry some girl, so I picked your daughter", would that be okay with you?
If my daughter was ok with it and had been informed prior to the wedding, why should I object to it?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Dogmagik:
What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
I've never understood the "a child needs a mother and a father" argument. It seems to me that the kind of person who feels like a child needs something from a man that no woman could ever replicate (or vice versa) is probably the same kind of person who expected all of Hillary Clinton's supporters to automatically vote for John McCain once he chose Palin for his VP.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
swbarnes2, you are not even consistent in your own beliefs. You denigrate me for making a judgment you disagree with, based on your view of morality, which you assume is necessarily superior, and then you go and trivialize the desires of incestuous couples. What of their rights? Because they are a tiny minority, they do not count?
While I may not agree with them, I sincerely applaud the consistency of Threads and rollainm.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality.
No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So if you can show me a study that demonstrates that straight parents are objectively better than the equivalent gay parents for the health of the children, I'll be behind you.
To be honest, I would be interested in a study that says anything about this either way, it is an interesting issue.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
I'm not sure it is necessarily that clear cut. After all, what exact, quantifiable quality does a set of adoptive white parents have that a set of black biological parents doesn't have?
Nothing really, yet I do think that *all other things being equal* a black child would have an easier time growing up in a family of their own race.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not sure it is necessarily that clear cut. After all, what exact, quantifiable quality does a set of adoptive white parents have that a set of black biological parents doesn't have?
Nothing really, yet I do think that *all other things being equal* a black child would have an easier time growing up in a family of their own race.
OK... at least you admit what your conclusion is based on.
I, on the other hand, think that statement is both untrue and irrelevant. But you have a right to your opinion. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Speed: The struggles of adopted Chinese children by North American parents are quite well documented and have even reached the status of popular entertainment, such as the last episode of House.
While other factors such as a chance at a better livelihood make the choice a positive one (albeit one that is rapidly declining), it hard to deny that growing up in a completely different racial environment doesn't add significant pressures to one's upbringing.
Its not just my opinion, consider this:
quote: As the CEO of one of the nation's most experienced international adoption agencies, I am committed to doing what's best for orphaned children. When children lose their parents, it's always better for them to remain in their country of birth, provided that someone — a relative or adoptive parent — is able to care for them. It's only when kids have no options or opportunities for a family in their native countries that international adoption should be considered. ... Lillian Thogersen has adopted eight children internationally, and is the CEO of WACAP (World Association for Children and Parents), a nonprofit adoption agency based in Renton.
quote:It isn't the age question as much as the parent/child relationship is one of inequality.
No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
They should have to undergo genetic counseling, so they understand the probable results of their having a child together. They can't be kept from having a child if they so wish, but they need to fully understand the probabilities.
It's a little "icky", but the right to let consenting adults do as they please is more important than avoiding my "ick" factor.
But, if you wish to address consistancy, why don't you say straight out if you think that two women, whose physical disabilities bar them from any kind of sexual activity, should still be allowed to marry.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ok, this may make me evil, but I think if my daughter came home and said, I am marrying this great guy. He has a disability that makes sexual activity impossible for him" it would be very hard for me to support the marriage. So, if I wouldn't support it for straight folks, I am not sure I could support it for lesbians. Of course, from a legal standpoint, I am in favor of doing away with marriage all together and just having civil unions. For civil unions, the expectation of sex is no longer there for me, just the legal committment to each other.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:What exact, quantifiable quality (aside from genitals, which aren't directly used much in child-rearing) is it that every woman ever born has but is impossible for any man to get under any circumstance? And what exact quality does a man have that no woman could ever emulate?
What exact, quantifiable quality is it that women have that make lesbians attracted to them that no man could ever emulate? (Besides sexual charictaristics, because, like heterosexual unions, real, lasting gay relationships are about more than physcial attraction.)
There isn't just one.
Obviously there are some, though, and while no two lesbians would neccessarily agree on which ones are responsible for their own personal psychological and biological prefrences, the differences are there.
And they're predominant enough among the genders that it makes people driven to want to form long-term emotional relationships with one gender over another.
Same with children. While there is no one, single thing that creates the difference, it's the general package that makes women both attractive to heterosexual men, attractive to lesbians, and deseriable as mothers for children.
Consider it this way (a gross oversimplificiation, but meant to be just complex enough to make my point:
In general, women are more disposed to have qualities a, b, c, and d. Men are more disposed to have qualities w, x, y and z.
If an uppercase letter represents qualities people have in larger amounts, a lower case letter represents qualities people have in lesser amounts, and no letter represents a quality that person possesses only to the degree that all humanity has it:
A group of women might be:
aBcX ACxy bcDz
And a group of men might be:
XyZa WyzB wYbc
Make sense? So among adults, men or women attracted to quality A would be more attracted to the first two women and the first man.
It's the fact that a lesbian finds quality A so much more often among women than men that she is more inclined, either because of bigology or psychology, to want to have her long term relationships with women instead of men.
So there doesn't need to be a set value on "Attribute A" as being the one that makes a Mom a good mom, any more than "Attribute A" is what makes a woman attractive to a heterosexual man or a lesbian. But just as some combination of traits are found more often among women than men, making them more attractive to certain people, a certain pool attributes are found more often among women that make them more suitable for the role of "Mom."
I'd even suggest that some of those attributes might be physical. I'm not speaking sexually, but has anyone considered that the bodies of a child's parents might influence a child? Again, we'd have to study it, but in general, does a child get different things from a hug from Dad than a hug from Mom? Does a supportive kiss from a father produce different emotional and/or chemical reactions in a child from a supportive kiss from a mother?
These are the kinds of questions we don't have answers to.
And from there, we work out deciding how much weight to give to the findings. Do we allow these hypothetical natural signs of a child's pre-disposition towards traditional parenting rules a place in the law, or do we just let them go, as long as the parenting situation results in a child who meets a certain standard of "healthy?"
If you're in favor of marriage between a man and a woman, and say you'd go with the studies, think about this:
What if studies showed that it didn't matter who or what was being called mom or dad, all the same reactions happened in the child, even if it was, say, a pair of social workers caring for a ward of the state? Would you be in favor of letting the two people be called "Mom" and "Dad" just because studies showed it might give the child an increased sense of stability, and made their grades go up?
I don't mean for anyone to actually answer these hypotheticals.
I just mean to say there are complicated issues regarding the relationships of parents and children that deserve to be treated with the complexity that they deserve.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Mucus:
So, with you and Lillian Thogersen, I guess that makes two people whose unsupported statements I disagree with.
Not that it matters. Before you go killing yourself finding better evidence against interracial adoption, remember that unless you can find the same quality evidence against homosexual adoption, it's still irrelevant.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender.
I could be mistaken but I think that biologically speaking there is a desire for a mother but not necessarily a father. /nitpick
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I don't wish to get too heavily involved in this debate, as it is an issue that's pretty personal with me. I have homosexual family members that have lived with the scorn and persecution of the societies in which we live. I oppose the amendment, and if you were to challenge me on my reasons, it really boils down to that in my gut it feels like the right thing to do. I can't materialize it with evidence or figures.
JFK gave a quote once that, to put mildly, changed my perspective in life. I was always frustrated with people who didn't agree with me on social issues, particularly because I couldn't express myself. (Not a good thing for a debater) Finally I found a quote that helps me conceptualize my reasoning for others. He said, "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs, but rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."
In other words, I don't see how allowing SSM in any way, shape, or form changes my feelings of commitment and love. I feel as though there is no reason for me to oppose SSM, and after seeing the damage of the stereotypes and oppression against my family, I feel morally compelled to try to play my part to alleviate their pain.
However, I recognize that this is only my own view, and I don't judge people solely for being for the amendment. This is a difficult issue that requires a lot of thought. It's a decision that a person shouldn't come to easily, and therefor I try not to judge their motives based on the decision. I judge the person based on their motives. (Though I also do recognize I probably shouldn't judge people at all.)
So when I see Puppy's concern saying,
quote: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)?
That's a good question.
I don't think that Puppy's a bigot. Especially when reading his motivation, which is a concern for children that he thinks can be brought by a same-sex couple. While I disagree with him on this point, I certainly don't think any less of him. His concern is for the well-being of children. How could someone be angry with that? I think it is unfair that so many of us who are opposed to the bill characterize those who support it as 'bigots.' I mean, if our argument comes down to tolerance, then shouldn't we be tolerant of those who oppose us as well? We shouldn't be hypocrites. We should be understanding of the difference of opinion, and just hope for the best on our side. And if we lose, I can't imagine this issue not coming up again. We will live to fight another day.
So to answer your question, Puppy, I don't think there is a good answer to that accusation. But I don't think that accusation should be thrown around so lightly.
ETA: I also understand the concern of the slippery slope playing with the definition of marriage plays, but I don't want to worry about those issues right now. What I do want to worry about is helping those who are asking for it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Speed: "unsupported", you use that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. If the informed opinion of both someone that runs an international adoption agency and has actually adopted internationally eight times is unsupported, if the piles of documentation on the subject by adoptees is unsupported, than what is your declaration by fiat? Is support even in the same neighbourhood? The same galaxy?
It is also perfectly relevant. It goes back to both your question about exact and quantifiable differences AND the OP.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Besides, marriage got destroyed years ago anyway.
Yeah. Seriously. Let them have unions and couples rights.
Straights want the term 'marriage'. Deal. All yours.
People and children all over Earth are starving, being denied human rights, and dieing. Our government is corrupt to the core, our Churches are making far more money than they product they are putting out should be at fair market value, and the world economy is in the hands of a very few.
Legislate pre-marital sex, or remarriage under the same BIBLICAL standards, and then maybe, just maybe, you'll have some ground to stand on.
LET THE LORD JUDGE THEM
treat them as the same sinner you are.
Hmmm. What if a gay man with good works is better than someone with no works but isn't gay? Who are you to add up the unquantifiable?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If civil marriage had more to do with children then it does, doc, your arguments would carry more weight. But civil marriage is a congolmerate of hundreds or thousands of priveleges, rights, and responsibilities, almost all of which have nothing to do with children.
If we want to start applying marriage laws only to unions with kids, then we can start talking. But until then, civil marriage in this country is far more about pair-bonding then it is about child rearing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No problem, how about a dad wants to marry his sterile daughter that he never helped raise? They're in love, you can't change that, and they want to get married. Do you deny them?
I'll go out on a limb, here: I can imagine cases in which a marriage between a daughter and her father would not be harmful to either party. However, I think the incalculable majority of such cases would be so inequitable that society is justified in saying, "No, we won't permit it -- even in this one specific, possibly non-harmful case -- because the precedent is bad."
It's the same logic used to deny even the most talented 14-year-old drivers their license, or require that kids be 16 or 18 or whatever (depending on the state) before they can choose to get married: at some point, we need to draw a quasi-arbitrary line, unless we want to put each individual case through some kind of lengthy review.
But here's the thing: when we draw these lines, we justify their arbitrary nature based on the likely possibility of harm. In this case -- a marriage between two people of the same sex -- I don't perceive any potential harm in the general case that justifies denying the possibility to the broader population.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:If civil marriage had more to do with children then it does, doc, your arguments would carry more weight. But civil marriage is a congolmerate of hundreds or thousands of priveleges, rights, and responsibilities, almost all of which have nothing to do with children.
Again, you're looking at it from an adult perspective. The reason the connection I'm making resonates so much with me comes from the other direction.
While many marriages have lost their connection to children, children have never lost their fundamental connection to parents. A marriage can exist without children, but no child can exist without a desire to connect with and be nurtured by a family.
So while not every marriage has to deal with the issue of children, every child has to deal with the issue of marriage. That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering.
quote:But here's the thing: when we draw these lines, we justify their arbitrary nature based on the likely possibility of harm.
Or we draw them based on possible benifits.
For example, when we place the demarcation line in a graduated income tax scale, we may lower it by X number of points because that would raise $### million more dollars in the treasury. We're not afraid of hurting anybody--we're looking to give someone something, or pomote an additonal benefit.
However, we might slide it back the other way based on fear of harm. Will this put too much of a burden on a person at that borderline?
So all these issues fall along some kind of scale between potential harm vs. potential benifit.
Lots of the states, for example, that have lower driving ages have them because they're traditionally rural communities that set the age at a time when Jr. needed to have a liscence so he could work the fields.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"While many marriages have lost their connection to children, children have never lost their fundamental connection to parents. A marriage can exist without children, but no child can exist without a desire to connect with and be nurtured by a family. "
I would argue that extending marriage rights to gay couples will increase the percentage of children raised in a more nurturing family.
"every child has to deal with the issue of marriage."
maybe. But, again, extend marriage, and a greater percentage of children will be raised within the confines of marriage.
"That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering."
Their best interests are worth considering. But, in general, when we're talking about marriage, we're not talking about a civil institution that is designed to promote the best interests of children. most of civil marriage law deals with pair-bonding, and property distribution.
Aside from that is the point made above that no one has shown children of gay parents are worse off then children of straight parents in any objective way.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So while not every marriage has to deal with the issue of children, every child has to deal with the issue of marriage. That's a large enough group that I feel their best interests are worth considering.
Which children, specifically, do you think will be harmed if SSM is permitted? Are the gays going to steal children from heterosexuals? Will there be a run on the adoption agencies by gays? (Note that in California, gays can already adopt.)
Doesn't allowing SSM in California merely provide a better environment for children who are already being raised by gay parents?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... no one has shown children of gay parents are worse off then children of straight parents in any objective way.
I seriously doubt that. In the trivial case, I suspect that children of gay parents probably suffer significantly greater prejudice and stigma for being the children of gay parents than the children of straight parents Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
That's not harm, that's a benefit. It builds character. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I have a question, why do we let a man and a woman marry?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That's a silly question.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:That's a silly question.
Why is that?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: As far as I know, it is against the rules to endorse a candidate, not to back a political issue.
Maybe it's time to change that. Seems to me that would be pretty easy to get on the ballot.
I don't think it would be easy to get on the ballot, and it would run afoul of constitutional challenges very quickly if it passed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am LDS.
I believe that male same-sex attraction is largely genetic/determined before birth. I believe that homosexual partnerships should have legal rights equal with heterosexual couples. I believe they should get health and death benefits, be able to foster and adopt (heaven knows we have enough kids in need of loving homes, I don't care who's taking care of them as long as they're taken care of and well!) I believe that civil unions should be legally equivalent to marriage-- as they are in the state of California.
I also believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and that churches should not have to marry people who do not meet their criteria for marriage, whether that's same-sex, remaining chaste before marriage, both members of their church, or whatever the requirements might be.
Amen.
Except for the "I am LDS." part of that post I could have written it myself. As a matter of fact, I think I have posted almost the same things a number of times here at Hatrack.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I actually agree with ketchupqueen up to the "marriage should be defined as..."
Frankly, I don't see the point of creating a second class of "marriage" unless it's to deliberately create a lower class of marriage. I'd rather the word "marriage" wasn't used by the government at all; barring that, I'd expect to have it applied to all such unions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
I disagree completely with your interpretation of that. I don't think it should send up warning flag or that it is worthless even if true.
I was accused of being racist by some white kid when I was in the Army. We didn't know each other, and I got really pissed at a Hispanic guy in my squad. Of course it HAD to be racism...it couldn't have been because I knew the guy and he screwed me over.
I simply said that anyone who knew me (as this guy really didn't) would know that couldn't be true. I got along well with most people in my squad, and about 3/4 of them were Afro-American or Hispanic, and I considered several of them to be friends.
In and of itself such a statement can be questioned, but I don't think it is without merit.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmb:
quote:For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.
I guess I wasn't really asking for the original purpose of marriage (which is guessed at, but unknown) or the function of marriage. Talking about the "value" of marriage is like talking about the "value" of having evolved opposable thumbs.
Knowing how a thumb works doesn't tell you why we evolved it, and talking about the "purpose" of a thumb is either a religious question ("why did God give us the thumb?") or an irrelevant question (natural selection doesn't have "purposes", only mechanisms).
Similarly, when we're talking about the value of marriage, knowing that it's a contract with certain provisions doesn't tell us why we have it. Knowing the purposes of its originators similarly won't tell you why it exists today, nor will it at all inform how we ought to treat it in our society, now.
Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
quote:And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.
I hope you can tell the difference between a father being legally obligated to send a check to the mother each month or go to jail, versus a father being closely involved with a child's upbringing.
quote:Why do you think we have legal marriage?
I'm still working on the "survival value" question myself, which is why I asked you. But I do strongly suspect that it (like most questions of survival value) has a lot to do with improving the chances of the next generation of humans.
For instance, what if the education gap between America and other countries had less to do with federally-funded education programs, and more to do with the percentage of intact households? (I have zero facts to back this up — I just came up with it. But it's the kind of thing I think we should be considering.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kwea: I think you're missing the point.
Think about it a different way, you're listening to a speech by an American politician, which beginning to a speech sets off more alarm bells?
1: Marriage is a sacred institution built between a man and a woman which benefits society. It should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
2: I am a family man. I love my wife and my two children. Therefore, I think that marriage should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
Ponder why the second statement is so ruthlessly cliche and moreover, worthless (and actually dangerous) as a piece of rhetoric. Also, consider why the fact that a *specific* politician might actually be what they call a "family man" is not actually a good reason to bring that up anyways these days.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Mucus, the question is more about how to respond to an ad hominem accusation that you possess some terrible motivation that you do not. If someone called you a bigot for some hypothetical position that you held, and you felt you needed to clear your name, how would you go about it?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)? ...
The issue with that argument is not merely that it is a cliched line, but that its logically almost without value. It actually shoots one in their own foot rather than adding to one's argument.
TomDavidson has posted a pretty consistent position that religious opinions should be ignored. Ok. Thats a position that can be debated and defended on its own merits.
Now imagine if he had explicitly said, "I don't hate Christians, in fact I have a Christian friend." before that. That should ring alarm bells and rightly so.
I disagree completely with your interpretation of that. I don't think it should send up warning flag or that it is worthless even if true.
I was accused of being racist by some white kid when I was in the Army. We didn't know each other, and I got really pissed at a Hispanic guy in my squad. Of course it HAD to be racism...it couldn't have been because I knew the guy and he screwed me over.
I simply said that anyone who knew me (as this guy really didn't) would know that couldn't be true. I got along well with most people in my squad, and about 3/4 of them were Afro-American or Hispanic, and I considered several of them to be friends.
In and of itself such a statement can be questioned, but I don't think it is without merit.
Actually, Kwea, the fact that you got along with and were even friends with several people of other races doesn't really address the question of whether you are racist at all. From what you've described, it was a stupid, baseless accusation and of course you shouldn't have had to defend yourself against it at all. But being friendly with people does nothing to prove that you are not a racist: if anything, it shows that whatever you believe about other races doesn't prevent you from being friendly with them.
What I'm getting at is that being friends with someone doesn't preclude thinking they have defects associated with their race. Any friend you have is going to have shortcomings. You can be friends anyway. If you think those shortcomings are endemic to the person's race, then you're a racist, but you can still be friends anyway.
Look at some popular racist beliefs: -[Whoever] are lazy. Well, lots of people have lazy friends. -[Whoever] are stupid. Ever have any stupid friends? ..etc.
The bottom line is that racism is NOT about choosing who you will be friends with.*
That's one of the chief reasons why "but I have friends who are -" is worthless as a defense against racism. That it is useless as rhetoric about public policy has already been explained by Mucus, of course.
*ETA: I grant that the garden variety bigot does seem to want to avoid associating with those he is prejudiced against - but it can't be the defining characteristic of racism or bigotry.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
puppy: Let's continue the analogy, an American senator is accused of participating in a gay sex scandal. Why does him trotting out his wife and children, and him pronouncing that he is a "family man" actually hurt his case?
Why doesn't the fact that he can produce a wife and children prove that he isn't in fact gay?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
EDIT: This video is kind of out of place but it does a good job of showing why the "I have a [gay/black/mexican...] friend" is not a valid excuse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: kmb:
quote:For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.
I guess I wasn't really asking for the original purpose of marriage (which is guessed at, but unknown) or the function of marriage. Talking about the "value" of marriage is like talking about the "value" of having evolved opposable thumbs.
Knowing how a thumb works doesn't tell you why we evolved it, and talking about the "purpose" of a thumb is either a religious question ("why did God give us the thumb?") or an irrelevant question (natural selection doesn't have "purposes", only mechanisms).
Similarly, when we're talking about the value of marriage, knowing that it's a contract with certain provisions doesn't tell us why we have it. Knowing the purposes of its originators similarly won't tell you why it exists today, nor will it at all inform how we ought to treat it in our society, now.
Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
quote:And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.
I hope you can tell the difference between a father being legally obligated to send a check to the mother each month or go to jail, versus a father being closely involved with a child's upbringing.
quote:Why do you think we have legal marriage?
I'm still working on the "survival value" question myself, which is why I asked you. But I do strongly suspect that it (like most questions of survival value) has a lot to do with improving the chances of the next generation of humans.
For instance, what if the education gap between America and other countries had less to do with federally-funded education programs, and more to do with the percentage of intact households? (I have zero facts to back this up — I just came up with it. But it's the kind of thing I think we should be considering.)
When I write about marriage being a contract between a father and a groom, transferring ownership of the bride, I am not exactly talking about ancient history. Up until fairly recently, that has been the case. In some cultures, it still is. The "value" of marriage is that it combines assets. Whether that was a dowry or the Aquitaine. Marriage creates new legal entities called families. Most families have children; some do not. We do not legislate that these new legal entities produce offspring. If we did than your argument would have some merit.
And of course I know the difference between a parent who is involved in a child's life and one who is not. What does that have to do with anything? We do not legislate that two parents remain or even become a single legal entity.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kwea: I think you're missing the point.
Think about it a different way, you're listening to a speech by an American politician, which beginning to a speech sets off more alarm bells?
1: Marriage is a sacred institution built between a man and a woman which benefits society. It should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
2: I am a family man. I love my wife and my two children. Therefore, I think that marriage should not be extended to same-sex partners because ...
Ponder why the second statement is so ruthlessly cliche and moreover, worthless (and actually dangerous) as a piece of rhetoric. Also, consider why the fact that a *specific* politician might actually be what they call a "family man" is not actually a good reason to bring that up anyways these days.
Number two, because the politician actually has three children! Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Their best interests are worth considering. But, in general, when we're talking about marriage, we're not talking about a civil institution that is designed to promote the best interests of children. most of civil marriage law deals with pair-bonding, and property distribution.
While I agree with this, I think a lot of people who are opposed to SSM think that the main point of marriage should be child rearing. By extending marriage rights to a population that has 0 probability of naturally making a baby, it concedes that civil marriage really is about pair bonding and property distribution. Yes, civil marriage already is mostly that, but this step for them officially declares that.
Personally, as I have said before, I want civil unions for all, marriages for whatever religion wants to do them. I don't think the government has the right to define what a marriage is, though I like them enforcing the contractual aspects of the union. I would vote no on prop 8 if I was in California (unless I believed that voting yes would lead to my above stated desire, which I currently don't). However, it upsets me greatly to see everyone who votes yes being characterized as a hate filled bigot. I don't believe that and the constant claim of it really makes me dislike the pro-ssm side.
As far as racism, I know someone who is convinced I am a bigot because I believe gay sex is a sin (but my list of things that are sins is nice and long so everyone is a sinner in my mind, so being a sinner just means you are human). When she found out someone close to her was gay, her response was "of course I still love you, but please don't sleep with any young boys. Promise me you'll only be with people over 18." I don't know- I would rather someone think I was sinning rather then that I was a pedophiliac preying on innocent children.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I believe that civil unions should be legally equivalent to marriage-- as they are in the state of California.
Amen.
Except for the "I am LDS." part of that post I could have written it myself. As a matter of fact, I think I have posted almost the same things a number of times here at Hatrack.
Come on.
Certainly you know that the "in California" part is deeply misleading.
Sure...ssm couples share all of the state rights that California grants to married couples, but they don't have the federal benefits, while opposite sex couples do.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
For some reason I couldn’t log onto my old ID here so I had to create a new one, but it has been over 2 years since I have posted so perhaps it was purged. I guess I just don’t see what the big fuss is among the gay community. If “Civil Unions” granted the same rights as “Marriages,” what is the big stink about? I have two friends that are a homosexual couple, and while they would like to have a ceremony in which they are joined together and given the same rights as heterosexual couples, they really don’t care what it is called. I know this is not an indicator of how the entire gay community feels, but it is what I have experienced in speaking with them. A word can have many definitions, but a definition can have many different words for it as well. Why can’t there be a word for a marriage type union between two homosexual adults that holds the same rights as a traditional marriage? As far as the religion argument goes, I think the biggest fear of some from the religious community is that homosexuality is against their teachings, and they do not want to be forced to recognize or perform same sex marriages. I believe another fear in the religious community is that if the word marriage is redefined, it also opens up the way for other non-traditional types of unions. If a man wants to marry 30 women, who should stop him? If a man or woman wants to marry someone that is 12 years old, why should anyone stand in his or her way? If someone wants to marry their dog or their cat because they feel they have a loving relationship with them, who should stop them? What right does anyone have to stand in the way of any type of union? I am not against homosexual couples being joined in a marriage like ceremony. I am not opposed to health benefits for same sex couples. I am not opposed to tax breaks, adoption, or child bearing rights for same sex couples. I guess my whole point can be summed up by Shakespeare. 'In a name a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'? I say call marriages for homosexual couples something else, and keep everybody happy. The religious community gets their wishes and the gay community gets their rights. I think that is a fair compromise. Am I missing something and oversimplifying or does this just seem like it should not be that big of an issue?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Shakespeare wasn't a legislator.
-Bok
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What right does anyone have to stand in the way of any type of union?
The right of self-determination, defined as "free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion." Recently invoked as a part of wars and legal referendums on separation from a larger union.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If “Civil Unions” granted the same rights as “Marriages,” what is the big stink about?
Good question. If "civil unions" granted the exact same rights as "marriages," why wouldn't you just call them "marriages?"
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If women have the same rights as men, why not call them men?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
I am uncomfortable with that approach as a reason to deny gay marriage. I see it as no different then asking what value slavery has because it has been practiced from the beginning and is still a world wide phenomenon today--including child sex slaves in Asia.
I am not equating denying gay marriage with slavery, but I am saying a more appropriate question might be "why is it taking so long to allow gay marriage?"
Why did it take civilized society so long to condemn slavery? Does that fact that it took so long to end slavery give "survival value" as a reason to hold onto slavery?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
There was a funny letter in Ft. Worth Star Telegram today.
The writer wrote that people claim to be christian but support gay rights or abortion rights, making them not real Christians. He said that we should let the Real Christians judge who the Real Christians are.
My mouth dropped agape. I thought only God could judge.
I guess it must have been modern divine revelation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If women have the same rights as men, why not call them men?
Legally, I believe we call them "persons," except where there is a meaningful legal distinction between the genders. In fact, in some cases, corporations can even be "persons." What meaningful legal distinction would you maintain between "marriage" and "civil union" to justify the different terminology?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Well, I don't think the Bible says anything about Muslims, killing infidels or not. But I know what you're driving at.
But if we're legislating the Bible, we really need to get rid of all that evil shellfish.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Well, I don't think the Bible says anything about Muslims, killing infidels or not. But I know what you're driving at.
But if we're legislating the Bible, we really need to get rid of all that evil shellfish.
OK I'll try to not nitpick, but honestly I get extremely tired of people quoting rules contained in the Law of Moses and extrapolating them to mean that somehow people from the Judeo-Christian background cherry pick what rules we adhere to.
From one Christian's perspective. The Law of Moses is just what it claims to be, a law given to Moses for the benefit of the Israelite nation. There were prophets, commandments, miracles, priesthood, desciples thousands of years before Moses was even born. There is a distinct difference in purpose between, "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou shalt not eat shrimp." One commands us to adopt Godlike attributes, the other forces us to more frequently remember God in our doings. Because the Israelites from the get go had a hard time obeying God's more fundamental rules, the Law of Moses was devised as a way to keep them in constant remembrance of their God. It's hard to forget God when you have to keep kosher.
Eternal truths such as, God is Love, or God wishes us to help those less fortunate, or God finds sin abhorrent, and God has a plan for all mankind are true regardless of additional commandments God gives us. The Ten Commandments are Godlike attribute commandments rather than "remember me" commandments. In purpose the Law of Moses would prepare the Israelites to ultimately accept the Messiah and obey the higher more fundamental truths He would reveal unto them.
Jesus came, formed His church, revealed the gospel, fulfilled the Law of Moses, left the church in the hands of the apostles, granted them revelation as they needed it, (see Acts onward) and we will leave it there rather than dabbling in Mormon extensions.
The New Testament clearly discusses homosexuality. Paul mentions it more than once in completely negative terms. The argument that Jesus did not himself mention it, is quite weak. Jesus did not touch on many things, leaving that to the apostles. Peter being instructed by God to stop keeping kosher and to proclaim that commandment is a perfect example of this. The apostles meeting together, discussing, and ultimately being commanded by God to stop requiring circumcision is also an example of this.
Some Christians do seem to think that keeping Kosher just to be safe is a wise thing, I don't. But please stop suggesting that because Christians don't observe the law of Moses which prophets before Moses didn't observe, and which Jesus said was no long necessary, that we are somehow the Jewish Lite religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed, Christianity is more like Jewish XP, adding the extreme performance of Jesus.
... I suppose that makes Islam the Jewish Vista ...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
BlackBlade,
I understand your argument, and it even makes sense.
Unfortunately, Jesus also said this:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
lem:
quote:I am uncomfortable with that approach as a reason to deny gay marriage.
It's not a reason to deny gay marriage, and I wasn't trying to use it that way. It's not even a complete approach; it's just a question. But it's a question that I think people are too quick to dismiss or give quick answers to, based on their existing opinions. I wish I knew more about the answer to this question, without partisan bias making me doubt the answers on either side.
Questions like this, surrounding this topic, are extraordinarily difficult to find satisfactory answers for, because everyone involved seems to have a firm stake in getting "right" answers that either bolster their side or stave off criticism and accusations of heresy or bigotry.
I don't think we know enough yet about the causes of homosexuality, for instance. And I think that, in part, this is because there is only one "right answer" allowed on either side of the discussion. It's hard to know whose conclusions to trust, when there are such strong political consequences attached to every answer.
Personally, I suspect that there is a mix of genetic and environmental factors, with different proportions in each individual. I don't think that because of any particular study, but rather because it seems like every human trait works that way, so why not this one? But I worry about saying that out loud for fear that someone will take it wrong and flame me (It's happened before ...)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thankfully, America isn't a theocracy, so what the Bible says has no impact on how we make laws which ... wait a second!
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote: " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till it all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law. So at the time Jesus was speaking they still needed to follow every part of the Law of Moses. After the Resurrection the Law was replaced by the higher law taught by Jesus and revealed to his Apostles.
We have Two "Tills" in that scripture. "Till Heaven and Earth Pass Away" and "Till it all be fulfilled." My best interpretation is that he meant it would be followed either till the world ended or the Law was Fulfilled, which ever came first.The only way to be sure of the exact meaning would be for God to clarify, requiring revelation.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979:
quote: " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till it all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law. So at the time Jesus was speaking they still needed to follow every part of the Law of Moses. After the Resurrection the Law was replaced by the higher law taught by Jesus and revealed to his Apostles.
We have Two "Tills" in that scripture. "Till Heaven and Earth Pass Away" and "Till it all be fulfilled." My best interpretation is that he meant it would be followed either till the world ended or the Law was Fulfilled, which ever came first.The only way to be sure of the exact meaning would be for God to clarify, requiring revelation.
As he wasn't specific, and unless the translation reveals something else, 'all' certainly seems like 'when I come back at the end of the world', as opposed to 'when I come back in a few weeks'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: BlackBlade,
I understand your argument, and it even makes sense.
Unfortunately, Jesus also said this:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
I admit the wording is alittle ackward but I still read it as, "Until the end of time, not one detail of the law can be be omitted, until it is fulfilled. He who teaches less than this, is wrong."
The law when given was binding until God himself fulfilled it, had Jesus not come when he did the Jews would still be expected to keep the law, and indeed many do now in obedience. Interestingly enough in the Book of Mormon, the people in America through divine intervention were apprised of Jesus' birth in Israel, and several of them began teaching that the law was fulfilled and therefore no longer necessary. The heads of the church had to discuss with them why they were wrong and explain that until Jesus' mission was complete the law was still in full force.
The disciples of the New Testament had the opposite problem, believing parts or all of the Law of Moses were eternal truths unto themselves, and that they should continue to observe them. This is why Peter was hesitant to take the gospel to the gentiles, as up to that point virtually all Christians were also Jews. To demonstrate to him that Jesus' gospel was a new direction directed at everybody, Peter was given the vision of a list of lawfully unclean animals, and commanded to eat them. The dual message was that Moses law was fulfilled in Jesus and that a new higher and more inclusive law had been revealed.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:As he wasn't specific, and unless the translation reveals something else, 'all' certainly seems like 'when I come back at the end of the world', as opposed to 'when I come back in a few weeks'.
As I said it needs revelation from God to clarify. As far as the LDS view on it Jesus said in the Book of Mormon:
"4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. 5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfill the law; therefore it hath an end. 6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled. 7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come. 8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me." - 3 Nephi 15
Again I say the only way for someone to know is to ask God themselves.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
I hope people find it helpful in looking at the real, and not just the sensationalised version of, the issues.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I recently attended a symposium on Prop 8 sponsered by Chapman University school of Law. It was no one-sided debate--voices present ranged from conservative constitutional law professor and talk show host Hugh Hewitt to David C. Codell, one of the lawyers who brought the marriage cases to the California supreme court, and whose work with the LGBT community goes back to fighting to allow Gay-Straight alliances to meet on school grounds.
My conclusion at the end of the hours of discussion and debate were basically that, well, the whole thing is up for discussion and debate.
Thurston's paper is simply another arguement--it is no more the final word than any of the other people I heard speak that day, at greater length than Thurston's paper.
For example, Codell made a compelling case that, rather than being the huge leap it is made out to be, the California decision was actually just one tiny, final step down a path that the court had been treading for years. Not an activist decision, but a recognition of the implications of decisions it had made in previous years.
Hewitt, on the other hand, made an equally compelling case that it was, in fact, a bombshell, and that the TNT was the court's definition of "Strict Scrutiny." In order to get it to apply in this case, they had to create a new definition of the term that had never been used previously, and that may have implications beyond the current same-sex marriage battle, but that the court failed to consider as it used such a drastic measure to create the result it desired.
Her book trod a middle ground between both extremes--it does not deny that there are conflicts between religious liberty and legal same sex marriage, the way that Thurston's essay tries to--rather, it tries to suggest that there will be hope for religious liberty, even though it might be leveraged against by legal same sex marriage.
As an example, she draws parallels with abortion. Following Roe V. Wade, abortion was not only legal, but considered a right--it was not long after Roe that many Catholic owned hospitals were sued for not wanting to perform abortions. Also, it placed a burden on religous doctors in non-church owned hospitals who did not wish to participate in what they personally considered murder.
Laws had to be written and comprimises had to be made in order to accommodate both the laws and the religious beliefs of the hospitals and doctors. The laws were passed, of course, and doctors who did not wish to perform abortions were never actually required to perform them. The exceptions were specifically carved out in an effort to preserve both the will of the court and individual religious liberty.
There are similar situations here. Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple? Will a church owned property (like a mountain retreat) have to allow same sex couples to rent their property for weddings? But then, what if the same sex couple doesn't know what alternate facility will hold same sex weddings?
There are solutions, of course. Another analogy Wilson draws is that of birth control--there are laws that require that if doctors do not offer certain forms of birth control, they have to make patients who desire it aware of where else they might obtain it.
So in short, Thurston's arguments are as dismissive as he's saying his opponents are sensational. There actually are legitimate issues here, and while most people agree that most likely no Catholic priest will ever be required by the state to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean there aren't implications for the schools, for churches, and for individuals, or that if Prop 8 fails to pass, people shouldn't be as eager to help preserve the religious freedom of the people of California through these types of compromises as they are to extend the freedom to marry to gay couples.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law.
I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. I mean, the law is the law. You don't "fulfill" a law; you obey it. Or disobey it, but either way, fulfilling a law is like asking "how tall is red?" It doesn't even make sense syntactically.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lisa:
From a Mormon point of view:
Christians believe that the Law of Moses was given in order to point peoples' minds toward God, and toward Christ who would redeem people from sin and from death. When that redemption was completed through Christ's atonement and resurrection, the law was "fulfilled--" its ends had been met, and another "law" was put in place.
I expect that when Christ comes again, the law of obedience will also be replaced-- CS Lewis touches on this in the Last Battle, when Aslan says to...Lucy, I think, "You cannot now want for any wrong thing."
That's how I look at it, anyway.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Also, while I'm saying unpopular things, I'm rather tired of the false comparison to race relations. Demonizing racism has no parallel to demonizing anti-same-sex-marriage people, because the former was always a personal judgment, while the latter is frequently a moral judgment.
That isn't true. Religions have definitely assigned (negative) meaning to the colour of a person's skin and had doctrines and policies that were racist. My own personal experience is mostly with the LDS (Mormon) faith, but it is apparent in the history of other churches, too.
quote:I think homosexual sex is wrong, but I don't hate people that engage in it. I think getting drunk is wrong too, but I don't hate alcoholics. My dad is one. Or am I just bigoted against alcoholics too?
Depends. Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics? Because hate isn't really the issue here. A simple absence of hate does not prove someone is not a bigot or does not act in a biassed manner.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics?
What are you calling civil rights?
I support bartenders who don't serve alcohol to people they know are alcoholics; I support grocery stores, liquor stores, and other business owners who discriminate against people they know are alcoholics by not selling them alcohol.
That said, I support the right of alcoholics to vote, to speak their mind, to meet with like-minded peers.
Marriage was declared a civil right back in the...er...60s, I think, when laws making it illegal for mixed race marriages to take place were struck down. (Someone else is going to have to quote chapter and verse; my google-fu is not strong this morning).
Even though it is a civil right, society has set bounds on that right-- minors cannot marry adults except in certain situations, for example. Obviously, there is some judging taking place within this discussion; one relationship is valued, while another is shunned. The attitude carries forth into legislation.
It is my contention that such cultural appraisal is completely correct and valuable in order to protect personal and social structures in place within the culture.
(Which says nothing about the specifics of SSM-- I note merely that the people have empowered the government to enact their will in regards to marriage.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ October 28, 2008, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: [QB]It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender...
Kids deserve to be able to have, if at all possible, a mom and a dad. Each brings a unique perspective to the child, because men and women are different.
The unique perspective that my parents brought to my life has less to do with the fact that one is male and one is female and more to do with the fact that my dad is an extrovert and talented athlete who likes to sing and play the clown, while my mum is an introvert who feels really strongly about education and is good with money.
Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
In my experience, children don't exhibit any kind of biological drive to have parents of different sexes. They do however have a deep, irrevocable need for parents who are loving, consistent and responsible. Last time I checked these characteristics were not divided by gender.
quote:But at least, by preserving the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we're still acknowledging as a society that we recognize that we're putting the rights of children first. QB]
No. You know, this argument really is only relevent to adoption by gay parents (and even then it's a weak argument). It has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.
Plus, by that reasoning we would prohibit divorce (or remove children after it occurs), force single mothers to give their kids up for adoption and the example you gave of your brother coming to stay and help raise the kids after your wife died would be unacceptable - if you didn't have a sister or other female prepared to come and help, too bad, your kids would have to go to some complete family. Stupid, right? Yep. Imagine if your children were taken away just because you didn't share your life with a woman. It really misses the point of what parents provide emotionally and otherwise for their kids, right?
As does your argument.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: There are similar situations here. Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple? Will a church owned property (like a mountain retreat) have to allow same sex couples to rent their property for weddings? But then, what if the same sex couple doesn't know what alternate facility will hold same sex weddings?
While I don't think that churches should be required to host same sex marriages, I don't understand why there would be a problem with a Catholic county clerk filing same sex marriage licenses. If same sex marriage is legalized then there will be a clear difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. Would filing a same sex marriage license violate the clerk's religious beliefs? If it doesn't then I don't see why said clerk would have a problem.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Btw, I nominate chosha for being the lurkiest lurker.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by chosha: In my experience, children don't exhibit any kind of biological drive to have parents of different sexes. They do however have a deep, irrevocable need for parents who are loving, consistent and responsible. Last time I checked these characteristics were not divided by gender.
Judging by the nature of other apes, it seems like there is a biological drive for a mother but not for a father. The desire for a father may just be a product of our culture.
EDIT: I don't mean to present this idea as if it were true. I only view it as plausible.
EDIT2: In a similar manner, adopted children probably don't have a biological drive to find their real parents.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
It's true that good role models don't need to be parents.
It's also true that when the role models are parents, the example they set is generally much more powerful.
The conversation tends to get a bit dodgy in these areas-- IIRC, it's been noted that the lack of engaged father figures in the lives of young minority males tends to lead to higher crime and poverty down the road. There's been no study, as far as I know, about the effects of a motherless/female-free culture on the general population. Largely, I think, because our society pushes child rearing disproportionately on the mother. (I'd love to read the data if it exists, though)
Of course, there are many more complications with the issue than just the lack of a present, same-gendered, familial role model. Of course poverty and environment play parts in it.
BUT-- gender modeling based on parental example does have an enormous effect on children. I don't think it's fair to downplay it, chosha.
There is data that shows that children raised in same-sex marriages don't tend to suffer socially or psychologically.
Admitting that does not necessarily admit that widespread same-gendered parenting will prove as effective as dual-gendered parenting (in terms of teaching acceptable gender-roles or gender-relations). It may be something society just has to fall into, and muddle through.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: So in short, Thurston's arguments are as dismissive as he's saying his opponents are sensational. There actually are legitimate issues here, and while most people agree that most likely no Catholic priest will ever be required by the state to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean there aren't implications for the schools, for churches, and for individuals, or that if Prop 8 fails to pass, people shouldn't be as eager to help preserve the religious freedom of the people of California through these types of compromises as they are to extend the freedom to marry to gay couples.
Thurston is not dismissing the issues. He is revealing the non-issues that are being touted as issues in order to encourage people to vote from a place of fear and ignorance.
As for the last half of the quoted text above, what you're basically saying is that people shouldn't be eager to promote religious freedom if it means that they will actually have to respect the religous freedom of others and not just pretend to support it in order to protect the rights they want to claim for themselves. Or at least that's how it sounds. Religious freedom, sure, but whoa, no compromise, no actual tolerance of other people's beliefs.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple?
Probably. Why is that a problem? A Catholic county clerk who refuses to file a divorce decree now, despite the fact that divorce is against their religion, would probably lose their job. Is that a violation of the clerk's religious freedom? I don't think so. Do you?
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics?
What are you calling civil rights?
It's not important; it wasn't my point. The point was that the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument is relevent to religious practice. The issue at hand is civil rights, deciding in that context whether or not someone is displaying bigotry is determined by the actions they take to protect or deny civil rights based on bias. You don't have to hate someone to discriminate against them - you just have to deem their rights to be less important than your viewpoint. After all, no-one is actually threatening to take away any rights from straight people here. It's not gay rights vs straight rights. And people should stop pretending that it is.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Btw, I nominate chosha for being the lurkiest lurker.
I used to be on Hatrack all the time, but ages ago (in the early days with the nick 'enjeeo'). Recently I read something about OSC and it reminded me of Hatrack and here I am.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:After all, no-one is actually threatening to take away any rights from straight people here.
The wiki aspectre linked to has some interesting commentary from judges as to why Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same-sex couples, and why, therefore, there is some discrimination.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The wiki aspectre linked to has some interesting commentary from judges as to why Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same-sex couples, and why, therefore, there is some discrimination.
I agree that it's arguable that Loving v. Virginia is not an applicable legal precident. That is not an obstacle to those engaged extra-legal discourse about civil rights and justice. The question is not "Why were the laws that Loving overturned unconstitutional?" but "Why were they wrong?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
enjeeo! Welcome back. I was just thinking about you the other day -- one of our son's stuffed dogs is named NGO and when he asked for NGO I thought, "I wonder what ever happened to enjeeo?"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The question is not "Why were the laws that Loving overturned unconstitutional?" but "Why were they wrong?"
Isn't that a question for the legislature rather than for a group of people who cannot be directly influenced by cultural participants?
EDIT: Thinking here of SCOTUS; I imagine state courts are chosen according to state laws, which vary.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Even though it is a civil right, society has set bounds on that right-- minors cannot marry adults except in certain situations, for example.
Marriage is a legal contract. Contracts are only valid when the parties are able to consent freely, and the reason minors can't get married is because it's presumed that minors can't consent to something they don't understand, or can't consent freely when being pressured by an adult.
It has nothing to do with putting bounds on marriage, it has to do with treating a contract like a contract.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Marriage is not a "contract." It has contract-like aspects to it, but it is not a contract. There are many bounds placed on marriage that are not placed on other contracts.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Isn't that a question for the legislature rather than for a group of people who cannot be directly influenced by cultural participants?
EDIT: Thinking here of SCOTUS; I imagine state courts are chosen according to state laws, which vary.
If we're talking about California, which I believe we are, then there are a few points to be made:
* The California Supreme Court is elected.
* It is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is all they do. Saying that it's not their place is like saying a traffic cop has no business telling you that you're driving too fast.
* The California legislature twice passed legislation legalizating SSM. The governator vetoed the legislation, saying that he wanted the courts to decide the matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is all they do. Saying that it's not their place is like saying a traffic cop has no business telling you that you're driving too fast.
OH! I agree. I thought you were making the mistake of saying that the court should determine what was right and wrong, rather than what is constitutional/unconstitutional.
My mistake.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, I didn't realize we were talking about CA's supreme court...I'm not sure what they have to do with Loving v. VA, or federal law.
Can you explain why you feel that's what's being discussed?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: enjeeo! Welcome back.
What she said!
quote:Originally posted by dkw: one of our son's stuffed dogs is named NGO
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:OH! I agree. I thought you were making the mistake of saying that the court should determine what was right and wrong, rather than what is constitutional/unconstitutional.
I was trying to say, though apparently not very clearly, that in terms of discussion between you, me, and others, the importance of Loving is not it's status as legal precident, but the concepts of justice and equality that it addresses. It's also a good example of the court acting rightly despite the lack of popular support for the judgement.
quote:Also, I didn't realize we were talking about CA's supreme court...I'm not sure what they have to do with Loving v. VA, or federal law.
Well, the CA Supreme Court is subject to the US Supreme Court, though as I've now said a couple times, the legal precident isn't what I think is important about Loving.
quote:Can you explain why you feel that's what's being discussed?
The title of the thread is "California Proposition 8". The most visible contest on this issue is occuring right now in California.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Marriage is not a "contract." It has contract-like aspects to it, but it is not a contract. There are many bounds placed on marriage that are not placed on other contracts.
For instance, parents cannot enter into marriages on behalf of their minor children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The title of the thread is "California Proposition 8". The most visible contest on this issue is occuring right now in California.
1) Thread drift.
2) We weren't discussing California's Supreme Court; I even made it clear I was applying my comments to SCOTUS alone.
quote:the importance of Loving is not it's status as legal precident, but the concepts of justice and equality that it addresses. It's also a good example of the court acting rightly despite the lack of popular support for the judgement.
So you ARE making the mistake of allowing judges to assign morality (rather than legality) to their judgments.
If SCOTUS was elected, I'd have less problems with the idea. As political appointees who cannot be easily held accountable, though, I've got enormous reservations about this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So you ARE making the mistake of allowing judges to assign morality (rather than legality) to their judgments.
NO! Ugh.
I'm saying two things:
1) When we, as a individuals, discuss what is right and wrong, legal precident is irrelevant. The Supreme Court could rule slavery to be Constitutional and I could still say that the civil rights of slaves were being wrongly denied. Loving is a good seed for this discussion.
2) The popularity of a court decision is not relevant. A supreme court can make a dramatically unpopular decision that is still right as a matter of law. Every time I see "...against the will of the people" tacked on to a reference to the CA Supreme Court decision I wince. They might as well have said "...despite the fact that 12 is not a prime number." Loving is good seed for this discussion as well.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
It's true that good role models don't need to be parents.
It's also true that when the role models are parents, the example they set is generally much more powerful.
The conversation tends to get a bit dodgy in these areas-- IIRC, it's been noted that the lack of engaged father figures in the lives of young minority males tends to lead to higher crime and poverty down the road. There's been no study, as far as I know, about the effects of a motherless/female-free culture on the general population. Largely, I think, because our society pushes child rearing disproportionately on the mother. (I'd love to read the data if it exists, though)
Of course, there are many more complications with the issue than just the lack of a present, same-gendered, familial role model. Of course poverty and environment play parts in it.
BUT-- gender modeling based on parental example does have an enormous effect on children. I don't think it's fair to downplay it, chosha.
There is data that shows that children raised in same-sex marriages don't tend to suffer socially or psychologically.
Admitting that does not necessarily admit that widespread same-gendered parenting will prove as effective as dual-gendered parenting (in terms of teaching acceptable gender-roles or gender-relations). It may be something society just has to fall into, and muddle through.
Firstly, if you imagine I'm downplaying anything for the sake of making the argument, be assured I'm not. As to whether I'm downplaying the importance of gender modeling based on parental example...I think maybe I am, and I don't think I'm being unfair in doing so.
You know, I didn't really want to resort to the much-used argument that gay parents can be great and straight parents sometimes suck, but when it boils down to it, I think it's the most relevant point. What makes a great parent ISN'T their gender. I actually know great straight and gay parents AND appalling straight and gay parents, so I feel really strongly that a conversation about 2-sex vs 1-sex parenting partnerships is in many ways irrelevant to the real world that children experience.
Did you notice that the stats you quoted at the beginning were about 'ENGAGED father FIGURES'? Not merely a boy having a father, but rather a boy having a role model, a father FIGURE (whether his biological father or not) who is engaged in his life and upbringing. An engaged father figure can be found in the lives of many children with no father at home.
To me there's a parallel between this and overseas adoption. Parents adopting a Chinese child don't need to be Chinese to raise her properly, but many parents in that situation would choose to inform their child about their heritage and make that crucial aspect of who she is a part of all their lives.
Gender, however it is interpreted by the individual, is also a crucial aspect of our identity, but same-sex parents are just as capable as single parents/divorced parents and other non-'one man, one woman' parenting teams at ensuring that their child has roles models of their own sex/gender in their lives. In other words, the issue of good gender role models is not at all confined to the context of same-sex marriage, parenting or adoption and I therefore find it irrelevant to the issue of Proposition 8 and gay parenting generally.
I will take this further by saying that gender modelling based on one's parents is not always a positive developmental experience. Some parents are terrible gender role models who teach their children to think of themselves as limited/trapped by their gender or worse still teach them to be selfish or manipulative based on gender stereotypes. I see my mother as a very positive role model generally, but my interpretation of what it means to be female is only partly based on my mother and there are some parts of her interpretation that I have consciously rejected. Gender roles are not static and they are not uniform. Some of the most important and influential female role models in my life are not only not my mother, but not even members of my extended family.
I do think children need role models of their own sex, but the truth is that there are so many parents out there screwing up their responsibilities to their children in terms of love and consistency and appropriate sacrifice of their time and talents for the sake of their children, that the issue of gender modelling pales in comparison. I find it difficult to place importance on it when there are simply more important issues at hand.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by chosha: ...
To me there's a parallel between this and overseas adoption. Parents adopting a Chinese child don't need to be Chinese to raise her properly, but many parents in that situation would choose to inform their child about their heritage and make that crucial aspect of who she is a part of all their lives.
Not like they have a lot of choice to inform them or not, unless they're from Xinjiang or something and can pass as white Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple?
Probably. Why is that a problem? A Catholic county clerk who refuses to file a divorce decree now, despite the fact that divorce is against their religion, would probably lose their job. Is that a violation of the clerk's religious freedom? I don't think so. Do you?
I didn't notice any answer to this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You know, I didn't really want to resort to the much-used argument that gay parents can be great and straight parents sometimes suck, but when it boils down to it, I think it's the most relevant point.
You shouldn't. It's a strawman.
quote: What makes a great parent ISN'T their gender. I actually know great straight and gay parents AND appalling straight and gay parents, so I feel really strongly that a conversation about 2-sex vs 1-sex parenting partnerships is in many ways irrelevant to the real world that children experience.
:nods:
I understand. I don't know that your conclusion is valid when we're discussing large populations, though. It COULD be, but there's no data on it. Like I said-- it may be something society has to muddle into and out of.
quote:Gender, however it is interpreted by the individual, is also a crucial aspect of our identity, but same-sex parents are just as capable as single parents/divorced parents and other non-'one man, one woman' parenting teams at ensuring that their child has roles models of their own sex/gender in their lives.
This is a nitpick, but INHERENTLY, same-sex couples are not as capable of providing gender role models for children of the opposite sex. It may be easy for them to do so; it may not even really matter (to the child's mental health) that they do so; but I think it apparent that there's an imbalance.
quote:I find it difficult to place importance on it when there are simply more important issues at hand.
I think that enough people disagree with you strongly enough to elevate this problem to "important."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This is a nitpick, but INHERENTLY, same-sex couples are not as capable of providing gender role models for children of the opposite sex. It may be easy for them to do so; it may not even really matter (to the child's mental health) that they do so; but I think it apparent that there's an imbalance.
True, but the same is true the other way around. For example, I grew up with one maternal figure. Tova is growing up with two. Maybe she'll be a better mother than I am, because she's growing up with more than one maternal role model. Maybe people with one mother and one father are missing out on that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You shouldn't. It's a strawman.
Why do you consider this a strawman, Scott? Many, many people argue against gay marriage precisely "for the sake of the children." If it turns out that having two parents of the same sex is no worse for a child than, say, having parents of a different sex who happen to smoke or drive poorly or make less than $50K a year -- and I don't think it's even that bad, based on the studies out there -- doesn't that invalidate this part of the argument?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You shouldn't. It's a strawman.
Why do you consider this a strawman, Scott? Many, many people argue against gay marriage precisely "for the sake of the children." If it turns out that having two parents of the same sex is no worse for a child than, say, having parents of a different sex who happen to smoke or drive poorly or make less than $50K a year -- and I don't think it's even that bad, based on the studies out there -- doesn't that invalidate this part of the argument?
Because chosha wasn't pointing at heterosexual parents who are poor, or have bad health habits-- she was pointing at heterosexual parents who are bad at parenting.
At least that's how I interpreted it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it's important to point out that the majority of same-sex couples who decide to have children actually make the decision. That is, they don't accidentally end up with a kid due to the birth control failing - there's a conscious decision that they want to adopt or find a sperm donor or surrogate. Any of those options require a fair amount of effort - and that these couples are willing to put out this effort suggests to me, at least, that they'll likely be better than average parents.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, this is one of the creepier ads I've seen on a number of levels.
Was someone actually saying that making less than $50K/yr is a form of bad parenting? Or was it more tongue-in cheek?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pegasus: Was someone actually saying that making less than $50K/yr is a form of bad parenting? Or was it more tongue-in cheek?
I think the point is that we allow children to grow up in "less than optimal" situations already so arguing that SSM should not be permitted because gay parents are less optimal than heterosexual parents is inconsistent.
It's hard to conceive that the lack of two proximate opposite-gender role models is as harmful as any number of other less-optimal factors that we accept in families with opposite-sex parents.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by chosha: ...
To me there's a parallel between this and overseas adoption. Parents adopting a Chinese child don't need to be Chinese to raise her properly, but many parents in that situation would choose to inform their child about their heritage and make that crucial aspect of who she is a part of all their lives.
Not like they have a lot of choice to inform them or not, unless they're from Xinjiang or something and can pass as white
hahaha I didn't mean inform in that sense. I mean choose to tell them about China and it's history, or maybe give them an opportunity to learn the language, or travel to the city where they were born, that kind of thing.
I know a couple that, when they adopted from overseas, chose to adopt from Indonesia, because they both speak Bahasa Indonesia and had both lived there at some point.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
quote: What makes a great parent ISN'T their gender. I actually know great straight and gay parents AND appalling straight and gay parents, so I feel really strongly that a conversation about 2-sex vs 1-sex parenting partnerships is in many ways irrelevant to the real world that children experience.
:nods:
I understand. I don't know that your conclusion is valid when we're discussing large populations, though. It COULD be, but there's no data on it. Like I said-- it may be something society has to muddle into and out of.
Now see I don't really give a crap what data does or doesn't exist out there in the muddle-through world. I have data. I know a lot of families, several of them led by parents of the same sex. I've seen first hand how little the gender issues you are talking about matter. There are issues, sure. For example, one of my lesbian friend's children was very eager to know her father (who she now has a relationship with). But the same could have been true if she was straight and a single parent or straight and married but with a child from a previous marriage. The issue was there, but it wasn't a same-sex marriage issue, it was an issue that any parent raising children with someone other than the other birth parent might have had to face.
You seem to be examining same-sex parenting with a magnifying glass, while failing to cast even a glance around you at the real world of family variety out there.
quote:This is a nitpick, but INHERENTLY, same-sex couples are not as capable of providing gender role models for children of the opposite sex. It may be easy for them to do so; it may not even really matter (to the child's mental health) that they do so; but I think it apparent that there's an imbalance.
quote:I find it difficult to place importance on it when there are simply more important issues at hand.
quote:I think that enough people disagree with you strongly enough to elevate this problem to "important."
A lot of people used to think that it was important for blacks and whites not to drink from the same water fountain. Sometimes a lot of people are just misinformed.
Some people would say that between two sets of good, loving, responsible parents - one same-sex couple, one not - the one with two gender role models would be preferable (assuming of course that all the parents in question would be good gender role models). The same can be argued about income. Between two sets of loving, responsible parents - one with only the income to feed and clothe their children, and one with enough to also educate them well and provide other life-enriching experiences - the richer couple would be preferable.
Would you argue that the poorer couple can't be good parents? That things like further education matter so much in a child's life that poor couples shouldn't be allowed to parent? No. What would come in response is arguments that there are other ways to get an education, or that good parenting is not about being rich, etc, etc. As I've already said, gender role models are all around.
To compare families that way is always bogus. A family has to have certain things to be a good family. 'Two parents of opposite gender' is not on my list of essentials. 'Two parents' is not even on my list, if the one parent has a good support network.
It's like arguing that one car is better than another because it has air-conditioning and the other doesn't. If you're just comparing cars, sure, that's one argument that can be made. But when you extend the argument to claiming that no-one should even drive a car that doesn't have air-conditioning, then you're creating criteria for what makes a good car that never needed to be there in the first place. And when you apply this analogy to same-sex parents, it becomes apparent that while their family car might not have come with air-conditioning, it was relatively easy to install.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My eldest has to have shots in the behind every month so he can go through puberty normally. (The blood supply to his testicles was cut off before he was born, we think. He was born with then severely scarred, so it is unlikely that they will produce enough testosterone.)
He thinks this is pretty cool, and brags about getting shots in his butt. As his parents, we were just relieved he doesn't find the process torturous. Of course, we explained it all to him, and answered any questions he asked.
We didn't realize his little brother was paying attention.
So the other day my youngest asked me, "When do I get to have shots in my butt so I can grow up?"
O_OI hadn't realized he'd gotten the wrong impression about the whole thing with his brother, but the confusion was fairly easy to clear up.
The point is that had my younger boy NOT had an older brother who needed medical help to develop normally, he would not have had any confusion about how the process works.
Just because he got the wrong first impression doesn't mean he's harmed by having a role model who is different from other people's role models. It just means we needed to communicate with him a little better than we had.
Also, I thought this was interesting, and it doesn't seem to have been shared here yet:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think it's important to point out that the majority of same-sex couples who decide to have children actually make the decision. That is, they don't accidentally end up with a kid due to the birth control failing - there's a conscious decision that they want to adopt or find a sperm donor or surrogate. Any of those options require a fair amount of effort - and that these couples are willing to put out this effort suggests to me, at least, that they'll likely be better than average parents.
Exactly. No gay couple ever wound up with an unwanted child because they had sex in the back seat of their parents' car.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Maybe we should institute some kind of "accidental adoption" policy. Just think, if 10% of gay married couples just got a letter in the mail saying a baby was on the way... it would be kind of interesting.
I'm not proposing such a measure, but I think a romantic comedy with a light-hearted soundtrack, starring maybe Maggie Gyllenhaal, would be in order.
Could be good fun for the whole liberal family!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Does anyone out in California have any updates on what polling is saying? I can find stuff on the internet - such as the San Diego Tribune reporting a Field poll showing 44% Yes, 49% No. But I imagine there's a lot more media coverage in California than way out here in the not-real portion of Virginia.
I'm doing phone banking for the Vote No people, but haven't had much success in speaking to live people yet.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Orincoro: Hehehe.
This proposition should not even happen. Perhaps America isn't ready to universally give the same rights to homosexual people, but to create legislation that makes it more difficult to change in the future, when to all observation, things seem to be changing positively in society's view towards this issue, that is insane. It's negative legislation (we should NOT have...) on something that is moving in a positive direction (we should maybe have...). It doesn't line up.
Think of William Wilberforce, who fought for the end of the slave trade. He did not manage to succeed the first time around. The ban was defeated. But that was a defeated positive legislation defeated in a period when society's view about the slave trade was heading in a positive direction. Years later, society had progressed enough to pass the legislation for the ban on the slave trade.
Now, I'm not comparing the slave trade to scope or scale to the marriage of people to other people of the same gender, but I think there are parallels in this (and many other "moral" issues) that are applicable.
I think that if a society is clearly moving in a positive direction on an issue- even if they're not there yet- having negative legislation that takes a step backwards shouldn't happen. That is not a good way of running a state.
If the issue is split down the middle and moving in a positive direction, allowing negative legislation to theoretically pass by 1% is crazy.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
A very recent note in Atlantic Online reports that internal polls conducted by both sides agree that likely voters are divided exactly evenly, with many still claiming to be undecided. Other than that the Field Poll probably has the best information - 44% Yes and 49% No - because that poll works from contact information on actual voter registrations, and attempts to contact every voter in their sample five times before giving up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by chosha: ... I didn't mean inform in that sense. I mean choose to tell them about China and it's history, or maybe give them an opportunity to learn the language, or travel to the city where they were born, that kind of thing.
I know a couple that, when they adopted from overseas, chose to adopt from Indonesia, because they both speak Bahasa Indonesia and had both lived there at some point.
This is a fairly important point. I knew an adoptive mother who spent a lot of time learning Mandarin and travelling to China to take in the culture before adopting. I thought that was a pretty good idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:when to all observation, things seem to be changing positively
I suspect this is not universally accepted as true.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think that if a society is clearly moving in a positive direction on an issue- even if they're not there yet- having negative legislation that takes a step backwards shouldn't happen. That is not a good way of running a state.
If the issue is split down the middle and moving in a positive direction, allowing negative legislation to theoretically pass by 1% is crazy.
I want to be on the 'Board of Enforcing Forward Momentum.'
Is it an appointment or elected position?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Great "No on 8" ad. I thought it'd be particularly apt on Hatrack.
<Removed link. See below for explanation and alternative. --PJ>
[ November 03, 2008, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Great "No on 8" ad. I thought it'd be particularly apt on Hatrack.
Linky
Lisa, that link's specifically anti-Mormon, and the Cards have asked us not to link to such things.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, I don't think the link is anti-Mormon. It is anti-the Mormon involvement in Prop 8, but I don't imagine the Cards would say that's a problem. It's not against the Mormon religion; it's against a political tactic.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I'm going back and forth on this, because I don't think the link is to an anti-mormon site, which is how I always interpreted the issue. The video is certainly negative, but seems specifically against the church's actions in supporting prop 8 rather than the church itself.
I'm pretty sure the Cards would remove the link, so I'm going to as well. If anyone desires to see the ad Lisa is talking about, googling "proposition 8 home invasion" turns up a number of places that have it. That will avoid the direct link that various search engines and webcrawlers take advantage of.
--PJ
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm sorry you have to do that, Papa. But on the bright side, at least now steven can smile at one of my posts being edited by you.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
A church can sometimes make an election unfair if it uses threats of excommunication or the like to coerce voters who make up a large proportion of the electorate, or if it throws so much money into a campaign that the other side cannot compete. But on this issue Mormons make up only about 2% of California voters, and the two sides have raised roughly equal amounts of money. So this election promises to be an unusually fair measure of what the voters want done, and I cannot see how Mormon efforts in this cause have done any harm to California. But since many voters disapprove of any church intervening in politics, the church itself will likely be damaged for years to come. The fact that it is entirely legal for a church to support an initiative does not mean that voters on the other side will ever forgive it for doing so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* It's certainly permanently lowered my opinion of the church.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom: And its members.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Today, I forgot to take my Martydom Pill.
Therefore, I'm grateful to Tom, Pixiest, and Hobsen, and all you other folks, for providing me with my daily dose of persecution.
Thanks! You don't like me; and I'm glad!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Let me know when they outlaw Christian marriage, k?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
With our luck, probably about the same time they start calling Mormons 'Christians.'
Bonus persecution multiplier x666!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My boss called a little while. He's in California, and he was driving around near where I used to live there. He passed one corner where there were a whole bunch of people holding "Yes on 8" signs. In back of them, but clearly noticable, was another person holding a huge sign that said, "Bigots for 8". The crowd didn't seem to realize what it meant.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I am sure they realized what it meant. Sheesh. Such hostility toward those who are exercising their right to support a political initiative...
You notice that it is only those who have "Yes on 8" signs that have to take them indoors during the night...
Stupid gay mafia...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm grateful to Tom, Pixiest, and Hobsen, and all you other folks, for providing me with my daily dose of persecution.
For the record, I did not say that my opinion of its members was lowered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Tom: And its members.
I'm disappointed in you Pixiest, not because you disagree with what my church is doing, but because you think those of us who remain in the church are worthy of contempt. I assure you we have very valid reasons for acting as we do, even those of us who don't necessarily believe proposition 8 is a good thing and yet support our church's leadership.
Admittedly this is a very emotional and important issue for you, and I forgive you for thinking less of me, but I would suggest looking at our side with a bit more open mindedness. I think you will find that my church has good reasons for acting as it does.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
bb: If you want to take this to PMs, my email address is pixiest (at) yahoo (dot) com
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think you will find that my church has good reasons for acting as it does."
Perhaps you could share those reasons you think people like Pixiest would find to be good reasons?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: bb: If you want to take this to PMs, my email address is pixiest (at) yahoo (dot) com
I have taken advantage of your offer.
Paul: I'll try to later but I'm a bit tired after sending off a very long email.
Ultimately though I can't promise that everyone would deem them good reasons, as not everyone is me. While I am utterly convinced that say it is correct to obey God even when it does not make sense in one's head, that does not make it a good reason for everyone.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I suspect this is not universally accepted as true.
Perhaps not, but I think that it observationally is true, at least in America. If the general trend is towards more rights in certain states, it seems odd that legislation would exist to erase that and any future motion.
quote:I want to be on the 'Board of Enforcing Forward Momentum.'
Is it an appointment or elected position?
I know you're being funny, and my suggestion is certainly not a practical one or one intended to have any kind of legislative force behind it. It's more like an observation of a dissonance between legislation and society's apparent will.
You don't enforce forward or backward momentum, it just is or isn't. Hopefully, forward momentum provides enough support itself to support the view that the society is moving (however slowly) towards.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"While I am utterly convinced that say it is correct to obey God even when it does not make sense in one's head, that does not make it a good reason for everyone."
Fair enough. The way you worded it made it sound like people such as pixiest or myself would consider it a good reason. If you don't think your reason for considering something a "good reason" crosses religious boundaries, thats fair.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "While I am utterly convinced that say it is correct to obey God even when it does not make sense in one's head, that does not make it a good reason for everyone."
Fair enough. The way you worded it made it sound like people such as pixiest or myself would consider it a good reason. If you don't think your reason for considering something a "good reason" crosses religious boundaries, thats fair.
Assume the following is absolutely true. If you were certain of the existence of an all knowing being based on personal experience, and that being has humanity's best interests at heart, and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage, would you think it a bad idea to remain in the organization even if you couldn't wrap your head around the block intellectually?
Or is that an idea that looks good on the inside but not so much on the outside?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Or is that an idea that looks good on the inside but not so much on the outside?"
Yes.
There's too many assumptions in there for me to buy into, being on the outside, and, to me, it looks like a bad choice to support the organizations decision, because to me if person Y thinks X is good, and I can't figure out anyway in which X is not bad, then I'm going to oppose Y on that issue.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Assume the following is absolutely true. If you were certain of the existence of an all knowing being based on personal experience, and that being has humanity's best interests at heart, and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage, would you think it a bad idea to remain in the organization even if you couldn't wrap your head around the block intellectually?
Where in the Bible do you get the idea that you need to legislate your faith on to people who don't share it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you were certain of the existence of an all knowing being based on personal experience, and that being has humanity's best interests at heart, and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage, would you think it a bad idea to remain in the organization even if you couldn't wrap your head around the block intellectually?
If I were certain of the existence, benevolence, and omniscience of Being A based on my personal experience, and yet Being A put forward a policy which I could not interpret according to my personal experience as being anything but harmful and evil, I would question the personal experiences which I have taken as proof of the existence, benevolence, and/or omniscience of Being A.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage,
See, I have a bit of a problem with this. The statements from the first presidency on this matter are very firm. Their position is unambiguous. Yet, they still have remained somewhat coy on God's interest in this specific measure, enough so that many members of the church are ignoring the presidency and are opposing the initiative.
The church has no qualms about judging the worthiness of its members based on so much other minutae and yet there is no commandment to support this measure or other measures like it. No member will be refused admittance to the temple for refusing to support this measure. No member will be excommunicated for voting "no" or putting a sign advocating that position in their yard.
These men are supposed to be prophets of God, so why are they reluctant to state plainly that God wishes for the people of his church to support this proposition rather than merely making such an ...earthy statement of their individual support of the measure, leaving it up to individual church members to reach their own conclusions about what actual authority is behind their call to arms?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage,
See, I have a bit of a problem with this. The statements from the first presidency on this matter are very firm. Their position is unambiguous. Yet, they still have remained somewhat coy on God's interest in this specific measure, enough so that many members of the church are ignoring the presidency and are opposing the initiative.
The church has no qualms about judging the worthiness of its members based on so much other minutae and yet there is no commandment to support this measure or other measures like it. No member will be refused admittance to the temple for refusing to support this measure. No member will be excommunicated for voting "no" or putting a sign advocating that position in their yard.
These men are supposed to be prophets of God, so why are they reluctant to state plainly that God wishes for the people of his church to support this proposition rather than merely making such an ...earthy statement of their individual support of the measure, leaving it up to individual church members to reach their own conclusions about what actual authority is behind their call to arms?
Perhaps God has commanded them to so do without explaining why as a trial of their faith, it's not without precedent as far as the scriptures are concerned.
Paul: Well ultimately you wouldn't do well in Christianity even if you were certain of it's truth. Not saying that's wrong, some people elect to live that way, The Abraham/Isaac sacrificial scenario just wouldn't play out in your favor.
Tom: If you were absolutely convinced of God's omniscience you can't conceive of perhaps exterior reasons for God's commands? You know earth and humanity make up a fraction of a fraction of the universe.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Perhaps God has commanded them to so do without explaining why as a trial of their faith, it's not without precedent as far as the scriptures are concerned.
Paul: Well ultimately you wouldn't do well in Christianity even if you were certain of it's truth. Not saying that's wrong, some people elect to live that way, The Abraham/Isaac sacrificial scenario just wouldn't play out in your favor.
It's interesting that in the same post you've suggested that the lack of a commandment may be a test of faith, then used the example of Abraham receiving a commandment that went against his nature as being equivalent.
As it stands, those who were predisposed to support SSM tend to not support the measure and those that were not tend to support it. An explicit commandment would, IMO, be a much more powerful test of faith here.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well ultimately you wouldn't do well in Christianity even if you were certain of it's truth. Not saying that's wrong, some people elect to live that way, The Abraham/Isaac sacrificial scenario just wouldn't play out in your favor."
I know I wouldn't do well in christianity
And the problem is, the legislation your church is supporting would remove rights from people who do not have the personal experience that you do, and is essentially saying "trust me. We're making you miserable and treating you as second class citizens because a being that you may or may not think even exists says we should."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Well ultimately you wouldn't do well in Christianity even if you were certain of it's truth. Not saying that's wrong, some people elect to live that way, The Abraham/Isaac sacrificial scenario just wouldn't play out in your favor."
I know I wouldn't do well in christianity
And the problem is, the legislation your church is supporting would remove rights from people who do not have the personal experience that you do, and is essentially saying "trust me. We're making you miserable and treating you as second class citizens because a being that you may or may not think even exists says we should."
Not exactly. I would never tell somebody else to trust me in that manner. But I would say, "This is how I am voting, and God factors into it."
Matt: I'm not sure I disagree with you. I think an explicit commandment would be good, I am not sure how the church has found itself in this strange limbo on the matter, but there it is. I think however that we are moving in a direction where the first presidency will have to discuss this topic more specifically.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Not exactly. I would never tell somebody else to trust me in that manner. But I would say, "This is how I am voting, and God factors into it.""
Same thing, in this case.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I just recently read about Metatron, an angel known as "the lesser Yahweh" among other titles, who some sources say stopped Abraham from killing Isaac.
Anyway, isn't that the coolest name ever? Metatron--it sounds like a straight-to-DVD sci-fi title instead of an ancient angelic name.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's hard for me to imagine how I could become convinced of God's omniscience without seeing his omniscience in action. This includes making sense of his supposed commands about the way we should live our lives. I would expect the commands of an omniscient being to be, at the very least, rational and hopefully genuinely insightful. Yet when I hear about some of the things God supposedly wants us not do (like gay sex or pre-marital sex), I can't think of any good reasons why (at least nothing beyond some pragmatic reasons). Even worse, I feel intellectually scammed whenever I hear someone try to explain why these seemingly arbitrary restrictions on the way we should live even exist. Saying that God works in mysterious ways is essentially equivalent to saying "stop asking questions". It's politer but the effect is the same. It's certainly not what I would expect from the smartest being in the world.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: It's hard for me to imagine how I could become convinced of God's omniscience without seeing his omniscience in action. This includes making sense of his supposed commands about the way we should live our lives. I would expect the commands of an omniscient being to be, at the very least, rational and hopefully genuinely insightful. Yet when I hear about some of the things God supposedly wants us not do (like gay sex or pre-marital sex), I can't think of any good reasons why (at least nothing beyond some pragmatic reasons). Even worse, I feel intellectually scammed whenever I hear someone try to explain why these seemingly arbitrary restrictions on the way we should live even exist. Saying that God works in mysterious ways is essentially equivalent to saying "stop asking questions". It's politer but the effect is the same. It's certainly not what I would expect from the smartest being in the world.
I can empathize with this. Fortunately there have been cases where what God wanted didn't make sense initially but later it did.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm sorry you have to do that, Papa. But on the bright side, at least now steven can smile at one of my posts being edited by you. "
What are you wanting from me, exactly? Are you wanting some kind of general statement of approval of some aspect of yourself or your personality? It's kind of hard to be nice to you because you are always savaging folks. I generally don't hand out approval unless someone practically gets in my face and does something I really like. I'm always pleased to see good posts by you. They're rarely in threads that I'm posting in, but I do seen them. We just don't seem to cross paths when you're behaving in a way I would openly, verbally, approve of. Whatever. I don't know what to say. Fighting isn't what I care to do, but at the same time, I'm not going to tolerate disrespectful misbehavior. Can't you just say "they're stupid, and don't know any better" to yourself, instead of treating people, on a verbal level, like a haughty monarch treats their subjects? We're people. We have feelings.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Fortunately there have been cases where what God wanted didn't make sense initially but later it did.
Given enough time, many seemingly nonsensical positions would eventually make sense just based on probability. Almost any dietary restriction, for instance, could eventually be shown to have wisdom behind it merely by pointing out a toxin or parasite that is unique to that food or another characteristic of that food that would result in harm to people that consume too much or prepare it improperly.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Proposition 8 seems to me a measure on which people should be able to disagree without rancor. The controversy concerning rights for same sex couples today seems to me similar to the division of opinion in the United States shortly before the Civil War. With the benefit of hindsight, I have no problem in declaring slavery an abomination; but that does not mean I think Stonewall Jackson was necessarily morally wrong for choosing the side of the Confederacy. Judging how others should act is not usually our business anyway, and it is not clear to me whether the passage or the failure of Proposition 8 will lead more quickly to a just society. Besides, with my wife and my neighbors fervent Proposition 8 supporters, I had better be able to tolerate their behavior.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:and it is not clear to me whether the passage or the failure of Proposition 8 will lead more quickly to a just society
Me neither, so I err on the side of established principles of equity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: If you were absolutely convinced of God's omniscience you can't conceive of perhaps exterior reasons for God's commands? You know earth and humanity make up a fraction of a fraction of the universe.
I suppose I could, depending on how absolutely convinced I was. But it's difficult to imagine anything in my experience being so incontrovertible a proof of God's omniscience that I'd be willing to go to infinite lengths to come up with "exterior" reasons for actions I don't understand. In every case I can think of off-hand, it is considerably simpler to reject my earlier assumption regarding God's omniscience than it is to construct a scenario that might justify certain behaviors and silences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:With the benefit of hindsight, I have no problem in declaring slavery an abomination; but that does not mean I think Stonewall Jackson was necessarily morally wrong for choosing the side of the Confederacy.
Let's say the issue boiled down to slavery vs. non-slavery, and strip out all the other complicated ancillary issues that make the Civil War example murky.
Do you really not think it would be morally wrong to support slavery?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The benefit of hindsight shouldn't just make the past clearer; it's supposed to make the present and future clearer as well.
I'm not so sure about the slavery issue, but many of the arguments against SSM sound altogether too much like the ones used to attack interracial marriages.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "I'm sorry you have to do that, Papa. But on the bright side, at least now steven can smile at one of my posts being edited by you. "
What are you wanting from me, exactly? Are you wanting some kind of general statement of approval of some aspect of yourself or your personality? It's kind of hard to be nice to you because you are always savaging folks. I generally don't hand out approval unless someone practically gets in my face and does something I really like. I'm always pleased to see good posts by you. They're rarely in threads that I'm posting in, but I do seen them. We just don't seem to cross paths when you're behaving in a way I would openly, verbally, approve of. Whatever. I don't know what to say. Fighting isn't what I care to do, but at the same time, I'm not going to tolerate disrespectful misbehavior. Can't you just say "they're stupid, and don't know any better" to yourself, instead of treating people, on a verbal level, like a haughty monarch treats their subjects? We're people. We have feelings.
Actually, I don't want anything from you. It'd be fine with me if you'd just shut the hell up about me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The biggest fear of gay marriage is that our lives will be seen as the legitimate, productive and happy lives they are, and that we will be seen as viable role models.
There is a large contingent of the religious right that is terrified that they have largely lost the ability to point at the dejected, unloved, self-loathing, perverse, and diseased homosexual as representative of the norm. They'd rather their gay children suffer than risk them accepting themselves and becoming productive and happy members of society (and thus burning in hellfire.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: In my previous post I meant to say, "For me" rather than making the statement generally. As in there were times in MY life were what God commanded didn't make sense to me, but I've tried doing it and not doing it, and God's way ultimately ended up making sense.
Karl: That may very well be true minus the hellfire bit. I've got some ideas about other perceived problems but they are hard for me to articulate, and I'm not sure they're fully formed in my head. I'll try to figure out how to get them out soon, but it will have to be later, as I am off to try and vote before work. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: If you were certain of the existence of an all knowing being based on personal experience, and that being has humanity's best interests at heart, and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage, would you think it a bad idea to remain in the organization even if you couldn't wrap your head around the block intellectually?
If I were certain of the existence, benevolence, and omniscience of Being A based on my personal experience, and yet Being A put forward a policy which I could not interpret according to my personal experience as being anything but harmful and evil, I would question the personal experiences which I have taken as proof of the existence, benevolence, and/or omniscience of Being A.
I would know that Being A had not put forward such a policy and that the organization was wrong and in need of correction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would know that Being A had not put forward such a policy and that the organization was wrong and in need of correction.
I believe we're also assuming that I've had some kind of personal experience assuring me of the rightness of the organization. Otherwise, yeah, assuming the organization is no longer properly representing Being A is the easier conclusion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Fortunately there have been cases where what God wanted didn't make sense initially but later it did.
Just about anything can be rationalized. Either when it happens, or later. Selective memory (deliberate or not) really helps with the more difficult rationalizations.
The LDS church has successfully rationalized - for the adherents, anyway - some really strange and seemingly disastrous experiments, so I don't have much doubt there will be some way to justify the encouragement to support Prop 8, no matter the outcome.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, I don't want anything from you. It'd be fine with me if you'd just shut the hell up about me.
I thought you were the one who mentioned him... I am confused now.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
What are the strange and disastrous experiments?
Polygamy is the only one that I can think of that you might put into that category.
Others?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Several early settlements in the east that didn't work out. A migration to the west during which many faithful members died. The communal property thing (the label for which escapes me).
Every church and group has a history of failures and bad things that happened. It's not peculiar to the LDS. I'm just saying that "things tend to make sense later" is more of a description of human sense-making tendencies than a unique feature of God's commandments.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
hmmm. Those examples don't really seem all that strange or disastrous to me...
I mean, Moses walked around for 40 years in the wilderness...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, I don't want anything from you. It'd be fine with me if you'd just shut the hell up about me.
I thought you were the one who mentioned him... I am confused now.
Nope. Ordinarily I ignore him, but when UnicornFeelings either edited some of his own posts or was edited by PJ, steven went on a tirade against the "bias" whereby UF gets edited and I don't. Because everyone knows, I'm a favorite here on Hatrack...
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Ahh. Janitors pet... Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
54% Yes to 46% No. Looks like it's going to pass.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: 54% Yes to 46% No. Looks like it's going to pass.
That's with what 23% of the precincts voting. I think it's far too early to say. But I recall Frisco being one of the precincts having reported, but maybe I misheard.
edit: My gut instinct is that it will pass.
[ November 05, 2008, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Well, the news told me it is likely to pass.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think it is likely to pass, but there are still a lot of votes to count.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The No on 8 guy currently on TV says there are still Bay Area precincts which haven't been counted, so there may be a chance still.
It's sad to me that it's even this close though. I hate seeing this many bigoted people anywhere, but especially in a relatively liberal state.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The "yes" people ran a very good, dishonest campaign. Good job guys! A special shout out to the churches that supported the campaign.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh I'm so sorry we have to live in a democracy where we can't simply have everything exactly as we specifically would have them.
Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
Get over yourself. It's interesting to me that apparently Obama could win California hands down and yet Proposition 8 may actually pass. Seems to demonstrate that he may actually be the change we need while apparently for Californians, Proposition 8 is as well.
MattP: There is little doubt in my mind that some sort of movement will immedietly begin drafting and gathering support for a repeal to Proposition 8. Why not support that instead of bitterly railing against those who believe just as strongly as you do?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I am so worried that this will pass, especially if it does it will be extremely difficult to overcome it. It actually hurts to think that I might live in such an intolerant state that people would vote not to grant to gay people a right that they themselves enjoy. As much as people say that gay people still have the same legal rights, symbolically marriage is still the way to validate a relationship and the two persons' dedication to each other. Plus, I always feel like I'm going to be sick when I see the Yes group celebrating on tv.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I really don't think it's as big a deal as you think it is. They can still have domestic partnerships/civil unions. It's just semantics.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I really don't think it's as big a deal as you think it is. They can still have domestic partnerships/civil unions. It's just semantics.
Separate but equal has historically shown itself to be a great way to do things Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why not support that instead of bitterly railing against those who believe just as strongly as you do?
I don't bear most of the supporters much ill will. Many of them were convinced by the deception that I am talking about. My scorn is addressed to those who know better, and those who should have known better, who organized, ran, or endorsed* the official campaign. The product of that campaign was a series of ads and talking points which were predominantly non sequiturs. Few of the consequences of SSM that were warned about would be mandated if SSM were permited, nor would they be prohibited if SSM were not.
* The LDS church has a lot of lawyers. They have made legal arguments against SSM several times, and they never used many of the arguments that came from the yes on 8 campaign. They knew they were bogus arguments, but they remained silent on these arguments while they continued to support the campaign.
[ November 05, 2008, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I get, I do. I just don't think anyone should get too upset about it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I get, I do. I just don't think anyone should get too upset about it.
I believe that's what they said about segregation too. Wouldn't want anyone getting uppity.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
I just call it like I see it. I can see zero reason to deny marriage to gay couples except bigotry.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I think it's more than semantics. Why don't we go around and ask married couples and ask them how they feel about being described as being "civilly unioned" or in a "domestic partnership" instead of married? I believe that being able to say that you are married is very important to a lot of people; otherwise, why is there a stigma that society imposes on people who live together but are not married, or people beginning to ask when you will get married if you have been dating someone for a while without getting engaged? Your argument feels like a "separate but equal" agreement, which I think was ridiculous when applied to African Americans and whites half a century ago, and is ridiculous now. If everyone is truly equal, the same terms should apply.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
I think the appropriate parallel to historical contrasts with "bigot" would be "queer lover".
Posted by Femellanovis (Member # 11642) on :
I agree with you mightycow. Taking away rights is not the way to go.
I understand the religious arguments against gay marriage but at the same time I don't want anyone's religion telling me what to do. A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage, but why can't city hall or a ship captain do the ceremony? If I can get married by an Elvis, in a swimming pool why can't my sister and her girlfriend? Who did I hurt, who would they hurt?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
They think marriage is being cheapened by having its definition changed. It's not entirely stupid.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage
No church has ever been forced to perform a marriage they did not approve of. That they might have to perform or recognize such marriages is one of the deceptive arguments of the "yes on 8" campaign.
Posted by Femellanovis (Member # 11642) on :
What's cheaper than an Elvis/Pool party wedding? If the argument is that that scenario is respectful of the sanctity of marriage just because it was between a man and a woman then I feel like the argument loses respectability.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: They think marriage is being cheapened by having its definition changed. It's not entirely stupid.
That's just a cop out. Lots of segregationists said that Black people shouldn't get a vote because they weren't smart enough, not because they were a different color. Spin it any way, it's still a duck.
Besides, two post-op trannies can legally get married in a Satanic ceremony, in the nude, while smearing feces on a picture of Christ. The idea that anyone is "defending marriage" is a red herring.
Nobody wants to admit to being a bigot, sometimes even to themselves.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I don't think any Yes on 8 people would support that either. Saying they shouldn't defend what they believe because there are worse things to fight is definitely a cop out.
Posted by Femellanovis (Member # 11642) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage
No church has ever been forced to perform a marriage they did not approve of. That they might have to perform or recognize such marriages is one of the deceptive arguments of the "yes on 8" campaign.
Right. I feel like the no on 8 campaign should have pushed that point more. I hate that there are banners that say "yes on 8 = religious freedom".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Saying they shouldn't defend what they believe because there are worse things to fight is definitely a cop out.
Except they've done a piss poor job of showing why what they believe is correct. *How* will it weaken marriage? *How* will it harm children?
If they want to say "God told me that gay is bad", that's fine, but that's not a winning campaign. Instead they just make stuff up to scare people who don't necessarily agree with what you think God is saying into supporting their position.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I never saw a banner that says that.
I think both campaigns were pretty slimy. Of course you can say that about pretty much any issue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I never saw a banner that says that.
"Religious freedom" comes up a lot on the "yes" side. One wonders how that is reconciled with the various churches that support SSM. If SSM is permitted, either side can perform the marriages that they approve of. If not, then the side that supports SSM is unable to perform marriages that are acceptable to their religion while the anti-SSM churches are unaffected. Who is restricting religion freedom in this scenario?
quote:I think both campaigns were pretty slimy
Can you quote any factually questionable statements from the "no" campaign? I'm not so concerned about "nasty". I'm looking for dishonest. Mean people suck, but liars are much worse, IMO.
Posted by Femellanovis (Member # 11642) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: [QB] I never saw a banner that says that.
When I was watching the election coverage tonight I saw them strung all over the party room of the prop.8 supporters.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
"No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination." That's just stupid. If you feel marriage shouldn't be given to a gay couple, you are well aware you are discriminating.
Also the whole "eliminates rights" thing isn't exactly fair.
I'm not defending the Yes on 8 campaign. Those were some awful awful commercials.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. On the bright side you get the shorter version.
BlackBlade: That same God who (in the context of your Church is true 100% scenario) told Church leaders to 'block gay marriage' also provided scripture in D&C 134:9 that says:
'We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.'
Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society (or several who have become one over this issue) to the detriment of the spiritual and civil rights of others. Same-sex marriage does not threaten straight marriage. It does not cheapen it, just as marriage between two Hindu does not cheapen Christian marriage, just as inter-racial marriage does not threaten or tarnish intra-racial marriage.
Marriage has meaning in the law and it delivers a range of rights and understandings in society. This makes it a civil matter and the seperation of church and state comes into play. The Church leaders, in following what they believe to be God's command, should have limited their actions to blocking it within the Church. And that's it.
Nothing has made me more angry in this whole campaign than the use of the song 'Save the Family' to support Yes on 8. These ARE families. They have partners and children they love and should be able to protect under the law. Some of these people are already legally married and Proposition 8 seeks to strip that from them. It's a really effective way to make someone understand that they are a second class citizen, with a second class family, who deserves only second class rights.
'Separate but equal' approaches have never succeeded in delivering equal rights and why anyone imagines they will here is beyond me. Maybe it's as simple as saying that 'separate but equal' is not really about providing equal rights, but more about appearing to do so.
As long as marriage has meaning in the law it is a civil matter. Whatever meaning anyone, religious or not, chooses to assign to it beyond that is up to them.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Just look at it as a definition issue. SSM would change what marriage means. They don't want that.
"Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society"
Not accepting Civil Unions as good enough is all about fostering a pro-gay viewpoint.
"Allow same sex marriage." "That's not what marriage is." "It should be." "You can have civil unions. It's just as good." "No it isn't."
That's what it seems like to me.
I'm aware this puts me in the "butt-buddies" group, but I think it is a good compromise. Gays get all the benefits of marriage and the religious people get to "protect marriage."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Were Jim Crow laws a good compromise?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I don't think racial segregation and having different words for SSM and traditional marriage are comparable.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You don't see parallels between separate drinking fountains for black people and white people and separate legal designations for gay and hetero relationships?
Jim Crow laws were struck down because these separate facilities were inherently unequal merely by being separate.
What message does the separate facilities send that the separate designations does not?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
It's the same fountain. It's just called a drinking fountain rather than a water fountain when they drink from it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's the same water, just coming out of a different spout. Why were those colored folks so upset about that?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I get, I do. I just don't think anyone should get too upset about it.
Just thought I'd say this again. No need to get all upset about 8 passing. Try to repeal it in a few years. For now just accept a compromise.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
All supporters? No. But those who used lies and fear-mongering to win support against a group of people with a different viewpoint? Absolutely.
And people who oppose Prop 8 can hardly be family-haters. Many or most of them are fighting to preserve their families and their marriages, or the ability to have and protect those things in the future. They love their family so much they want to join together in marriage. They are not the ones hating on families.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Not accepting Civil Unions as good enough is all about fostering a pro-gay viewpoint.
No, it's not. You don't have to be pro-something in order to treat people fairly. This is about equality and respect and religious tolerance.
The more this goes on, the more the rhetoric of the battle against racial equality turns up. Some white people argued and fought because they felt like a black being equal to them was going to take something from them, take their rights, when really all they lost was a privileged position they had no right to in the first place - best seats, best food, less waiting, more convenience and so it goes on.
Straight people don't have any more right to the institution of marriage than gay people. So you're religious? So what? So are lots of gay people and not every church that marries people has doctrine against homosexuality. Besides, where's the fight against athiests getting married and tarnishing up what marriage means? They don't see marriage as a three way contract between a husband, a wife and God. Why not assign civil unions to them? What about quickie marriages in Vegas? Should they automatically be changed to civil unions? They certainly cheapen marriage.
And you might think those are great ideas for the preservation of the so very holy state of matrimony, but are you campaigning for them? No. But when it is gay people who want equal status under the law, oh then some LDS will fight tooth and nail to give more money than everyone else to fight the good fight.
The more this campaign revved up, the more money that was donated, the more that the Church leaders lent their pressure and influence to making members in CA feel that they had to vote one way, despite their conscience, the more ashamed I've felt to be a member and associated with this kind of behaviour. The campaign was effective and certainly well-funded, but not honest, and not loving.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Just thought I'd say this again. No need to get all upset about 8 passing. Try to repeal it in a few years. For now just accept a compromise. [/QB]
Sure, it's cool. Hey, if women can't vote, they can try again in a couple years. If black people can't go to the same school as white people, there are other equally good schools they can go to.
Putting off civil rights for convenience of compromise has never made it right, and it's never made people who want to stop those rights less prejudiced.
People who are against same-sex marriage are prejudiced against gay people. Period. There is no valid excuse. If people don't like being called prejudiced, they can stop acting that way.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
See, I've mostly argued on your side of the issue. I see both sides of the joust. (yay Angel reference!) I just don't really care either way. This side is so much more work.
What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality? I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: People who are against same-sex marriage are prejudiced against gay people. Period. There is no valid excuse. If people don't like being called prejudiced, they can stop acting that way.
Really? That's how you view other people?
That's so sad. As an aspiring author, I believe people always see themselves as the hero. Whatever they're doing is the right thing, or the unfortunate thing that must be done for the greater good, or the thing that everyone does but no one admits to. Even when people admit to doing the wrong thing they have a reason why it's not really wrong. They're bucking the establishment, or standing up for the underdog, or trying something new.
I think there are plenty of ways people can oppose gay marriage without disliking gay people or wanting to hurt them. Many of them even see themselves as the last line of defense between the nation and the end of God's protection for the nation. They're trying to save you from destruction.
Feel free to disagree with them. But it might hurt less if you see them as they see themselves, just for a moment.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: See, I've mostly argued on your side of the issue. I see both sides of the joust. (yay Angel reference!) I just don't really care either way. This side is so much more work.
What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality? I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.
Hinduism, which is one of the oldest faiths in the world - its scriptures date back to 1500 BCE - doesn't have a doctrine against homosexuality. In fact, two (major) male gods marry and conceive a child together (they're gods, after all). Oh, wait, but that religion doesn't count 'cause its followers are mostly brown, and maybe polytheistic, right?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality?
There's a difference between having a doctrine against homosexuality and fighting for the preservation of traditional marriage.
Recognizing that homosexuality is a sin does not equate to legislating a narrow definition of marriage.
IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).
Judaism also isn't necessarily anti-homosexual, if I understand Lisa's arguments correctly. (And I'm not honestly sure I do)
Episcopalianism and some forms of Methodism have also ameliorated the traditionally hard line Christians have taken against homosexuality.
quote:Straight people don't have any more right to the institution of marriage than gay people.
Well-- it depends on how you're defining some terms. As was shown earlier in this thread, marriage between a man and a woman is a civil right (Loving versus Virginia); some state appellate courts have found that the decision made in Loving versus VA does not extend to same-sex couples.
The "right" to heterosexual marriage comes from the combination of two things, IMO-- biology, and the cultural desire to protect progeny and property. Marriage in many cultures throughout history has been upheld by various governmental forms to accomplish this; and until recently, those particular elements have only been available to heterosexual couples.
There's a tremendous cultural weight behind the idea that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. Even in Greece, despite their misogyny and predilection for homosexuality, men didn't marry other men.
This is to point to the idea that civil marriage is not only religious; there are cultural elements to our concept of marriage that deny the ability of homosexuals to participate, according to our feeling of what marriage actually is.
quote:...where's the fight against athiests getting married and tarnishing up what marriage means? They don't see marriage as a three way contract between a husband, a wife and God. Why not assign civil unions to them? What about quickie marriages in Vegas? Should they automatically be changed to civil unions? They certainly cheapen marriage.
This is, in fact, an excellent way to make my point above-- society recognizes and approves these marriages despite lack of religion because they meet the fundamental qualification: the couple is dual-gendered.
Proposition 8, as I understand it, legislates the traditional view of marriage. It does not, however remove any of the rights granted to Californians already involved in civil unions/domestic partnerships-- which, from the state's view, have equivalent rights to marriages. Nor does it restrict other Californians from engaging in civil unions/domestic partnerships.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).
You're wrong. Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.
Also, apparently there's a famous king in Hindu mythology who was the progeny of two women. So children for same-sexed couples is a go for both genders.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I certainly could be wrong-- but here's an article to educate yourself upon.
Wow - that article says so much about Hinduism that I never knew! Despite me having read several scholarly books on Hinduism & homosexuality.</sarcasm>
The Indian people are, as a general rule, deeply prejudced against homosexuals. That's not the same thing as the faith being against homosexuals. The Manusmrti referenced in that article is not a core text of Hinduism - it's similar in nature to religious writings by, say, C.S. Lewis (a crazy, spiteful version of Lewis). It's much more recent than any of the core texts, does not come from the oral tradition, and isn't accepted as valid by any educated Hindus. I'm not familiar enough with Christian writing to give an exact analogy, but think of some book written back in the day that goes on & on about how women are inferior to men by God's will, and how all colored people are God's gift to the white man as slaves, and you'll have a good idea of what the Manusmrti is like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm willing to learn-- can you link to some articles that demonstrate why you hold the opinion you hold?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Love's Rite: Same Sex Marriage in India and the West is one of the better academic (and accessible) overviews of the topic, but it's a book. Maybe you can try reading a bit of it through google. It also has a fantastic bibliography.
The wiki article on the Manu Smriti covers the history of that set of codes fairly well, as well as the controversy surrounding it. It doesn't play up the fact that it was Western Indiologist in the late 18th century that really brought the book into prominence as much as I would hope; it's sort of like how the timing of Christmas has thrust Hanukkah more into the limelight than the faith would do naturally.
The wiki article on homosexuality & Hinduism is pretty decent, and is a good starting point. I particularly like how it deals with Hinduism & current Indian/Hindu culture as separate issues for homosexuality, 'cause they really are. The first is not a problem, and in fact you can make a very strong case that Hinduism is accepting and welcoming of homosexuality. The second is a major problem, although the younger generations in India (in the cities) are becoming more tolerant.
I'll see if I can find any more decent articles on the web, although for controversial topics such as these, I really do think academic books published through a legitimate academic press are your best bet for getting non-biased information.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All right-- here are the issues you raised with my point about Hinduism:
quote:Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.
I don't know why you call it "crap;" in several of the links you provided, it specifies that the third gender cross dresses, and if male, they are sometimes castrated.
Note:
quote:Another important character, Sikhandi, is born female, but raised as a boy. Sihkandi's father, King Drupada, had begged the god Mahadeva to give him a son, to which Mahadeva replied: "Thou shalt have a child who will be a female and male. Desist, O king, it will not be otherwise." When Sikhandi comes of age and marries, Sikhandi's wife "soon came to know that [Sikhandi] was a woman like herself." Fleeing from the unnamed wife's enraged father, Sikhandi encounters a male Yaksha (nature spirit) in the forest, and they agree to swap sexes. Now in a male body, Sikhandi proves to his father-in-law that he is truly male, after the latter sends "a number of young ladies of great beauty" to Sikhandi to test him. They report back that he is "a powerful person of the masculine sex," and Sikhandi becomes a skilled and famous warrior, playing a pivotal role in the war.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Since it seems to me that unfamiliarity with California politics and California law may have made some attach too much significance to yesterday's vote, I shall explain these a bit and copy over a post I made on the legal aspects.
As for the politics, justices of the California Supreme Court are elected officials who have to run for office periodically and can be recalled if voters disapprove of their decisions. And Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican governor in a state dominated by the Democratic Party, which would be glad to use his actions regarding Proposition 8 as a means of getting him out of office and replacing him with a Democrat. So both the justices and the governor oppose Proposition 8, but they will treat it in the manner of the hero of some horror film confronted by a poisonous vampire. That is, they will attempt to drive a stake through its heart without suffering injury themselves.
A few of the legal aspects are as follows:
quote:Few things are as good or as bad as they seem at first, and I wish those posting to this thread had remembered that. The voting yesterday represented a single skirmish in a cultural war, in which both the immediate effect and the final outcome of what happened are uncertain. But with nine million votes counted, out of an expected thirteen million, it seems that Proposition 8 has indeed prevailed in the popular vote by roughly 52% to 48%. And at least we shall hear no more about how California voters have resoundingly rejected same sex marriage by 61% to 39% as in the passage of Proposition 22, as 52% to 48% is hardly an overwhelming mandate for change.
As to what happens next, the most relevant quote I have found is from the Wikipedia article, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters... The court denied the petition without comment. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference this distinction between an amendment and a revision makes is that the California Constitution prohibits voters from revising the California Constitution by a voter initiated proposition. Any revision must be made either by a proposition approved by the legislature and the governor and then submitted to the voters for approval, or by a constitutional convention. So if the California Supreme Court now rules Proposition 8 was an attempted revision of the California Constitution, it is legally dead and will never take effect. And the California Supreme Court has in this case merely done so far what it has usually done in the past with legally invalid propositions: let them appear on the ballot, see if the voters reject them, and then strike them down if they pass. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court could also decide that Proposition 8 is a valid amendment to the Constitution and let it go into effect. But for the moment I expect the parties which petitioned to have Proposition 8 removed from the ballot will immediately petition to have it invalidated as an attempted revision to the California Constitution; and now that it has passed the California Supreme Court will almost certainly accept the case, and schedule arguments, and eventually issue some sort of ruling.
Anyway the first legal question to be settled is whether Proposition 8 is legally valid at all. If it is indeed found to be so, which depends upon the California Supreme Court finding that eliminating same sex marriage in California is a minor adjustment to the Constitution rather than something significantly different, then the question will arise whether its effect would be retroactive to marriages contracted in the last few months. So far half the constitutional scholars I have read who have commented on this matter have said that courts have sometimes ruled that such provisions can be retroactive, while the other half have said a measure can only be retroactive if it says so explicitly. And of course the California Supreme Court could also rule that, while Proposition 8 would apply retroactively, it was improperly approved and so invalid because the title and ballot argument for the measure failed to make this possibility clear to voters beforehand. After all, if the voters had thought Proposition 8 would upset the lives of same sex married couples who had bought houses together and conceived children in the belief their marriages were legal, then they might not have passed it.
So until the courts do their work, it might be better if proponents and opponents of this measure refrained both from unjustified elation or despair, and from equally unjustified personal attacks on the other side.
[ November 05, 2008, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is sad.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: All right-- here are the issues you raised with my point about Hinduism:
quote:Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality, and there's none of this crap about "trying to take on aspects of the opposite gender" in any text or document discussing Hinduism & homosexuality that I or my husband have seen.
I don't know why you call it "crap;" in several of the links you provided, it specifies that the third gender cross dresses, and if male, they are sometimes castrated.
And here's what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: IIRC, Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality (though, I *think* that participants generally try to take on aspects of the opposite gender; that is, instead of perceiving themselves as male, they perceive themselves as female, despite biology).
It's not true that homosexual "participants generally try to tak on aspects of the opposite gender" and that male homosexuals "perceive themselves as female, despite biology", and to say so is crap. The third gender movement, while related to homosexuality, is not equivalent with homosexuality - unless you're calling everyone who's a cross-dresser or transgendered homosexual? The article I linked to is entitled "LGBT Issues and Hinduism" for a very good reason.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: ... What religions don't have doctrine against homosexuality? I don't consider it good enough when it is these religions that are made just to be tolerant of everyone so they will come to church.
Hinduism, which is one of the oldest faiths in the world - its scriptures date back to 1500 BCE - doesn't have a doctrine against homosexuality. In fact, two (major) male gods marry and conceive a child together (they're gods, after all). Oh, wait, but that religion doesn't count 'cause its followers are mostly brown, and maybe polytheistic, right?
Elmer's Glue also said "come to church", another reason why it probably doesn't count since IIRC, Hindu followers go to temples rather than churches.
IIRC, Taoism and Confucianism also do not have explicit mandates against homosexuality. Rather most of the anti-homosexuality in China can be traced back to the importation of Western ideas (both good (nationalism, democracy, science) and bad) during the period around the fall of the Manchu.
Re: the broader issue
A couple years back, I thought I would never live to see a black President. That's honestly kind of inspiring and raises my hopes for a similar entry of Asian political candidates in Canada (Our politicians are pretty much totally white with a few token minority candidates with no real power and some rather suspicious connections).
On the other hand, the passage of this kind of proposition in a "blue" state seems to highlight the virulent nature of anti-homosexuality that is much more alien to Canada. (Same-sex marriage is perfectly legal here, with a large marriage tourism industry for Americans too)
So two steps forward, one step back ... a mixed measure of applause for the US, I guess.
[ November 05, 2008, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Jhai - If you didn't act with such hostility, people might take you more seriously. Calm yourself brother...
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Mucus, I think I might have parsed that second sentence oddly. I read "these religions that are madejust to be tolerant of everyone" as a belief of Elmer's Glue that there aren't any non-modern religions (i.e. non-made ones) that accept homosexuality. I guess it could be a passive phrase, where the religions are being forced to be tolerant.
I'm not sure how you could force anything or anyone to be tolerant, but it sure would be nice to have that power. Poor religions, being forced to tolerate others!
And, not to hate on Taoism or Confucianism at all, but I suspect that Westerners are more willing to "accept" Hinduism as a true religion than either of the two homegrown Chinese faiths, if only because it's much more clear in the Hindu tradition that deities do exist.
I do wish Canada wasn't so cold - I visited Toronto this summer and had an absolutely lovely time. Maybe BC...
Edit: Lobo, I'm a gal, not a brother. And I don't think I've been any more hostile than the situation warranted. Saying "Hinduism doesn't outlaw some forms of homosexuality" strikes me as similar to saying, "well, some Christians aren't bigoted idiots." It's rude, and it gives the wrong impression about the facts of the situation. Hinduism doesn't outlaw any forms of homosexuality - in fact Hinduism isn't really big on outlawing anything.
[ November 05, 2008, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I guess there are two points I should make explicit. By "those religions", I believe that Elmer's Glue really meant "those Christian sects" otherwise he wouldn't have limited the consequences to church going.
As for Westerners acceptance, the status of Taoism and Confucianism as religions or philosophical traditions can be debated (as is the complicated factor that they are not strictly doctrinal as are the Judeo-Christian faiths but are rather "roll-your-own"). In fact, I have no issue with the fact Confucianism is not a true religion, and I think that has been a good thing.
My point was not that Westerners should accept them as "true" religions, merely that they exist, occupy a religious-"like" role, largely ignore same-sex issues, and have existed for a very long time without having to be "forced" to accept homosexuality.
I suspect that as China develops over the next few decades, you'll see a rather surprisingly quick acceptance of ideas such as global warming, evolution, and same-sex issues without this kind of religious resistance whereas it remains to be seen when the United States will finally throw off this kind of thing for good (despite being substantially further ahead currently, on same-sex issues anyways).
Edit to add: The cold, you get used to it. You even start to like it Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you could force anything or anyone to be tolerant, but it sure would be nice to have that power.
Wow.
Yes, you've been uncivil and inflammatory. That it isn't "any more than the situation warranted" is a poor defense. Amazingly, calling people names is not as persuasive an argument as you might hope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly we have some work to do yet.
But look at it this way. The Civil Rights Act was signed during my lifetime and yesterday Virginia voted to elect a black man president of the United States. A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.
Whatever you think of his politics, his election showed that Americans can overcome our fears. The arc of history does indeed bend toward justice.
Also, the social conservatives may have won some battles but they lost the Republican party. The "religious right" is no longer sufficient to win presidential elections.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My point, Jhai, is to show that Hindu scripture seems to excuse homosexuality only in extreme circumstances (such as when only two females exist who can perpetuate the throne), or when one of the lovers is transformed, either literally or figuratively, into the opposite gender.
From what I can see, there is possible support for transgendered individuals, but little support for actual homosexuality.
What am I reading wrong?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.
I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Amazingly, calling people names is not as persuasive an argument as you might hope.
It seems to have worked for Proposition 8.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where has Jhai called anyone a name? She's denigrated an argument that's based on an ignorance of Hinduism, and you might think she went to far in doing so, but I don't see her calling people names anywhere.
edit: beaten to it
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.
Probably closer to two generations ago. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: A generation ago, Barack Obama would have been sitting in the back of a bus.
Probably closer to two generations ago.
At the time Barack Obama was born (1961), his parents marriage would have been illegal in nearly half of the US states. Buses were desegregated in Alabama only 5 years before he was born. The Civil Rights act was signed when he was 3 years old. One generation ago is dead on. This change has occurred during his lifetime, during my lifetime.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A generation is about twenty-five years in the United States. Obama's parents' generation is more than one generation ago.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.
I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.
Jhai, Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE and can hardly be used to present hard facts unless the sources for the statements are shown below in the sources section. I could log on right now and edit any page I wanted. In fact, a few years ago someone edited the thread for "DNA" with the statement "I $%&# on eggs!" Imagine the look on my face when I saw that. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Scott, yes, you're reading the big picture wrong, but I'm having difficulty in finding unbiased articles (in either direction) on the interwebs. Go figure.
Basically, homosexuality is not mentioned much in the core Hindu scriptures, but where it is, it is not seen negatively. Because mentions are scarce, it takes a fair amount of reading of the scriptures (or reading a book on the subject that quotes appropriately, such as Love's Rite) to get a big picture of the Hindu viewpoint on the subject. And all of it has to read through the larger issues in Hinduism - the particular ones relating to this issue would be how Hinduism views family, love, sexual relationships, and marriage.
At the very least, I think it's pretty clear that homosexual sexual relations were viewed acceptable in the religion, given what the Kama Sutra says on the topic (and other texts, too), as well as all the erotic carvings on temples in the South. I believe both of these were mentioned in the LGBT & Hinduism article I linked. Making the case for same-gendered marriage is a bit more difficult - again, because homosexuality isn't really a major topic in Hinduism so you have to hunt - but I believe the case can and has been made in various academic texts such as Love's Rite.
To address your point of homosexuality only being accepted in dire circumstances or in transgendered individuals... First, nearly all of the Hindu scripture is about dire circumstances - these are epics on the level of Gilgamesh & the stories of Greek and Nordic gods, development through over a thousand years of oral tradition. Things that weren't dire circumstances didn't get written down, if they were ever remembered in the first place.
Second, the transgendered issue arises because Hindus of ancient yore did know it takes a man & a woman to reproduce. Since most of the scriptures focus on duty to family, progeny being born to fulfill needs of the universe or kingdom, and so forth, having children is a pretty important thing, and thus the need to change a woman into a man or vice versa to get a kid.
That's not to discount the role that the third-gender has and does play in India, but I don't feel I know enough about that topic to do more than point you at resources if you're interested in learning more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots/Rabbit: This kind of change is very heartening, makes me feel a little optimistic that we may someday see a Chinese Prime Minister or President.
Although, I suspect that the accusations then would be less about "palling around with terrorists" or "prayer mats in the White House" and more about being a Chinese sleeper agent or some other crap.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The possibility for specific inaccuracy on wikipedia does not stop it from being, on many topics, the quickest and most accurate place to find an informal overview.
However, if it makes you feel better, most of the random sites you find on Google if you type in obvious search terms for the topic in question mention that the accepted Hindu religious texts take no negative position, and that there are many Hindus who view it as being absolutely no problem. Just take your pick of which site you'll view as authoritative enough Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: One generation ago is dead on. This change has occurred during his lifetime, during my lifetime.
You're just old. Someone born in the early sixties [Obama] could easily be a grandparent today.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: kat, I never called Scott anything. I said that what he was saying was crap, which, frankly, it was. If you don't know something to be true, and you can't spend two minutes checking on wikipedia, why bother posting it just to spread misinformation? And that's ignoring his apparent confusion between transgender and homosexual, which is a pretty major mistake to make in a discussion about homosexuality.
I'm not sure what you have against tolerance of homosexuals, but, um, whatever.
Jhai, Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE and can hardly be used to present hard facts unless the sources for the statements are shown below in the sources section. I could log on right now and edit any page I wanted. In fact, a few years ago someone edited the thread for "DNA" with the statement "I $%&# on eggs!" Imagine the look on my face when I saw that.
Um, yes. That wikipedia can be edited is a known fact. That doesn't mean that it's not a good way to quickly check some information. Of course, it does mean that the value you give the information you find there should be considered carefully, and that you shouldn't ever use it as a academic citation (which the authors of some recently released federal reports on the state of wholesale power markets in the US could stand to learn, but I digress...). Like I mentioned earlier to Scott, homosexuality & Hinduism is a charged topic, so it's hard to find good internet articles on the subject. However, I read the wiki article that I pointed him to before I linked to it, and nothing struck me as wrong when compared to what I have learned through scholarly articles and college courses. Tidbit: while doing preliminary research for one of those classes on the origins of Jainism, I came across some incredibly wrong stuff on Wikipedia - that it predates Hinduism and a bunch of other garbage. Hadn't thought that would be controversial enough for someone to edit posts about, but apparently it was...
Edit: and this time fugu beat me to it
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP:
quote:Can you quote any factually questionable statements from the "no" campaign? I'm not so concerned about "nasty". I'm looking for dishonest. Mean people suck, but liars are much worse, IMO.
Watch the "Home Invasion" video on youtube. I don't think any reasonable person can say that video is not being deliberately dishonest in it's portrayal.
Mighty Cow:
quote:I just call it like I see it. I can see zero reason to deny marriage to gay couples except bigotry.
You need to keep looking, when a person can paint an entire group with the same color, they are almost ALWAYS wrong.
quote:Originally posted by chosha: Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. On the bright side you get the shorter version.
BlackBlade: That same God who (in the context of your Church is true 100% scenario) told Church leaders to 'block gay marriage' also provided scripture in D&C 134:9 that says:
'We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.'
Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society (or several who have become one over this issue) to the detriment of the spiritual and civil rights of others. Same-sex marriage does not threaten straight marriage. It does not cheapen it, just as marriage between two Hindu does not cheapen Christian marriage, just as inter-racial marriage does not threaten or tarnish intra-racial marriage.
Marriage has meaning in the law and it delivers a range of rights and understandings in society. This makes it a civil matter and the seperation of church and state comes into play. The Church leaders, in following what they believe to be God's command, should have limited their actions to blocking it within the Church. And that's it.
Nothing has made me more angry in this whole campaign than the use of the song 'Save the Family' to support Yes on 8. These ARE families. They have partners and children they love and should be able to protect under the law. Some of these people are already legally married and Proposition 8 seeks to strip that from them. It's a really effective way to make someone understand that they are a second class citizen, with a second class family, who deserves only second class rights.
'Separate but equal' approaches have never succeeded in delivering equal rights and why anyone imagines they will here is beyond me. Maybe it's as simple as saying that 'separate but equal' is not really about providing equal rights, but more about appearing to do so.
As long as marriage has meaning in the law it is a civil matter. Whatever meaning anyone, religious or not, chooses to assign to it beyond that is up to them.
I have not completely reconciled my beliefs of when the church is imposing on other people's spiritual rights, and when they are protecting their own. I can't effectively argue with you on this topic.
Marriage however clearly is not a RIGHT in these United States as anti-polygamy laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years.
It is true separate but equal has not worked in the past, but I think it's worth noting that it has only been tried once and that attempt was clearly designed to keep minorities specifically African Americans as second class citizens. It was never truly tried as a meaningful compromise.
I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained. Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jhai:
Thank you for that enlightening and respectful response.
I appreciate the correction.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.
And I love this trend, and greet it as the potential salvation of our civilization. It's particularly problematic when one's conscience contradicts what one believes God is saying. Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Jhai:
Thank you for that enlightening and respectful response.
I appreciate the correction.
I'm not reading this as snarky, but, either way, you're welcome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".
Free speech isn't a right fugu. Granted I am only thinking of this briefly but I cannot conceive of a "right" that does not have some sort of amendment to it. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater. We can either speak of marriage as an absolute right, or one that is currently amended and discuss which amendments make sense and which do not.
Tom: That's fine you feel that way, I just hope you push that belief with the ballot box always.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.
And I love this trend, and greet it as the potential salvation of our civilization. It's particularly problematic when one's conscience contradicts what one believes God is saying. Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
Agreed.
Although I don't see this trend happening, I wish it would. And if it is, I hope it continues.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, always. It's obviously futile in my lifetime, but maybe I can help create a future in which those of my children's children who get married in churches won't be allowed to share insurance policies without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops intended to demonstrate their second-class status.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: so free speech is clearly not a right as anti-defamation laws are still on the books as they have been for over one hundred years? That's reasoning of the worst order for asserting it "clearly is not a right".
Free speech isn't a right fugu. Granted I am only thinking of this briefly but I cannot conceive of a "right" that does not have some sort of amendment to it. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater. We can either speak of marriage as an absolute right, or one that is currently amended and discuss which amendments make sense and which do not.
Tom: That's fine you feel that way, I just hope you push that belief with the ballot box always.
Just because a right has restrictions (in the case of free speech, time/manner/place restrictions) doesn't fail to make it a right.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.
Honestly, as a minority, I find the idea of voting on minority rights pretty distasteful as is the idea that minorities should rightly have to beg a majority to allow us to have rights. I'm glad that Canada doesn't really have this tradition.
It may indeed be the voice of the people to take away minority rights, but thats why our systems have things like the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect minority rights. In general, the judicial branch is a perfectly valid and good way of approaching this problem and I don't see any reason why minorities should go out of their way to avoid it.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Correct me if I am wrong...
#1) The LDS Church spent over $50 million dollars trying to influence their desired outcome in California.
#2) The LDS Church has invested over $8 billion dollars in the Stock Market.
#3) The LDS Church is worth over $50 billion dollars.
#4) The LDS Church claims a Christian Moral Authority.
#5) The LDS Church believes the Scripture about Homosexuality carries much, much, much more weight than the Scripture about Greed and the Need to aquire that which you don't Need.
Judge not lest you be Judged.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained.
This "emerging trend" is the result of religion starting to lose its taboo status as a topic for criticism. Opposition to religious beliefs results from those beliefs being unsubstantiated. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about this standard. My opposition to your beliefs has nothing to do with the fact that they have the property of being religious.
[ November 05, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
Up next, we're going to poll 30 wolves and 12 chickens on whether or not the wolves get to have chicken dinners...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Jim Crow laws were also democratic measures. They also represented the voice of people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: ... Just because a right has restrictions (in the case of free speech, time/manner/place restrictions) doesn't fail to make it a right.
Our charter explicitly says this too.
quote: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Edit to add: As an addition to the Jim Crow laws, I'm sure that the internment of Japanese Canadians and Americans in WWII would easily have passed the test of public support. I'm not even sure it would necessarily be opposed by the public today in a similar situation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater.
Well, unless there's a fire.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The LDS Church believes the Scripture about Homosexuality carries much, much, much more weight than the Scripture about Greed and the Need to aquire that which you don't Need."
You obviously have never, and I say this for other's because you won't care, listened to LDS Conference talks since at least the administration of Pres. Benson.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If the United States isn't a democracy, then why do we call it democratic? My take away from this discussion so far; The people's voice don't mean a thing! Voting is useless.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
The fight against homosexuals and for criminalizing abortion is a great way for Churches to raise money, if a Church can never have enough money, or too much money, then Churches will continue to raise money using homosexuals and the criminalization of abortion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If the United States isn't a democracy, then why do we call it democratic? My take away from this discussion so far; The people's voice don't mean a thing! Voting is useless.
Democratic WITH protections for minorities.
There's this document called the Constitution that talks about things like that.
Would you view it as fine if the 'people's voice' decided that YOU should be stripped of rights?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "The LDS Church believes the Scripture about Homosexuality carries much, much, much more weight than the Scripture about Greed and the Need to aquire that which you don't Need."
You obviously have never, and I say this for other's because you won't care, listened to LDS Conference talks since at least the administration of Pres. Benson.
Actions are louder than words.
Did the LDS Church invest over $8 billion dollars in the Stock Market?
Is the LDS Church worth over $50 billion dollars?
What is the definition of greed and how much does a Church need?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where are you getting those numbers, UF?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If the United States isn't a democracy, then why do we call it democratic? My take away from this discussion so far; The people's voice don't mean a thing! Voting is useless.
We *don't* actually call the United States simply a democracy, full stop.
quote:"You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater."
Well, unless there's a fire.
Lisa, you are like one of those people that the Japanese officially designate as Living National Treasures.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Watch the "Home Invasion" video on youtube. I don't think any reasonable person can say that video is not being deliberately dishonest in it's portrayal.
It's only dishonest if you believe people will take it literally. No, the Mormons won't knock on your door, steal your wedding rings and rip up your marriage license. But they do want to take away that marriage just the same. There is a certain violence and agression in that act which I think the commercial captures pretty well. The only thing dishonest about that ad, if taken literally, is that it portrays Mormons as physically aggressive rather than ideologically aggressive, but again I don't think anyone was intended to actually believe that the Mormons would be raiding homes.
Compared to the plain-spoken false arguments by the "yes" campaign, that ad was basically truthful.
Satan is the one who tells you lies while smiling sweetly, no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Also, real Mormon missionaries are usually younger and slightly less scruffy, and they'd never think of spending any time alone in a house with two women.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Where are you getting those numbers, UF?
From the 2006 lawsuit against the Church.
Spending lots of money on an anti-gay issue like Prop 8 allows the Church to generate money from their followers, who have been told that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual people and it is great advertising for the Church.
"Think Homosexuals are creepy and sinners? We agree! Check us out!"
It's breaking down the wall of Church and State without any evidence of homosexuals being inferior to heterosexuals without any proof other than "What our Holy Books say".
OSC himself said "Follow the Money."
Fighting gays is a billion dollar business.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
To let gays fight and die for freedom, but not let them live free is mistake.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
What's the intent of this thread? Are we really here to bludgeon each other?
I'm glad Prop 8 passed. I'm glad that millions of Californians in both parties still believe marriage should be understood as being between a man and a woman. I hope the result stands.
I have a hard time writing that paragraph, not because I feel it's wrong or shameful, but because I'm afraid of being shouted down by people I respect. I understand we all feel passionately about the issue, but when that passion gives way to degradation and emotional belittling, I think the mores of civil society are being shaken.
Which is all to say, from my perspective, it would be nice if we could try to disagree without being so disagreeable. Or perhaps I just have a low tolerance for the style of combative dialogue that seems to have become the norm in this thread.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I live in California and I didn't vote for proposition 8, but I'm glad that it passed.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I think moral high ground is very important in a debate. I was just trying to help you people see their side of things. I don't really disagree with you. Then I was called racist. This is just sad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: in that case there are no rights other than the ideas in one's head, and even those are disturbingly easy to interfere with.
If you define rights out of existence, it is easy to say things aren't rights.
As for the "decided by a majority" idea, I think the idea that a simple majority can amend a Constitution is repulsive. Constitutions are things that should be guided by supramajorities, since they are the law of the land that trumps other laws. I mean, there are people who get upset about the fairly stringent conditions for passing a US constitutional amendment being too loose.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
I think it's important to note that people within the church don't profit from these funds generated. They are used to build temples and whatnot.
We are an unpayed clergy, quite unlike most local churches who profit from their followers. The LDS church is not a business.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
It's funny...You talk about how much money the church has, but fail to mention how much it gives to third world nations, the homeless, the jobless, etc. You also cleverly ignore the fact that no one but full time employees in the church are actually *paid*. And they're not really paid *well* Even the prophet gets a relatively small living allowance. Any money the apostles have was gained entirely through their own careers prior to becoming leaders in the church.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:From the 2006 lawsuit against the Church.
Which? Can you link?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. Blacks voted strongly in favor of the ban, while whites narrowly opposed it and Latinos and Asians were split.
Smells like irony to me...
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Hmm, my mom was right... interesting.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Guh? My post count just dropped like 40.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
"I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society." - G.B. Hinckley
How can the LDS Church oppose gambling, yet invest BILLIONS in the stock market? The stock market is not a gamble?
TO GAMBLE
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome 2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance transitive verb 1: to risk by gambling : wager 2: venture , hazard
How can a $50 Billion dollar Church oppose Greed?
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
UF, where are you getting this stock market business? Like a link please? Your getting more heated than you need to be as well.
The stock market is not gambling. Perhaps they want to help corporations that are standing for that moral fiber of society.
Just because something is "risky", doesn't automatically mean that it is "gambling"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
UF, quit attacking the church. You have agreed to avoid attacking any particular religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I see that Mormons are being blamed for this which is why I found this article fascinating California voters approve gay-marriage ban
quote:Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. Blacks voted strongly in favor of the ban, while whites narrowly opposed it and Latinos and Asians were split.
Smells like irony to me...
Did you quote the right article?
The closest paragraph to your quote in the article is this:
quote: Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. About seven in 10 blacks voted in favor of the ban, while Latinos also supported it and whites were split.
Note that Asians are absent from the latter one and whites change from opposition to split.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Mucus, I definitely did. I am looking at two different articles from the same link right now. AP must have decided to change the article? How very curious.... EDIT: When I refreshed my original page I now have AP's update story. I wonder why they changed it?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
How can the Church judge people but be free of Judgement?
How can a Church openly take a side, yet be offended by those who disagree?
How come a Church is allowed to say 'people are wrong' but people are not allowed to say the Church is wrong?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: "I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society." - G.B. Hinckley
How can the LDS Church oppose gambling, yet invest BILLIONS in the stock market? The stock market is not a gamble?
TO GAMBLE
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome 2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance transitive verb 1: to risk by gambling : wager 2: venture , hazard
How can a $50 Billion dollar Church oppose Greed?
*WHAM* Pay attention, you self righteous *expletive self-edited*. Did I just not say that the church gives away a very very large percentage of that money each year? You're trying very hard to convince people of half-truths. But let's face it. A half-truth is still a complete lie.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Did I just not say that the church gives away a very very large percentage of that money each year?
Really? What is the percentage?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I have a hard time writing that paragraph, not because I feel it's wrong or shameful, but because I'm afraid of being shouted down by people I respect. I understand we all feel passionately about the issue, but when that passion gives way to degradation and emotional belittling, I think the mores of civil society are being shaken.
If you get shouted down, it's because you are viewed as being against a civil rights issue.
I understand you don't see it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue, and that to see people who you respect making a stand against civil rights is frustrating, infuriating and repulsive.
I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Mucus, I definitely did. I am looking at two different articles from the same link right now. AP must have decided to change the article? How very curious.... EDIT: When I refreshed my original page I now have AP's update story. I wonder why they changed it?
Probably because they were wrong, Asians shouldn't be particularly split on the issue. Polls on among Asian Americans reported strong opposition to the proposition.
quote: The poll found that 57 percent of Asian-Americans likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election oppose Proposition 8, which would reverse May's California Supreme Court ruling that gave gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Only 32 percent planned to vote yes. Eleven percent were undecided.
Nearly 1,900 Asian-Americans in the state were interviewed by telephone in eight languages from Aug. 18 to Sept. 26. The survey was the largest scientific poll of Asian-American voters ever done — both nationally and in California.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Gays not deserving the same rights of union as heterosexuals is a complete lie too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for the "decided by a majority" idea, I think the idea that a simple majority can amend a Constitution is repulsive. Constitutions are things that should be guided by supramajorities, since they are the law of the land that trumps other laws. I mean, there are people who get upset about the fairly stringent conditions for passing a US constitutional amendment being too loose.
I absolutely agree. Supermajorities should be required to ammend constitutions. In fact, I believe that in order for us to ammend our constitution at the state level, we should be required to form regional (say county-wide) caucuses just to decide if we should put the measure on the ballot in the first place.
The unintended consequence of this decision will be another terrific example to many Californians of how underrepresented our voices are in our country, and even in our own state. When money from outside of our state can be used to hammer this change through on a simple majority- I see it as a breach of our sovereignty.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Can you explain what rights were removed with the passage of prop 8?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Yeah but dude... your like, gay, and stuff...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Can you explain what rights were removed with the passage of prop 8?
The right to equal recognition under the law.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's also an entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism here.
The $50 Billion UF is citing seems high, considering the cited estimates are around $30 Billion eight years ago. Furthermore, most of that money (appr. 2/3 according to the wiki) is tied to buildings throughout the world.
From my perspective having distributed church funds on a local level, the majority go to those who are unable to house or feed themselves. There are also large disbursements for local activities (like our annual wreath-making Christmas party and attending Boy Scout camps). Outside of my local purview, but very much a part of the LDS financial picture, are the large emergency disbursments that take place around the world in response to local catastrophes, as well as large educational grants to members getting minimal post-primary education in many countries throughout the world. My parents presided for a time over the humanitarian efforts of the church in Brazil, and were primarily responsible for distributing wheel chairs to charities, and working with local volunteers to supply food, clothes, homes, and hospital care to people who could not afford it.
To insinuate that because the church is greedy because it has a large budget (necessitating large holdings) is wrong. The church uses the funds given it by the membership to improve the lives of people throughout the world, primarily spiritually but also temporally to a significant degree.
Furthermore, no church funds were used to support Prop 8, although the church did pay appr. $2000 in travel expenses for church leaders who traveled to CA to meet with Prop 8 supporters.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I think it's important to note that people within the church don't profit from these funds generated. They are used to build temples and whatnot.
We are an unpayed clergy, quite unlike most local churches who profit from their followers. The LDS church is not a business.
Other churches are also non-profit organizations. They pay their employees, just like the LDS church does. The fact that different denominations have different categories of which roles are filled by employees and which by volunteers does not mean that some are "profiting off their followers" and others aren't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Can you explain what rights were removed with the passage of prop 8?
They had it before prop 8 passed. And now they don't. You can figure it out.
Let's put forward a prop to remove the rights of Mormons to marry other Mormons. After all, they can still get married...to non Mormons.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: The LDS church is not a business.
...but they own
AgReserves Inc. - the largest producer of nuts in America.[1]
Hawaii Reserves, Inc. - Miscellaneous church holdings in Hawaii.
Along with the Polynesian Cultural Center (the leading for-profit visitor attraction in Hawaii[23]) and Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Hawaii Reserves generated revenue of $260 million for the Hawaii economy in 2005.[24]
Farmland Reserve Inc. - 228,000 acres (923 km˛) in Nebraska,[25] and over 312,000 acres (1,260 km˛) in Florida (dba Deseret Cattle and Citrus).[26]
Bonneville International Corporation - the 14th largest radio chain in the U.S.[1]
Deseret Morning News - a daily Utah newspaper, second-largest in the state.[27]
Beneficial Financial Group - An insurance and financial services company with assets of $3.1 billion.[28]
Why does a Church NEED to own an insurance and financial services company??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Probably because they were wrong, Asians shouldn't be particularly split on the issue. Polls on among Asian Americans reported strong opposition to the proposition.
Good find and a good reason to change the article. I still think it is fascinating that Mormons are being 'blamed' in many articles I have read and yet black voters who came out for Obama voted overwhelmingly in support of Prop 8.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Yeah but dude... your like, gay, and stuff...
Actually I'm heterosexual. Not that it should matter. Civil rights are civil rights.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have a hard time writing that paragraph, not because I feel it's wrong or shameful, but because I'm afraid of being shouted down by people I respect.
I won't shout you down. But I do respect you less because of your support for this proposition. It's harmful and offensive and based in bigotry and superstition, and I suspect you'll live to regret it. I recognize that you believe you were doing something good; I also quite firmly believe that you were absolutely, completely wrong.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Probably because they were wrong, Asians shouldn't be particularly split on the issue. Polls on among Asian Americans reported strong opposition to the proposition.
Good find and a good reason to change the article. I still think it is fascinating that Mormons are being 'blamed' in many articles I have read and yet black voters who came out for Obama voted overwhelmingly in support of Prop 8.
The stuff I've read in which Mormons are being blamed cites spending rather than votes.
Edit: Actually, I misremembered what I read, which wasn't specifically about Mormons at all.
[ November 05, 2008, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: won't shout you down. But I do respect you less because of your support for this proposition. It's harmful and offensive and based in bigotry and superstition, and I suspect you'll live to regret it. I recognize that you believe you were doing something good; I also quite firmly believe that you were absolutely, completely wrong.
Do you respect about 70% of the black voters less as well for their support of this proposition?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If you get shouted down, it's because you are viewed as being against a civil rights issue.
I understand you don't see it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue, and that to see people who you respect making a stand against civil rights is frustrating, infuriating and repulsive.
I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California. This was way before Prop 8. I don't know about other faith groups, but the Church had no official position on that legislation, one way or the other. Civil Rights was not the issue with the Church's support, and according to other supporters, not for them either. The rights they already had, they were arguing for a change in the definition of marriage.
If one is so concerned about 'separate but equal' status than Civil Unions should be across the board for any two-person partnership, thereby taking government completely out of the equation.
It also occurred to me that even if Prop 8 failed, it would matter very little. The state of California gives a same-sex couple a piece of paper saying that they are entitled to certain rights and responsibilities, but it only applies within the state boundaries. It's *still* no different from the previous domestic partnership law, which also only applies within the state.
In thinking about that, I'm starting to think that it really should be a federal issue, and not something decided merely on the state level. Otherwise, gay couples would never leave California (or Massachusetts, or wherever has these kind of statutes) for fear of losing insurance coverage, or medical decisions, or any number of rights or responsibilities if they happened to travel through, say, Kansas (I may be wrong but I think many states have done this already, I'm saying it should be cleaned up and made clear on the national level).
I am very much *for* these rights for any couple who have committed to each other. I'm even for them calling it a marriage if it suits them (free speech and all). I'm not comfortable leaving the government to define that term for me or anyone else.
With any luck, this post will be completely ignored, since that's what always seems to happen when I weigh in on issues like this.
edited to clean some of the wording
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: ...but they own
AgReserves Inc. - the largest producer of nuts in America.[1]
Hawaii Reserves, Inc. - Miscellaneous church holdings in Hawaii.
Along with the Polynesian Cultural Center (the leading for-profit visitor attraction in Hawaii[23]) and Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Hawaii Reserves generated revenue of $260 million for the Hawaii economy in 2005.[24]
Farmland Reserve Inc. - 228,000 acres (923 km˛) in Nebraska,[25] and over 312,000 acres (1,260 km˛) in Florida (dba Deseret Cattle and Citrus).[26]
Bonneville International Corporation - the 14th largest radio chain in the U.S.[1]
Deseret Morning News - a daily Utah newspaper, second-largest in the state.[27]
Beneficial Financial Group - An insurance and financial services company with assets of $3.1 billion.[28]
Why does a Church NEED to own an insurance and financial services company??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Since you obviously read the wiki article, you know many of those business holdings are historic in nature, dating to the time that the church played a significant economic role in the development of Utah. For instance, the financial services and insurance company was founded over 100 years ago. It doesn't generate significant profits, but is maintained to preserve continuity in the lives of those who depend on the institution.
Again, the church owns large holdings, but they are almost exclusively non-commercial. It's wealth is used to financially support missionary, educational, humanitarian, and community services throughout the world. Suggesting otherwise, particularly considering the evidence presented to you, is wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: won't shout you down. But I do respect you less because of your support for this proposition. It's harmful and offensive and based in bigotry and superstition, and I suspect you'll live to regret it. I recognize that you believe you were doing something good; I also quite firmly believe that you were absolutely, completely wrong.
Do you respect about 70% of the black voters less as well for their support of this proposition?
I can't speak for Tom, but anyone who voted for this proposition - or otherwise supports it - has earned a little bit of my disdain. So, yes, I respect the black voters who supported this proposition less.
Edit: So that sm doesn't think his post was ignored, I would be completely in favor of all marriages being referred to by the state as "civil unions" or some such thing.
Why doesn't the Mormon Church spend $50 million on something like that?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I don't blame Mormons, but they have spent a ton of money fighting to pass legislature, and we didn't have a Homosexuality Bailout, we had a corporate bailout that will cost Americans up to 3 trillion dollars, when we already carry 10 trillion in debt, it makes you wonder how "moral" the Churches stance is.
People are losing their homes, retirees who worked their whole life and were told the stock market is NOT a gamble lost their life savings, thousands of jobs are lost daily, Banks are using the Bail Out Money to buy other banks and are not lending. Medicare and Social Security are a ticking time bomb, and the Church is fighting for California legislation with millions of dollars using Moral High Ground and Christian Duty as their motives.
When a multi billion dollar Church uses its multi billion dollar revenues to help pass government legislation denying people basic civil rights, their Moral Authority and Moral Priorities are in the spotlight and open for questioning.
Why does a Church need to own an Insurance and Investment company if it is not in business?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California.
This is only mostly true. A person can be compelled to testify against their domestic partner, but not their spouse. If a person in a domestic partnership dies, their estate is split between the parter and other surviving family. In a marriage 100% goes to the spouse.
That's not really the primary issue though. It's the inherent inequality of the separate but equal status of domestic partnership.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Why doesn't the Mormon Church spend $50 million on something like that?
The Mormon church spent no money on the Prop 8 battle (except a minimal in kind donation for church leadership travel to a conference in CA).
Members of the LDS church donated some unknown, but presumably large amount to support Prop 8 (one estimate was appr. $17 million). Other members of the LDS church undoubtedly donated some amount of money to oppose Prop 8.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California.
This is only mostly true. A person can be compelled to testify against their domestic partner, but not their spouse. If a person in a domestic partnership dies, their estate is split between the parter and other surviving family. In a marriage 100% goes to the spouse.
That's not really the primary issue though. It's the inherent inequality of the separate but equal status of domestic partnership.
Than make Civil Unions the norm for all legally binding partnerships. The term "marriage" seems to be the only real sticking point with detractors, so take it away for everyone.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I can't speak for Tom, but anyone who voted for this proposition - or otherwise supports it - has earned a little bit of my disdain. So, yes, I respect the black voters who supported this proposition less.
I am quite stunned that this story is not being made into a much bigger issue. Unless, of course, the point is to bash the Mormon church in which case the story of Prop 8 is going as intended. We have elected our first black President, a definite and overdue moment in our civil rights history, yet blacks voted for Proposition 8 and because of their high percentage support the proposition passes? Boggles my mind a bit...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: When a multi billion dollar Church uses its multi billion dollar revenues to help pass government legislation denying people basic civil rights, their Moral Authority and Moral Priorities are in the spotlight and open for questioning.
The Church used none of its revenues to help pass Prop 8. The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures, to fund food banks, to give aid following natural disasters, to send kids to technical schools who otherwise couldn't go, and to provide wheelchairs to those who can't afford them. Stop misrepresenting the LDS church.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Why does God or Jesus Christ NEED $50 Billion dollars in cash, land, and stock holdings?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Why does God need a starship?
It happens.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
Unicorn you aren't actually responding to what Senoj is telling you the church does with its money.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Go moan somewhere else. You need to stop trolling.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures
Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard there was a specific policy against making mortgage payments for members.
quote:Than make Civil Unions the norm for all legally binding partnerships. The term "marriage" seems to be the only real sticking point with detractors, so take it away for everyone.
It's beyond my individual power to do this and if the SSM side were to propose it, it would be interpreted as a vindication of the view that they were trying to destroy marriage. For it to be politically possible, the anti-SSM side is going to have to bring it to the table.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why does God or Jesus Christ NEED $50 Billion dollars in cash, land, and stock holdings?
UF, we get it. Could you please find something else to harp on? If you can't do that, could you please make some attempt to actually engage in conversation? Maybe even read responses an address the points raised therein?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
The Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan picked up on the staggering influence the Church of Latter Day Saints has had on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in his piece, "Mormons v. Civil Rights".
"People may be unaware that the top leadership of the LDS church has made banning gay couples from having any legal rights in California a supreme issue, part of a determined political campaign of unprecedented ferocity and organization," he writes.
Indeed, while figures on Mormon giving vary from around 40 percent to 80 percent, whatever the exact number, the influence clearly goes far beyond their actual population in California, which hovers below two percent."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures
Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard there was a specific policy against making mortgage payments for members.
There is a recommendation against making mortgage payments for members. However, as part of a transitional plan, or in situations deemed appropriate by local authorities, such payments can be authorized. I don't have a specific reference beyond my individual experience.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Saying "We give some of that money to poor people." is not a proper justification. Jesus Christ warns of an obsession with wealth and material things, so for any Church with an over abundance of wealth and material things to claim Moral High Ground is very silly.
I've got proof that Greed has harmed this country again and again and again, where is the proof that letting two men who've been together for 30 years have basic couple rights has been harmful?
What I am hearing is "A Church cannot be Greedy".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I may note that for some of us, this is not a theoretical.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for anywhere between eight to three years, depending on province, and according to the polling, support for this policy has only been increasing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
No argument I have heard opposing SSM has ever made sense to me. I have heard a lot of them. None are just or loving. None reflects the God I know. You could keep trying, but I think your chances are pretty slim.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
UF, your not "hearing" anything. You aren't even responding to 3/4 of the people are saying to you.
Look at the way the church leaders live their live and you would know they aren't "obsessed with greed" . They live, for the most part, very modest lives.
The church needs money to respond to natural disasters, which in some cases, the churches help arrives before the governments.
You just sound silly
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If you get shouted down, it's because you are viewed as being against a civil rights issue.
I understand you don't see it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue, and that to see people who you respect making a stand against civil rights is frustrating, infuriating and repulsive.
I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California. This was way before Prop 8. I don't know about other faith groups, but the Church had no official position on that legislation, one way or the other. Civil Rights was not the issue with the Church's support, and according to other supporters, not for them either. The rights they already had, they were arguing for a change in the definition of marriage.
If one is so concerned about 'separate but equal' status than Civil Unions should be across the board for any two-person partnership, thereby taking government completely out of the equation.
It also occurred to me that even if Prop 8 failed, it would matter very little. The state of California gives a same-sex couple a piece of paper saying that they are entitled to certain rights and responsibilities, but it only applies within the state boundaries. It's *still* no different from the previous domestic partnership law, which also only applies within the state.
In thinking about that, I'm starting to think that it really should be a federal issue, and not something decided merely on the state level. Otherwise, gay couples would never leave California (or Massachusetts, or wherever has these kind of statutes) for fear of losing insurance coverage, or medical decisions, or any number of rights or responsibilities if they happened to travel through, say, Kansas (I may be wrong but I think many states have done this already, I'm saying it should be cleaned up and made clear on the national level).
I am very much *for* these rights for any couple who have committed to each other. I'm even for them calling it a marriage if it suits them (free speech and all). I'm not comfortable leaving the government to define that term for me or anyone else.
With any luck, this post will be completely ignored, since that's what always seems to happen when I weigh in on issues like this.
edited to clean some of the wording
I agree with you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you respect about 70% of the black voters less as well for their support of this proposition?
Yes. Why wouldn't I?
quote:The Church used none of its revenues to help pass Prop 8.
No. It simply commanded its members to use their time and revenues to help pass the Proposition.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
I don't believe that your God is loving or just, and thus I don't worship him or care about his intent, plan, or principles. In fact, I don't even believe he exists.
My reasoning for believing SSM is good comes from some morals derived from pretty firm non-religious epistemology. Unless someone can give me a good, non-religious moral argument why it's SSM is bad, I won't be changing my mind. I haven't heard one yet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jhai, I haven't yet heard a good religious argument. Much less a good secular argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno, Kate. The argument "God told me or someone whose authority I accept that same-sex marriage is wrong" is pretty solid, once you permit religious premises in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blind obedience is not a good argument. It may be a reason (not what I would call a good one - God gave us brains and the holy spirit for us to use) but it isn't an argument.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not all obedience is blind.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Blind obedience is not a good argument. It may be a reason (not what I would call a good one - God gave us brains and the holy spirit for us to use) but it isn't an argument.
The LDS church doesn't advocate blind obedience. They repeatedly say that church members should pray individually about what they are told by the leadership and should seek confirmation by the holy spirit. The spirit is telling them that the leadership is right.
EDIT: Of course I consider noncorporeal confirmation to be no confirmation at all, but that's beside the point.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
How often does the holy spirit disagree with the leadership?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: How often does the holy spirit disagree with the leadership?
Not very often, as far as I can tell. They are prophets of God, after all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Still not an argument. The spirit tells me something entirely different.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Go figure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See? I'm a Christian and you can't convince me. There is no reason, religious or otherwise, for me to believe that your "prophets" have a clue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You realize, Kate, that the boilerplate response to that is "you haven't prayed about it enough, or in the right way."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See? I'm a Christian and you can't convince me. There is no reason, religious or otherwise, for me to believe that your "prophets" have a clue.
Matt wasn't trying to convince you. He was playing devil's advocate.
Unless I'm the one who is confused, which is possible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well obviously their spirit is different than yours. Or theirs is more authorative. Or you aren't doing it right. Or...
EDIT: Sorry if there was confusion. I don't hear from any spirits myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You realize, Kate, that the boilerplate response to that is "you haven't prayed about it enough, or in the right way."
Sure. Not an argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But you're not arguing in good faith, then.
Their argument goes as follows:
1) Grant that I have received personal confirmation of the divine. 2) Grant that the same process tells me that specific individuals can speak with divine authority. 3) Grant also that I can but do not always receive divine confirmation on the rightness of specific policies.
Once you grant these things, and you have specifically identified the leaders and policies, it is logically sound to adhere to their divinely-inspired recommendations for those policies. This is a perfectly sound argument.
Now, you can argue that one or more of those premises is flawed. Certainly I think so, and I'll mock anyone who tries to persuade me of something while requiring that I grant those premises to them. But that doesn't mean the argument is bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises, but they don't have to grant the same premises to anyone else?
Well that hardly seems fair.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
The LDS Church explicitly condemns hatred of persons with a homosexual orientation or practicing homosexuals, although some of its members may be guilty of this. It just believes certain texts in the Bible condemn certain homosexual practices, and that those practices should still be avoided today. And it believes approval of same sex civil marriages will tend to reduce respect for marriage itself in society. I remember exactly those same opinions being expressed in an article by a respected theologian in the Church of England, who also happened to be openly gay. I thought he probably knew more about the matter than I did, and surely had greater incentive to look into it.
Moreover, in practice, the LDS Church has only begun to grapple with these issues because gays were largely invisible in Utah until a few years ago, at least as compared to San Francisco. A Mormon scholar noted amusingly that the LDS published defense of the family was largely borrowed without acknowledgment from work done at Notre Dame, which did not make for consistency because Mormon and Roman Catholic beliefs differ quite a lot. And the hierarchy has been completely inconsistent on where they will oppose civil marriage for homosexuals and where they will ignore it. So they blundered into this fight over Proposition 8, and surely were essential to winning it, but the net effect is probably similar to the British Army winning the Battle of Bunker Hill or Napoleon reaching Moscow. Spending the amount they did to pass the measure by a 2% margin, in a state dominated by a Democratic Party committed to securing same sex marriage, and with a state Supreme Court on which five of seven justices support same sex marriage, can be described as admirably quixotic. But tilting at windmills tends to damage the knight more than the windmills.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises...
Which is the essence of religion, and the reason I don't accept any argument based on religious epistemology.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's a difference between a valid argument and valid premises. A valid argument is any for which the conclusions must be true if the premises are true.
You don't have to grant their premises to see that if their premises are true the conclusions would follow, and it is usually considered polite to accept that a person who says he or she believes a premise does.
Therefore you should be able to see why something might be a good argument for someone else even if you disagree with the premises. After all, it is pretty dismissive to say that no religious argument is a good argument unless you share the premises, unless by good you just mean some argument you agree with, and that definition is pretty dismissive, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises, but they don't have to grant the same premises to anyone else?
Well that hardly seems fair.
This is precisely the reason that rational people insist on premises that are publicly demonstrable. (Edit) That is, they do not depend on anyone's state of mind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises...
Which is the essence of religion, and the reason I don't accept any argument based on religious epistemology.
Nor should you. I am giving them the opportunity to make a religiously based argument and all they can come up with is our leaders said so and something scary might happen. I share some of their beliefs (though less than I might have thought at one time) and I don't find that convincing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sorry. When you called it a "bad argument," I thought -- as fugu notes -- that you meant it was an argument which did not proceed from its premises, and not just an argument which you found unconvincing because you don't share those premises.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even if you give them the three premises that you listed, if I get to claim the same premises (and why shouldn't I?) we are back to zero.
Honestly, if you have to grant the "because I said so" premise, it is just silly.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My invisible, anthropomorphic scapegoat tells me that SSM is right, so we're at an impasse in that regard. I guess we'll have to come up with other arguments.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
One of the things I was thinking earlier today is that one of the reasons that people letting their bishops, shaman, spouses, parents, etc. significantly impact their decision-making makes me nervous is that I just don't like the idea of any one person or group to have that much power over another.
There's no influence in my life that, if that group instructed me to 'do X!', I'd do it without question*.
*One possible exception would be professional advice about a subject that I'm not an expert in and which I asked for the advice. Like my doctor advising me to get a medical procedure. Even that, though, I'd research myself and only do if I agreed with my doctor's opinion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Honestly, if you have to grant the "because I said so" premise, it is just silly.
No! Really?!
Have you checked your eyes for beams recently? It's amazing what can get stuck in there.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kom: Lay off her. She's one of the good ones.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, honey, I am not suggesting that we take away rights based on my religious beliefs. I am pointing out that, not only do opponents lack convincing secular arguments for their position, they, for me, lack convincing religious arguments as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
kmbboots: then there's no reason to support any position, since no matter what argument you accept and believe the premises of, someone else will have a different set of premises that leads to the contradictory conclusion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Lay off her. She's one of the good ones.
For purposes of gay marriage, perhaps. I do not care all that strongly about this issue. She is one of the bad guys when it comes to something much more important to me, namely, that publicly accessible evidence is required to form beliefs. The key phrase here is 'choose to believe'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.
Honestly, as a minority, I find the idea of voting on minority rights pretty distasteful as is the idea that minorities should rightly have to beg a majority to allow us to have rights. I'm glad that Canada doesn't really have this tradition.
It may indeed be the voice of the people to take away minority rights, but thats why our systems have things like the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect minority rights. In general, the judicial branch is a perfectly valid and good way of approaching this problem and I don't see any reason why minorities should go out of their way to avoid it.
I can't really respond to anybody else right now it just feels far too venomous an environment.
I don't think minorities should have to sit around, and wait for the majority to decide to do the right thing. But when a majority votes one way, and the judiciary strikes it down, and then the majority votes the same way again, and the judiciary strikes it down, one needs to examine seriously if this feedback loop is really the way our country works. (were the California Supreme court to strike down Proposition 8 the cycle I described would be complete.)
It's impossible for every minority to get everything they want in a country. Christian Scientists have to go to the hospital if their child is seriously ill, the law doesn't give them leeway because it's their belief that God is in charge of everyone's health.
I guess what disappoints me is that I am truly torn on this issue. I'm not trying to be the voice of the oppressor. It is in my nature to desperately try to find any merit to an argument. I've been wrong so many times in my life, there is precious little I am absolutely certain about. To be told that the world will be better off without people like me hurts. It's not the kind of hurt that make me believe I'm wrong, it's the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me. I already know what it's like to believe something that is not popular, and to have people standing around snickering and waiting for me to state some defense which they can then rip apart.
I'm part of the problem, for I myself am unsure what to make of this issue. I thought I could perhaps talk through it with people here but that has only infuriated people and made me lose their respect. I just need to think, pray, and look for research.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me
Perhaps wounds would heal if you would stop dehumanizing other people first? Give us the same human rights as everyone else. You can't pass a law against millions of people then whine about being oppressed.
The christian scientist issue is not applicable. Gay people don't kill sick children. Christian Scientists do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me
Perhaps wounds would heal if you would stop dehumanizing other people first? Give us the same human rights as everyone else. You can't pass a law against millions of people then whine about being oppressed.
The christian scientist issue is not applicable. Gay people don't kill sick children. Christian Scientists do.
I didn't pass any such law Pixiest, The people of California did. At best you can say an organization I belong to was part of a coalition supporting that motion. How about you dispose of your anger before continuing to talk to me about this issue, it isn't helping me change my mind at all. Maybe you don't care to, but if you do, stop please.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How about you dispose of your anger before continuing to talk to me about this issue, it isn't helping me change my mind at all.
If one believes their rights are being suppressed, I think it's unrealistic to expect them to dispose of their anger.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
BlackBlade- I would vote against prop8, but I agree strongly with you. I hate that the only response to voting yes is, well, you are a bigot.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:To be told that the world will be better off without people like me hurts. It's not the kind of hurt that make me believe I'm wrong, it's the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me. I already know what it's like to believe something that is not popular, and to have people standing around snickering
You're explaining exactly the perspective of the gay couples who are being told that their desire to marry their long time partner is wrong and that they're not worthy of the same rights as straight couples.
You're so close to realizing how wrong it is to deny gay couples equal treatment under the law.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Can you explain what rights were removed with the passage of prop 8?
They had it before prop 8 passed. And now they don't. You can figure it out.
"Had it?" What right is "it?"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Marriage rights. Gay Californians could get married prior to the passage of prop 8.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
According to Wikipedia, gay couples had equivalent rights BEFORE the state court ruled that prop 22 was unconstitutional.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Wikipedia is wrong. The court ruled that prop 22 was unconstitutional because gays and lesbians did NOT have equivalent rights. IIRC they enumerated 9 points, but I don't remember what they were.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I respectfully disagree. The Mormons certainly disposed of their anger when they chose to move West in the face of abject violence against them. If we remained angry that the Edmunds Tucker act is still on the books we'd spend all our time angry. Of course I understand that when your opposition appears to be actively harming you it's hard to dispose of your anger. But I also think anger and resentment only cloud an issue and prevent real progress from being made. It is up to the individual if they are willing to make that trade off.
Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I hate that the only response to voting yes is, well, you are a bigot.
And I hate that the only response to voting no is, "Well, you're anti-family."
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
All right.
This is a personal issue to me. My Step Sister is gay. She's been with her partner for 12 years. They have a 10 year old. They own a home.
Do you even begin to realize the bigotry, abuse and BS they've had to put up with from the ignorant and the judgemental? People feel that they have a right to judge them and then let them know if they don't approve of their judgement.
Explain to me why two people who've been together for over 10 years, have built a life, a home and a family don't deserve the same property rights, or rights of visitation in the hospital.
When the LDS Church "Fights Gays" they reinforce the "these are bad people. these are inferior people. these people are sinners worse than us."
I may look silly to you, but let me remind you, in modern times the LDS Church has been no beacon of light on the civil rights issue. Not allowing Blacks to serve in the Church until 1978 isn't exactly showing tolerance and God's Wisdom on Civil Rights issues, so when they donate 50% of the money in a state they have 2% representation it raises more flags than the UN.
When the one state they do have a majority in (60% LDS) the state is 95% white, I am not comfortable with them using tons of money to turn back the clock in a state that like a foreign culture to them racially and culturally.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
Pixiest, I've looked but I can't find the 9 points you mentioned. I'm willing to learn-- if you can show me what rights prop 22 takes away, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
Pixiest, I've looked but I can't find the 9 points you mentioned. I'm willing to learn-- if you can show me what rights prop 22 takes away, I'd appreciate it.
I'd also like to read such a link if it can be found.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You can find the ruling here. Search "S147999" to bring up the Court opinion. It's quite the informative read.
Edit: here's the nine points, taken directly from the case I linked above. Sorry, it's really long - but you asked for it.
Although the governing statutes provide that registered domestic partners have the same substantive legal rights and are subject to the same obligations as married spouses, in response to a request for supplemental briefing by this court the parties have identified various differences (nine in number) that exist in the corresponding provisions of the domestic partnership and marriage statutes and in a few other statutory and constitutional provisions.
First, although the domestic partnership provisions require that both partners have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(1)), there is no similar requirement for marriage. Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order (§§ 302, 303). Third, to establish a domestic partnership, the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry for such partnerships (§ 298.5, subds. (a), (b)); to marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (§§ 306, 359; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102285, 102330, 102355). Fourth, although the marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public (§ 500 et seq.), the domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.” Fifth, although both the domestic partnership and marriage statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership or marriage under the same limited circumstances, a summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners' joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become effective without any court action, whereas a summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses' joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment; in both instances, the dissolution does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution. (§§ 299, subds. (a)–(c), 2400 et seq.) Sixth, although a proceeding to dissolve a domestic partnership may be filed in superior court “even if neither domestic partner is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed” (§ 299, subd. (d)), a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution (§ 2320). Seventh, in order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program (see Sen. Com. on Appropriations, fiscal summary of Assem. Bill No. 205 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 21, 2003; 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f)(2)(C)), the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such] long-term care plans …” (§ 297.5, subd. (g)), which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee's spouse, it may not provide coverage for an employee's domestic partner; this same disparity, however, would exist even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Eighth, an additional difference stems from the provisions of California Constitution, article XIII, section 3, subdivisions (o) and (p), granting a $ 1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who owns property valued at less than $ 10,000; however, as the Legislative Analyst explained when this constitutional provision last was amended in 1988 (see Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) analysis of Prop. 93 by Legis. Analyst, p. 60), few persons claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner's exemption on the same property (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 205.5, subd. (f)), and the homeowner's exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners. (See § 297.5, subd. (a).) Ninth, one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in § 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172–1174 [48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642].)
Plaintiffs also have brought to the court's attention a statement of decision in a recent superior court ruling that declares, in part, that “[a] Registered Domestic Partnership is not the equivalent of a marriage. It is the functional equivalent of cohabitation.” (Garber v. Garber (Super. Ct. Orange County, 2007, No. 04D006519.) That trial court ruling is currently on appeal and has no precedential effect.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
We have.
And historically and culturally speaking, until you pay a man for ownership of his daughter, whatever you have (or may one day have) isn't marriage either.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think minorities should have to sit around, and wait for the majority to decide to do the right thing. But when a majority votes one way, and the judiciary strikes it down, and then the majority votes the same way again, and the judiciary strikes it down, one needs to examine seriously if this feedback loop is really the way our country works. (were the California Supreme court to strike down Proposition 8 the cycle I described would be complete.)
In regards to the feedback loop, I'm not sure. Without being glib, maybe it really is how the system is supposed to work. The judiciary interprets the Constitution. If the people keep on passing unconstitutional laws, is it not their job to strike it down after a challenge? Checks and balances and all that.
But like I said, we don't have a tradition of direct referendums and propositions, I can remember only a handful and none were on minority rights.
Our former Prime Minister noted this in his characteristically accented and blunt way when it came to our same-sex debate and some suggested a referendum:
quote: "To have a referendum to decide on the fate of the minority, it's a problem. It's why we have constitutions – to protect the rights of the minority. It's why we have the Charter of Rights. So if it is always the majority vote by referendum, who will defend the minorities?"
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Weren't you the one telling me that it's ALWAYS wrong to paint a whole group with the same brush?
You're being really inconsistent in your beliefs my friend. I'm just trying to help you get straightened out.
Years ago, when I was a Christian, I was bigoted against gay people because I felt the church told me to be. I was prejudiced, although at the time I certainly didn't admit to myself that I was.
Thankfully, I saw how wrong that thinking was, even before I gave up on organized religion. There's no sniggering or screaming on my part, although I'm sad that you see it that way.
I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
It doesn't matter whether people are trying to "defend marriage" or "follow God's law" or whatever other reason they have - if they are denying equal rights to gay people, they're acting in a prejudiced and bigoted manner. If they don't like falling into that category, they should realize that they need to alter their behavior and beliefs to something which allows equality and respect for another group of people who simply want to have the same rights others already enjoy.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
It took divine intervention for them to realize Blacks were equal people. Give them time. They're a little behind the curve on civil rights.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
MC- if you honestly believed that giving gay marriage rights would 100% lead to a worse society, would you still advocate it?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: It took divine intervention for them to realize Blacks were equal people. Give them time. They're a little behind the curve on civil rights.
Actually, under our founding principals, blacks had the priesthood. And from what I can tell, an actual prophetic declaration declaring they couldn't never happened- it was more, this is the way things are done, not this is the way God wants them done. Still not a great thing for our church, but God comes out looking better.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jhai:
Thanks for that information.
I have no problem with accomodating homosexual couples with those 9 points.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: MC- if you honestly believed that giving gay marriage rights would 100% lead to a worse society, would you still advocate it?
I wouldn't still advocate it, but it would make me a bigot. You can't have it both ways. Denying people equal rights is denying people equal rights, regardless of what justification one uses.
Besides, same sex marriages have been going on for some time in several states, and it didn't have any negative effect on society that I've seen. I think we have proven conclusively that there is no merit to that argument.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, yeah, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is the last recourse of bigots everywhere.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, yeah, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is the last recourse of bigots everywhere.
Tom is using sarcasm and irony.
He does that a lot.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't hate the believers, I say, but go ahead and hate their belief.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, yeah, "hate the sin and love the sinner" is the last recourse of bigots everywhere.
Tom is using sarcasm and irony.
He does that a lot.
ahhhh
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I've always viewed bigotry as based on your motivations, not necessarily the results of your actions.
While you are convinced and evidence shows that ssm doesn't hurt anyone, for some reason, people believe it will. So, how can people be convinced of that? Of course, the problem is very few people actually listen to logic, including educated liberals (I spent the day arguing with my boss that just because something wasn't there today does not mean tell you anything about what was true 4 months ago- esp if the chemical degrades within 1-2 months.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
At least we know, now, that 47% of Californians at the very least, do not want to ban gay marriage outright. Next year, it will be 48%. The year after that 49%. After that, 50%.
This should not happen, as I said earlier but somebody else has mentioned the democratic process. This was a democratic election- a heavily fought one, yes, but what issue ever has been left up solely to each person's conscience?
It is a long wait but heck, in the past thirty, forty years more has changed in the cause of gays than in, arguably, the history of the human race. Things have changed faster for gays in certain parts of the world than they ever did for black people or women. This is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.
quote:Besides, same sex marriages have been going on for some time in several states
Countries.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
The problem with this is that not everyone who is against gay marriage is doing so out of prejudice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:To be told that the world will be better off without people like me hurts.
Then you should act in such a way that it's not true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom is using sarcasm and irony. He does that a lot.
I like to call it "sarcasrony," because then it sounds edible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But indigestible.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Weren't you the one telling me that it's ALWAYS wrong to paint a whole group with the same brush?
You're being really inconsistent in your beliefs my friend. I'm just trying to help you get straightened out.
Years ago, when I was a Christian, I was bigoted against gay people because I felt the church told me to be. I was prejudiced, although at the time I certainly didn't admit to myself that I was.
Thankfully, I saw how wrong that thinking was, even before I gave up on organized religion. There's no sniggering or screaming on my part, although I'm sad that you see it that way.
I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
It doesn't matter whether people are trying to "defend marriage" or "follow God's law" or whatever other reason they have - if they are denying equal rights to gay people, they're acting in a prejudiced and bigoted manner. If they don't like falling into that category, they should realize that they need to alter their behavior and beliefs to something which allows equality and respect for another group of people who simply want to have the same rights others already enjoy.
I was not very clear. I meant if I'm going to be lumped with the screaming fanatics, I wouldn't go over to the other side when those telling me to are acting so smug. I was not trying to suggest that your position necessitates such an attitude, I hope you can grant my side similar courtesy. Some of the statements in previous pages have been ill-considered to put it politely.
I can get that you ultimately did not find reason enough to oppose same sex marriage and that you broke with your church for reasons belonging to you. While my faith allows some leeway in the church leadership being mistaken, when they issue a letter stating the church's support of a ballot initiative, a rare occasion to be sure, it is generally accepted in the church than that that is also the mind of the Lord on the matter.
I pray everyday for answers to this question, but I haven't found them yet.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
BlackBlade, I understand a bit what you are going for. I am not in California, but in the hypothetical I could not support the amendment. I discused the issue with a member of my stake presidency. I was very strongly reassured that I could vote whichever way I wanted and it would not be a sin or going against the church or God. That meeting really helped me resolve a lot of my concerns.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Society must be governed and legislated for the best benefits of society. When a Church pushes leglislation onto a society, they are not doing it with what is best for all people. They do what is best for THIER people. There is no evidence that suggests giving unions the same rights as married people is harmful to society. There is no evidence that allowing gays rights destroys someone else's marriage. When the American divorce rate is 70% the issue needs to be thought out a little clearer and with more empathy than what is happening now.
To continue to treat people who cause no one any proveable harm to anyone else as second class citizens is a big, big mistake.
Why do we allow 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th marriages?
Why are those legal?
Why is there no great and public $100 million dollar shaming of divorcees?
I was raised in a house that had a divorce, and then a super cool lesbian sister. So I think I deserve to have a little weight to my words.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... While my faith allows some leeway in the church leadership being mistaken, when they issue a letter stating the church's support of a ballot initiative, a rare occasion to be sure, it is generally accepted in the church than that that is also the mind of the Lord on the matter.
I pray everyday for answers to this question, but I haven't found them yet.
I'd like to add that previously, I only addressed the issue of minorities.
When it comes to your problem, while on an intellectual level, I understand your dilemma on this issue, I don't really emotionally relate or *grok* it if that makes any sense and I suspect I never fully will. Thus I can't really comment on that.
However, I do appreciate your moderation and tone, even if we disagree as to the larger issues.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
The problem with this is that not everyone who is against gay marriage is doing so out of prejudice.
They're BEING prejudiced, which is the bottom line. They may justify it one way or another, but in the end, they're prejudiced against gay people. There are no two ways about it.
When you actively work to deny a whole group of people equal rights, and you believe that they do not deserve the same treatment as your group, you are prejudiced against that group, period.
I'm sorry if people don't like it, but that's really too damn bad. Do you think the gay people like being treated with inequality?
I think one of the best ways to fight this problem is just lay it out there. If you oppose same sex marriage - You. Are. Prejudiced.
If you don't like being called prejudiced, take a big step back and look at your thoughts and actions, and realize what you are part of!
I think any of us here would be ashamed and sickened and dismayed and pissed the hell off if we could go back in time and see what was happening during segregation. There's no reason to stand for the same BS now. It's time to wake up and see that it's the same story with a different minority group.
If you're against SSM, you need to ask yourself if you really want to look back at this in 10 or 20 years and know that you were one of the people fighting AGAINST equality and working to deny people their rights.
That's the bottom line, and I think the only reason so many good people are willing to take that stand is because they're finding ways to justify it to themselves.
I don't think most people think of themselves as a bigot. Most people don't want to be a bigot. And as long as they can tell themselves that they have a good reason to deny same sex couples their rights - and again I'm going to be blunt - by lying to themselves in many cases, with BS about defending marriage or protecting family or some other nonsense strawman, they can keep on being prejudiced and go about their lives happy with their sense of self.
Sorry, but the party's over. I'm holding up the mirror right in your face, and I'm telling you you're prejudiced. If you don't like it, don't complain to me. Change.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Going back to Jhai's post.
quote: Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order.
I have to say, I actually like this better and would rather see the marriage laws ammended. There's just something creepy to me about saying, "You're too young to enter into a binding contract, but your parents can give you away under one." Maybe 16 year olds are just old enough to sign their own contracts?
I also think legally allowing people to have sex with minors potentially much younger than themselves is bizarre. If mom and dad can decide their 16 year old can sleep with a 25 year old, shouldn't she be able to decide to sleep with an 18 year old boyfriend?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why should I change? Simply because you're holding a mirror up to me and telling me I'm ugly?
That's laughable. It might work on ABC Afterschool Specials, MC, but is oddly ineffective here.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why should I change? Simply because you're holding a mirror up to me and telling me I'm ugly?
No.
You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
In fairness, a lot of people don't view marriage as being a question of rights and responsibilities. That's secular marriage, not religious marriage.
But then, I'm still in the camp that says let's call the government contract a civil union and stop pretending that paying the court $90 is somehow going to impart a lifetime commitment between two people.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
In fairness, a lot of people don't view marriage as being a question of rights and responsibilities. That's secular marriage, not religious marriage.
But then, I'm still in the camp that says let's call the government contract a civil union and stop pretending that paying the court $90 is somehow going to impart a lifetime commitment between two people.
This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
Legal marriage in this country isn't religious. If it is, then take away my right to get married right now, because I'm just an evil atheist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
This would be why Prop 8 won: because to many people, it is about marriage, and they don't divide it into two. Both the CA and MA court opinions on the topic give them reason to think so.
In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
This isn't an argument about rights, though.
This is an argument about cultural and social acceptance.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
This isn't an argument about rights, though.
This is an argument about cultural and social acceptance.
No, it's an argument about rights.
I don't care if you accept it or not. You can hate it, talk about hating it, preach about hating it, and teach your children about hating it. And have fun doing so.
Giving homosexuals the right to be married is not in any way forcing you to accept it. It's about making the government treat every citizen equally.
You, as a private citizen, can treat people as unequally as you like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Saying that it's about rights over and over doesn't make it true, Javert.
According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, it's an argument about rights.
That's a fine attitude for an academic discussion. It's a losing one for a political movement trying to effect change.
I'll give a more mundane example: Disney America.
Disney, with it's usual deftness, acquired options on all the land it needed for Disney America and smoothed over the local and state government officials needed to get fast approval. Disney is probably better than anyone else in America at doing things like that.
The expected public outcry happened, and Disney went into stage two mode: convincing those nearby that Disney America was a Good Thing for the region. They used the standard arguments: property values would increase, new transportation would be built, property rights should be respected, etc. Disney had successfully wielded these arguments in the past, and they were winning. Generally, only those nearby opposed the plan, based on environmental and crowding concerns.
Then a history professor wrote an article about how paving over civil war battlefields to provide Disney's version of history was a travesty. The article had national effect, and overnight the argument shifted from development good/development bad to "Is Disney destroying our history."
Disney continued to wage the same campaign they had successfully waged so many times before. And they lost. They failed to understand what the battle was about.
You may honestly think this issue is about rights. But you won't win that way. To the people whose minds you need to change, this is about marriage.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You may honestly think this issue is about rights. But you won't win that way. To the people whose minds you need to change, this is about marriage.
You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds. In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place. A majority should never be allowed to vote away the rights of a minority. I don't care if that annoys the majority or not.
I still cannot wrap my mind around people caring that gay people can get married.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I still cannot wrap my mind around people caring that gay people can get married.
MC's got a mirror he can show you-- I'm not sure what good it will do.
:looks: Man. My pores are HUGE.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds.
I thought it was about getting states to recognize civil same sex marriage.
quote:In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place.
Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You seem to think this is about changing peoples' minds.
I thought it was about getting states to recognize civil same sex marriage.
quote:In this conversation, maybe. But legally, it is not what is needed.
The courts were right in the first place.
Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions.
So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Are you sure you're responding to my post? Because you seem to be responding to something else entirely.
Assuming, for the moment, that you actually meant to respond to me, and assuming that by "fine" you meant "constitutional," the answer is no.
"Constitutional" does not mean "fine," "morally correct," or "the right thing to do."
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
These guys have an interesting take on reversing Prop 8. They want the state of CA to get out of the marriage business completely and just have civil unions for everybody.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Maybe under California's constitution, but not under the federal Constitution nor under most states' constitutions."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Alter this statement, taken from Loving v Virginia, by changing "race" to "sex", and the Federal Constitution would apply.
While the courts often make decisions based upon which group of people is being discriminated against, and therefore what type of scrutiny should apply, these distinctions do not come from the text of the constitution. As such, changing from one classification to another does not change a 14th amendment argument. Loving v Virginia applies to SSM arguments. And, as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Alter this statement, taken from Loving v Virginia, by changing "race" to "sex", and the Federal Constitution would apply.
Which is fine for an Internet debate. It's not how the law actually works, though.
Moreover, you ignore entirely the question of what "marriage" actually means. No one in Loving - not the state, not those who favored anti-miscegenation laws - argued that the Lovings were not married. They argued that it was illegal for them to be married.
If the word "marriage" as used at the time of Loving included the concept of different sexes, then the court said exactly nothing about same-sex marriage.
quote:While the courts often make decisions based upon which group of people is being discriminated against, and therefore what type of scrutiny should apply, these distinctions do not come from the text of the constitution. As such, changing from one classification to another does not change a 14th amendment argument. Loving v Virginia applies to SSM arguments. And, as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
The real answer to this is too long for me to post now, but your interpretation is unworkable. The very word "discrimination" is only applicable here if it somehow incorporates a concept of "good enough" reason to distinguish between two people.
Person A is thrown in jail. Almost everyone else is not. Person A is being treated differently. If he received a trial with adequate due process, we don't say he was discriminated against, because we think there was a good enough reason for him to be treated differently.
Standards of scrutiny are simply ways of codifying repeat standards
Without strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis, the court would have to listen to a bunch of economic arguments about the specifics of each different progressive income scheme to see if the reason for the difference in rates was good enough.
There's much, much more to this than I'm able to post here - the above is meant to give the tiniest taste of why standards exist and why they are consistent with the equal protection clause.
quote:as such, under the federal constitution, this is indeed about rights.
The real point, of course, is how a gendered definition of marriage fares under the federal constitution we actually live under, not the one you wished we lived under.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The real answer to this is too long for me to post now, but your interpretation is facile and unworkable. The very word "discrimination" is only applicable here if it somehow incorporates a concept of "good enough" reason to distinguish between two people. "
It does. My point is that different types of people don't get different standards of "good enough." At least not from the constitution. The idea that different groups of people have different standards of "good enough," that has to apply comes from courts, as you say, trying to make things easier for themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point is that different types of people don't get different standards of "good enough." At least not from the constitution. The idea that different groups of people have different standards of "good enough,"
And my point is that categorizing standards of scrutiny as giving different amounts of "good enough" to different groups glosses over what's actually happening.
The constitution doesn't give us any standard of scrutiny. The text doesn't support your position any more than it supports an "intermediate scrutiny for everyone" standard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I'm glad to hear someone finally admit that the desire to toss gay couples a bone with "civil unions" stems from a belief that their relationships aren't "good enough."
(Yes, Dag, I know that's not literally the way in which you're using the phrase.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since no one but me (and Paul*) seems to have used the phrase "good enough," Tom, I have to ask:
What the hell are you talking about?
* Added for Paul.
[ November 06, 2008, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(Yes, Dag, I know that's not literally the way in which you're using the phrase.)
That doesn't make lying about my position at all acceptable, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* Dag, pull out the stick for a second. It's quite painless, I promise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This isn't about religious marriage. It never has been.
This would be why Prop 8 won: because to many people, it is about marriage, and they don't divide it into two. Both the CA and MA court opinions on the topic give them reason to think so.
In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
I may point out that the Canadian politicians at the time of our same-sex marriage debate put quite a bit of effort and placed significant emphasis on noting that churches would be protected from marrying same-sex couples. Just thought I'd toss that in as part of an approach that worked.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And my point is that categorizing standards of scrutiny as giving different amounts of "good enough" to different groups glosses over what's actually happening"
So what is ACTUALLY happening, as applies to marriage, that is glossed over in my description?
"The constitution doesn't give us any standard of scrutiny. "
You're right. It gives us an absolute. We can't give different people different protection under the laws, for any reason, whatsoever, no matter what the state's interest, or the court's interest, in discriminating against some people or groups of people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *sigh* Dag, pull out the stick for a second. It's quite painless, I promise.
The age-old recourse of the bully - "I was just teasing! Don't you have a sense of humor?"
Adding a wink doesn't make your post harmless. It also doesn't make it funny.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Since no one but me seems to have used the phrase "good enough," "
Apparently, you are debating with no one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're right. It gives us an absolute. We can't give different people different protection under the laws, for any reason, whatsoever, no matter what the state's interest, or the court's interest, in discriminating against some people or groups of people.
Right. Now, if you could define "equal protection" without a reference to the "good enough" concept, your point might be valid. Since you can't, there's clearly an element of "good enough" in there somewhere.
I pay a different amount of taxes than you. We're treated differently. Why isn't that a violation of equal protection? Because the reason for the difference is "good enough."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Since no one but me seems to have used the phrase "good enough," "
Apparently, you are debating with no one.
You quoted my use of "good enough." Do you think Tom was adequately summarizing your view on the matter?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Right. Now, if you could define "equal protection" without a reference to the "good enough" concept, your point might be valid. Since you can't, there's clearly an element of "good enough" in there somewhere."
Actually, the "good enough," concept comes in when you try to ask for exceptions to "equal protection," rather then when you try to define it.
"your point might be valid"
You completely missed my point, so I'm not sure that you can comment on its validity or lack thereof.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, the "good enough," concept comes in when you try to ask for exceptions to "equal protection," rather then when you try to define it.
No, the good enough concept is inherent to defining what equal protection is. It's a given that government will treat different people differently and that sometimes this is constitutional and sometimes not.
Therefore, we must determine when treating person A differently than person B is constitutional. In legal terms, we must have a standard for evaluating situations in which one person is treated differently than others.
That standard is inherent in the definition of the constitutional violation.
quote:You completely missed my point, so I'm not sure that you can comment on its validity or lack thereof.
No, I didn't miss your point. I disagreed with your point. I provided numerous examples, which you've ignored.
Either government must treat all people exactly the same or there must be a standard for determining when treating someone differently violates equal protection. There's no way around that simple fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Adding a wink doesn't make your post harmless. It also doesn't make it funny.
It's funny on its own. Nothing I can do, sadly, is proof against your decision to be harmed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Adding a wink doesn't make your post harmless. It also doesn't make it funny.
It's funny on its own. Nothing I can do, sadly, is proof against your decision to be harmed.
No, it's not funny. It's actually pretty stupid. "Two people who agree with me on the issue here used the words 'good enough.' I'll say that this is actually an admission by those who disagree with me. Yuk Yuk Yuk!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. If that's what you think the joke is, it probably does look pretty stupid. I'll let you find the joke on your own, then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, that's much better than actually explaining it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, it is. Because as it stands, it is funny. Explaining a joke sucks the funny out. Right now, it's only not funny to the people who don't understand it; explaining it makes it unfunny to everyone. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then PM me with your explanation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I have figured it out. You will indeed lose something and I have figured out what it is. If SSM becomes legal, you will lose the state's endorsement of your disapproval of people who, without causing demonstrable harm, choose to live differently than you.
I would not, for a moment, regret that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thats pretty foreseeable though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Nobody is taking away anyone's right to marry. All adults in California are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
The question is: do you have the right to marry whoever you want, and still legally call it a "marriage"? Thus, a better anology would be a state that forbid marriage between people of different religions, or forbid marriage between different races.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I have figured it out. You will indeed lose something and I have figured out what it is. If SSM becomes legal, you will lose the state's endorsement of your disapproval of people who, without causing demonstrable harm, choose to live differently than you.
I would not, for a moment, regret that.
While I appreciate your attempts at understanding my perspective, I can't say that you have come even remotely close. But thank you for trying. And, intentional or not, your incorrect summary of what I believe I will lose came off as quite arrogant.
I still don't think you've answered my question. You said God was loving and just (which I concede), you said that no argument has been presented to you that would change your opinion (which I think is self-evident), but neither of these answers the question of whether you believe you (not God) could be wrong (in an objective sense, relating to the long-term effects on society). I don't expect you to believe you're wrong; but if you can't conceive of the possibility you might be wrong (either through misinterpreting God's will or through mispredicting the long-term good to society), then I think you're deluding yourself into unjustifiable moral certitude.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:So you would be fine if a given state decided to vote away, say, Catholics' right to get married? Or atheists? Or crossdressers?
Nobody is taking away anyone's right to marry. All adults in California are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
No one is taking away Catholics' right to marry. All adult Catholics are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of a different religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Some interesting reaction (and introspection) on the black vote on prop 8:
Reaction (Dan Savage):
quote: Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.
I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.
I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.
This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.
quote: Is this going to be our legacy as a people? Will African Americans prove to be little more than a selfish, regressive, identity group who snatch a symbolic victory for themselves while simultaneously denying full democratic equality to others? If so, then we are no better that the HRC supporters who now wave Sarah Palin banners because they are determined to have a uterus in the White House.
I respect the right of religious communities to restrict marriage in their own faith traditions. Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish communities for example have a variety of restrictions about the kinds of wedding ceremonies they will perform. This is entirely appropriate and consistent with our tradition of freedom of religious practice. No religious body should be forced by the state to perform rituals of any kind in their houses of worship. Allowing gay men and lesbians to marry , does *not* mean that preachers will be forced to perform ceremonies if they have theological disagreements. It is equally true that no religious community should enforce upon the state its definitions of marriage.
Are black people going to be the electoral force that allows us to celebrate the shotgun marriages of pregnant teenagers whose parents are seeking political office while denigrating the loving bonds of consenting and committed adults? I hope not.
...
I am disgusted by the idea that we will mark the anniversary of our own equality with a bigoted vote in California.
I'm pretty disappointed by the split in the Asian vote which was exactly the same as the White vote at 51% against. I'm heartened by the fact that the non-religious voted 90% against. I don't understand their breakdown by "Vote by Religion Among Whites" since non-whites seem to be lumped together regardless of religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude. You are denying people rights based on your unjustifiable moral certitude. You are insisting that your unjusitfiable moral certitude become law that is imposed on people who don't share it.
And your unjusitfiable moral certitude is based on nothing other than "we say so."
My attempt at understanding your perspective is based on the propoganda put forward on your behalf.
- Society will condone homosexuality.
- Our children will be taught that homosexuality is okay. Look at this book that shows a family with two fathers.
- People will think that SSM are normal.
And so forth. Did you have other arguments?
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QUOTE]The "right" to heterosexual marriage comes from the combination of two things, IMO-- biology, and the cultural desire to protect progeny and property. Marriage in many cultures throughout history has been upheld by various governmental forms to accomplish this; and until recently, those particular elements have only been available to heterosexual couples.
There's a tremendous cultural weight behind the idea that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. Even in Greece, despite their misogyny and predilection for homosexuality, men didn't marry other men.
This is to point to the idea that civil marriage is not only religious; there are cultural elements to our concept of marriage that deny the ability of homosexuals to participate, according to our feeling of what marriage actually is.
Your examples are interesting, but ancient. Modern perceptions and psycological constructs such as gender, sexual orientation, etc, are much more developed. I'm not just saying we're smarter or something - what I mean is that we do not simply feel those things; we also analyse them, define them. We think about these things more, we have more leisure time, more time for education, more expectation that we should understand ourselves and modern psycology as an industry has taken all of this to a level never seen in history. We understand a lot more about our own biology and how it affects us. We live longer. We have children because we want to have them, not because we need them to work with us in labour-intensive industries or care for us when we are old.
Further, that the original origins of marriage were based on procreation and property is not surprising, but these origins are not religious. They better reflect the survival instinct and the biological imperative.
Consider also what those origins bring with them. The idea of marriage as a contract between families, with children being seen as a means to status, alliances or property. Where procreation is the basis of marriage, a woman could be rejected by her husband (and her society) if she was barren. Marriage was a reflection of the importance placed on procreation and property, but this was not necessarily a good thing. The early suffragettes didn't reject marriage in the way that feminism sometimes has - they sought equality for women on the basis that this would improve the institution of marriage. They argued that if a woman was independent she would marry out of true affection rather than out of fear or necessity. They really saw the potential for marriage to be a coming together of equals and stronger for it.
We've questioned a lot about marriage as it has been manifest through the ages, and we've changed what marriage means. Saying that modern marriage has stayed true to its ancient origins because it is between opposite sexes, is like saying a Will is the same as a birthday card, because they're both made of paper. The intentions behind marriage, the way it is contracted, the relationship between spouses, what marriage signifies in the law, and the way it can be ended have all changed significantly over time.
The modern interpretation of straight marriage has more in common, I think, with modern same-sex marriage than it does with ancient straight marriage. And to say that same-sex marriage doesn't have those same two basic origins at its root may not be accurate anyway. If a gay couple marry with the intention of ensuring their financial security (inheritance, etc) or creating a more secure environment in which they can raise children (and plenty of them do)then they fit the criteria.
Also, these days more hetero couples choose not to have children. Marriage is not about procreation for them and no-one can force them to have a 'traditional' marriage - yet they are allowed to marry. So can a couple who choose to share no property, if they want to.
That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
Even where religious meaning has been assigned to them, we do not limit the practice of marriage to religion contexts. Those meanings may have relevance to whether or not people can marry within a religion, but should never have been extended to civil marriage. After all, that's why civil marriage exists.
quote: Proposition 8, as I understand it, legislates the traditional view of marriage. It does not, however remove any of the rights granted to Californians already involved in civil unions/domestic partnerships-- which, from the state's view, have equivalent rights to marriages. Nor does it restrict other Californians from engaging in civil unions/domestic partnerships.
Civil unions filled a shortfall in the law. I understand what you're saying, but in the end it would have been better (IMO) to change the civil marriage laws rather than tack on a new category.
[ November 06, 2008, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: chosha ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No one is taking away Catholics' right to marry. All adult Catholics are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of a different religion.
Yes, that is a much better anology.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:No one is taking away Catholics' right to marry. All adult Catholics are still free to marry, as long as it is someone of a different religion.
Yes, that is a much better anology.
I was going to use African-Americans. But then the only response would be protestations of not being racist, which misses the point.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude.
My point is I have no moral certitude. I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In the spirit of the Republican retrospection thread, maybe those who support civil same sex marriage will examine the rhetoric that led to this loss. "Whether they like it or not" would be a good place to start.
I've already done this retrospection, and I'm convinced that the campaign was won with deception. You can only say "nuh-uh" so many times with only so much effect.
People are naturally scared of the other and there's not really any greater other in our culture than the homosexual. An ad campaign targeted at that inclination is going to be extremely difficult to respond to effectively.
The only reason that this tactic didn't work for Republicans is that that the "otherness" that they tried to tie to Obama just wasn't scary to the people they needed to convince. He's got a funny name? He hung out with a guy that did some bad stuff a long time ago? His preacher said some scary stuff? His progressive tax plan is more progressive than your progressive tax plan? So what?
Additionally, Obama brought something positive to the table. There are arguments for ways that he would improve *my* situation. What's the upside for SSM? Increased civil liberties? Less discrimination? For *other* people? Meh.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm perfectly capable of accepting being wrong.
Just show me how allowing gay marriage will harm anyone, and I'll gladly reevaluate my position.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
That those origins are not particularly religious has been part of my point for some time now. I'm not sure why you decided to point this out; did you think someone was making a religious argument against SSM?
Those who have mentioned religion in this thread have done so in the context of the idea that it's acceptable for religious institutions and individuals to push for legislation based on their religious reasoning.
That is NOT the same as arguing against SSM specifically using religious strictures.
Do you see the difference?
quote:ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway
That ancient origins of marriage are not binding is true; that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not. Obviously, a great many people feel that marriage does preclude same sex couples.
As demonstrated, at least in California.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There's an objective difference between my unjustifiable moral certitude and your unjustifiable moral certitude.
My point is I have no moral certitude. I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
And yet you are willing to insist that other people are required by law to abide by your position.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I've never seen any one argue well against SSM without specifically using religious strictures. I'd sure love to - can you give us an argument, Scott?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Saying that it's about rights over and over doesn't make it true, Javert.
According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
I think part of the disagreement here results from a difference in definitions. I use a slightly stronger definition of equality than you do (stronger as in everything that is equal under my definition is also equal under yours but not vice versa). I use "equal" to mean "identical" whereas you seem to be using it to mean "equivalent" (this should sound familiar if you know computer science). In the case of civil union vs. marriage, a civil union is equivalent but not identical to a marriage. In other words, we would say that a civil union is equivalent to a marriage but we wouldn't say that a civil union is a marriage. Under the stronger definition of equality, a person who has access to civil unions does not have the same civil rights as a person who has access to marriage. In general, I think we should strive for the stronger definition of equality.
EDIT: This doesn't necessarily mean we need to provide legal marriage to same sex couples. As has already been pointed out, we can eliminate legal marriage altogether and leave marriage to religious institutions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
More evidence that what people would be "losing" is the state's endorsement of their disapproval of people who don't choose to live like they do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People are naturally scared of the other and there's not really any greater other in our culture than the homosexual. ...
Not to detract from your main point, but I find this slightly unconvincing.
If you look at the 2007 gallup polls, the number of people prejudiced against homosexuals is 45%. Atheists are actually worse off at 55%.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you look at the 2007 gallup polls, the number of people prejudiced against homosexuals is 45%. Atheists are actually worse off at 55%.
That was a very constrained context. The question was "Would you vote for them for president?". I think it's a lot either to justify to ones-self constraining the civil liberties of gays than of atheists.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Watch the "Home Invasion" video on youtube. I don't think any reasonable person can say that video is not being deliberately dishonest in it's portrayal.
That video was an analogy, an artistic representation of the Church's intrusion in a civil matter, and disregard for the impact on the personal lives of same-sex couples (including those already legally wed). The missionaries are symbolic of the Church (as most people immediately associate them with the LDS church). The rifling through drawers, etc, represents intrusion of the Church into people's personal lives, the taking of the rings and ripping of the marriage contract represent the taking away of an existing right to marry.
The message of the video was not misleading - the LDS church DID get VERY involved in Proposition 8, and its members in CA were instructed to donate both time and money to this cause, and many did just that.
Imagine if a coalition of non-LDS churches tried to pass a law that, say, all weddings must take place in venues open to the public because marriage is a societal contract and should be publically witnessed. Just stop and imagine that for a moment, if temple marriage was just taken away and couldn't happen unless the temple was open to any spectator who might want to wander in. Wouldn't you feel like your personal life had been violated (regardless of the fact that they never actually entered your home)? Wouldn't it seem just like they wanted to take your rings and marriage certificate, because in reality they were trying to take away the things they represented?
quote:I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
You missed a bit of your own quote: "letting others do as they will". Elder Maxwell's advice is about living the gospel in spite of scorn, in spite of your views being deemed old-fashioned. It is not about legislating morality so that all must live as you see fit. You live according to the dictates of your own conscience, AND SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE.
quote:I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained. Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
Your right to believe as you choose should never be disdained. But the beliefs themselves? Of course they can be disdained. Beliefs don't warrant the same protection as people. Unless of course you live in California today and believe marriage should only occur between one man and one woman, because there people have actually succeeded, sadly, at legislating their religious beliefs so fully that they have taken away the right of others to act according to the dictates of their own conscience.
And it's a tangent I know, but to be honest I find the fact that the Church is supporting that definition hilarious, because the doctrine of the Church supports men being married to more than one woman in the eternities. In fact, in temple marriage terms, a man can be sealed to two or more women in this life. I have a friend in that very situation. He received a civil divorce from his first wife, but never got a temple divorce because he didn't want to erase the sealing between him and his kids. Then he married again, in the temple. He's sealed to both women and they're both alive. The Church is supporting a civil definition that contradicts its doctrine and policies.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What an evil thing... can't wait for the courts to tear it down...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MattP: Its also a lot easier to constrain the civil liberties of gays, given that: a) atheists can pass as religious and still marry b) your laws were founded on ideals of religious tolerance among many different, but Christian, faiths. These days with many other faiths, its difficult to now change the laws to single-out only atheists
That said, if you have a poll comparing the two that you believe is better at capturing prejudice, then I'd be very interested.
Edit to add: Different poll, different question
quote: The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
"Imagine if a coalition of non-LDS churches tried to pass a law that, say, all weddings must take place in venues open to the public because marriage is a societal contract and should be publically witnessed."
There are plenty of countries where you HAVE to get married by the government in public. The church honors that and then performs a sealing in the temple.
Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it? Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
And yet you are willing to insist that other people are required by law to abide by your position.
I am certainly willing to vote my conscience and allow democracy to work, despite my lack of absolute certainty, if that's what you mean. Should only people convinced of their own infallibility be allowed to vote? Or is it just in this special case?
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: [QB] The LDS Church explicitly condemns hatred of persons with a homosexual orientation or practicing homosexuals...
Hatred is not the issue here. You don't have to hate someone to take away their rights. I think it's fair to say that the majority of gays/lesbians couldn't give a rat's patootey what the LDS Church feels towards them - they just want the Church to stay out of their private lives and away from their civil rights.
quote: Moreover, in practice, the LDS Church has only begun to grapple with these issues because gays were largely invisible in Utah until a few years ago, at least as compared to San Francisco.
Gays are sparse anywhere compared to SF. (Though actually I do live just three hours from the largest gay community in the world outside of SF.) The Church started dealing publically with these issues recently because people started to get more vocal about the number of gay LDS who commit suicide. Bishops have been tackling these issues for a long, long time. Not well, but for a long time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want?
Why don't non-gays do this? I'd accept that as a viable solution.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd be fine with that. It works in Britain.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yes. If someone proposes a solution in which homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages, I will support that in a heartbeat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And your conscience determined you vote this way...why?
You are the one who has trouble with "certitude". My position is that, no matter what our "certitude" happens to be, we don't force other people to live by our particular religious rules unless we can show demonstrable harm if they don't.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it?
I'm sure there are gays who want recognition in churches too but that's not what being fought for right now and it's not a fight that I see them winning the courts. Right now the fight is for legalizing gay marriage.
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
Your use of "force" seems completely vacuous. Legalizing gay marriage does not force you to change your beliefs or the way you live your life.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity.
So you see no problems with that? How reassuring. Do you actually not see the arrogance there?
This is not just about the rights you are so generously willing to see granted. This is also about the right to use the word 'marriage'. Marriage is an "institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple". It's like the water fountain argument someone made earlier. It's not relevant if the water is the same, or if the fountain is the same size or in the same locations. It is in the implied need for a separate water fountain that the denial of a person's humanity begins.
What is it about homosexuals that prompts you to keep the word marriage from them? Why it is important that their unions not wear the same label as yours? Why can't they drink at your water fountain?
Many religions have a building they refer to as a temple. The LDS church doesn't lay claim to the word, even though the temple is its most sacred location. In Hindu temples, people worship a plethora of heathen gods. I've been to several Buddhist temples in Japan and the level of commerce in those places contrasts sharply with the purpose and environment of an LDS temple. I'm sure that not a single 'temple' worldwide exactly mirrors the LDS temple. But so what? LDS temple patrons lose nothing as a result of these alternative definitions of the word. Those other worshippers, however, gain something by using it for themselves. The word has not only meaning to them individually, but also is understood in society to convey a certain level of respect and sacredness, even from those who think their beliefs are strange or abhorrent.
You can't just say that you are comfortable with granting the rights you choose to grant and withhold one that makes you squeamish. That's the nature of equality and rights - what you are 'comfortable with' isn't relevant, because your comfort isn't the goal.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the one who has trouble with "certitude"
I am. I agree. I think a belief in one's own moral infallibility is likely to do greater harm to society than redefining marriage to include homosexual unions ever could.
Of course, I could be wrong about that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When did my assurance in a just and loving God and my belief that I have as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right about God's will regarding SSM as you do become a claim of moral infallibility?
You are twisting things. I am not sure if it is intentional or not.
Again, you have not put forth any justification (religious or secular) for denying the rights of people and you have denied the one I suggested.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
That those origins are not particularly religious has been part of my point for some time now. I'm not sure why you decided to point this out; did you think someone was making a religious argument against SSM?
Those who have mentioned religion in this thread have done so in the context of the idea that it's acceptable for religious institutions and individuals to push for legislation based on their religious reasoning.
That is NOT the same as arguing against SSM specifically using religious strictures.
Do you see the difference?
quote:ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway
That ancient origins of marriage are not binding is true; that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not. Obviously, a great many people feel that marriage does preclude same sex couples.
As demonstrated, at least in California.
Given that a coalition of churches has fought the longest and hardest for Proposition 8 to pass, you surely had to know that misdirection wasn't going to work there?
"that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not"
That wasn't what I said, and I did explain my point fairly thoroughly. The origins of marriage as a way to secure property and procreate do not preclude same-sex couples. The property aspects are obvious (legal rights to inherit, etc, are equally relevant to all married couples/families) and in the modern context the simplistic marry-to-procreate paradigm has fallen away to a myriad of valid options for having and/or raising children, most of which are open to same-sex couples.
Posted by chosha (Member # 10923) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it? Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
The fundamental underlying principle of rights is that a majority cannot take them from a minority. The democratic decision of the majority prevails, except where rights exist to the contrary. Rights are inalienable. Where a right exists, what Society wants is irrelevant. And it is never selfish to demand equal rights.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When did my assurance in a just and loving God and my belief that I have as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right about God's will regarding SSM as you do become a claim of moral infallibility?
The issue of moral infallibility came when you asserted you could not conceive of being wrong. When pressed, you asserted a certitude in God; but I then pointed out that what is required is not a certitude in God, but in our own interepretation of God's will. You then said you have heard no argument that <edit> caused you to doubt that you were right</edit>, so I pointed out that I don't expect you to find the possibility likely, just that the possibility exists. And then we went around again and again.
If however, your statement that you have "as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right" doesn't translate to "I am certain I am right" then I have no problem.
Is that what you believe? Is it possible that you are wrong in your interpretation of what a just and loving God's will is in this particular instance? Not that you find the likelihood great, or large enough to sway your opinion, but simply that a probability exists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If God is entirely different than I know God to be then I could very well be wrong about God's will on SSM. In which case I would no longer care what God's will is on SSM because it would be just as likely that God did not exist*.
So what is your reason for believing that you know God's will on this?
*ETA: Or that the right action would be to oppose God's will. Again, assuming that everything I know of God to be wrong.
[ November 06, 2008, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If God is entirely different than I know God to be then I could very well be wrong about God's will on SSM. In which case I would no longer care what God's will is on SSM because it would be just as likely that God did not exist.
To me, this reads that you are willing to admit a lack of certitude in God before you are willing to admit a lack of certitude in your own moral judgment. Would you say that is true?
I am certain of God's love and justice. I am uncertain of my accurate interpretation of it. <edit>Being uncertain does not indicate I would be easily swayed; it simply indicates that I recognize that my powers of discernment are limited in scope, and so no matter how hard I try I will never be able to absolutely know what is right and wrong</edit>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am certain of God's love and justice. I am uncertain of my accurate interpretation of it.
What, beyond your own uncertain interpretations of things you have experienced, makes you certain of God's love and justice?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yet (again) you will impose your interpretation of it on other people by force of law.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
Make a new ammendment to make SSM legal.
In the ammendment put in writing the assurance that churches have the absolute right to choose weather or not to perform SSM without threat of legal actions and if they do choose to do it they have the right to set the terms.
Also in this ammendment give parents the right to opt out their children from SSM related teachings. If you want to be fair give them the option of opt out of non-SSM teaching also.
This would calm the fears of much of the opposition and give you the needed 4% of votes plus some.
If you want more votes then an optional part of the ammendment could make all Civil conducted unions "Civel Unions" and Religious Unions can be what ever the religion wants to call it. As I said this one is optional.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The problem is that too many people are prejudiced against gay people, but they want to keep it socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gay people.
You can't get along in society today saying, "I wish they'd get that negro teacher fired. I don't want my kids learning from a colored man." Your friends would stop inviting you to parties.
Fortunately for a lot of people, they can still get away with saying, "If that teacher turns out to be a Lesbian, we're taking our kid out of her class!"
As long as same sex marriage is illegal, there's social basis for being bigoted towards gays. The more equality they get, the less acceptable it is for bigots to keep treating them like lesser people.
Pathetic and disgusting.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Your right... no one has said they would and they already have the right. So there should be no problem in giving that assurance in writing, in order to sooth the fears of the ignorent.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Perhaps I can clarify why I'm going on about moral certitude.
If you are absolutely certain of the truth of some assertion, then no argument, no evidence will be able to dissuade you from your opinion. If this is the case, I don't understand how we can have a meaningful dialogue. I could give multiple evidences, but they will be meaningless in altering your opinion, because you are already certain that you are right.
Indeed, my certitude about God is why I think engaging in a dialogue with Tom about it would be counterproductive. I can state my certainty and there's nothing Tom can present that will make me question it.
In the case of a debate over the existence of God, that certitude leads to a frustrating situation. In the case of a debate over a matter of public policy, it disallows the possibility of civil dialogue, which is fundamental to successful democracy.
---
To your point Tom: it's thought provoking. Perhaps I exist in a quantum state, mixed between "I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of my own existence" and "I axiomatically accept that God exists." But honestly, I don't think that engaging in an epistimological discussion about my certitude in God will be enlightening to either of us.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm confused. Why would your certitude about God enter into a debate about public policy in a secular nation at all?
If you can't bring arguments to the table that are not based, in the end, on "God told me so", then your arguments aren't valid in a society where we disagree about the existence and/or nature of God or Gods.
[ November 07, 2008, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But honestly, I don't think that engaging in an epistimological discussion about my certitude in God will be enlightening to either of us.
Why not? I'd be quite interested in hearing the sensory mechanisms by which you have become certain of God's existence.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I have a question.
If illegal aliens in this country can get married, why can't two men?
This is going to be my new test phrase. When ever I see "Gay" or "Homosexual" or "SSM" I am going to replace it with Illegal Aliens.
Lets try it:
quote:Make a new amendment to make illegal alien marriages legal.
In the amendment put in writing the assurance that churches have the absolute right to choose weather or not to perform Illegal Alien marriages without threat of legal actions and if they do choose to do it they have the right to set the terms.
Also in this amendment give parents the right to opt out their children from illegal alien related teachings. If you want to be fair give them the option of opt out of non-illegal alien teaching also.
In this way our kids may grow up and never realize that Illegal Aliens are people too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm confused. Why would your certitude about God enter into a debate about public policy in a secular nation at all?
It wouldn't. That was my point. My certitude about God does not lead to a moral certitude about what is right and wrong. Public policy debate is about what is right and wrong. As such, moral certitude (as opposed to certitude about God's existance, which may lead to a frustrating discussion with, say, a convinced atheist) is deadening to civic dialogue. Without civic dialogue, democracy suffers.
This doesn't mean that my religious beliefs don't influence my public policy stances. Indeed, I think it's essential that anyone with any belief that they have any information at all that might be useful to determining the rightness or wrongness of a proposition uses that information in determining how to vote. The problem I have is that if someone assumes the answer to the proposition axiomatically (i.e. with certitude) it defeats precisely that process.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The fundamental underlying principle of rights is that a majority cannot take them from a minority. The democratic decision of the majority prevails, except where rights exist to the contrary. Rights are inalienable. Where a right exists, what Society wants is irrelevant. And it is never selfish to demand equal rights.
Nonsense-- our definition of rights is formulated largely from the culture in which we live. What society wants obviously plays a role.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Nonsense-- our definition of rights is formulated largely from the culture in which we live. What society wants obviously plays a role."
Sure. But realize that when you say "This legal right/privelege applies to my group, which happens to be the majority, but not your group, which happens to be the minority," you're basically playing "king of the castle." Eventually, you're going to get thrown off the top of the hill, and then there's more likely to be vengeance. Playing this type of game isn't good for anyone involved over the long run.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Eventually, you're going to get thrown off the top of the hill, and then there's more likely to be vengeance.
In the context of the various civil rights movements in the United Stated, please validate this opinion.
EDIT: Actually, just tell me what you mean by "vengeance."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... If illegal aliens in this country can get married, why can't two men?
As a practical matter, can they actually? I mean, in a religious ceremony yes. But it seems dangerous to file a marriage with the government indicating that you're married if you're not actually a citizen. Wouldn't they catch you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Paul, I don't think that vengeance is the "reward" for people who indulge in this kind of backwards thinking. I think they will just become irrelevant.
SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
Sure. That's what society does.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just randomly, Scott? Just because (for now) you can? I hadn't thought it was just to be cruel.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
1) Random:
No, of course not. Can you explain why you brought up this point?
2) Just because (for now) you can?
This conversation has been going on for long enough on this board that you should know that at the very least, opponents of SSM don't use POWER as a reason for their voting habits.
Are you asserting that they are motivated by something other than what has been explained?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
She brought up random because you haven't brought up any secular reason why you would wish to deny equal rights to homosexual couples.
I know I'm still waiting (to hear one).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Americans denying equal rights to homosexual couples means better business for the wedding industry business in Canada.
Thats one good secular reason.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Your right... no one has said they would and they already have the right. So there should be no problem in giving that assurance in writing, in order to sooth the fears of the ignorent.
quote:Marriage - certain aspects of capacity 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials 3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs 3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable 4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: 1) Random:
No, of course not. Can you explain why you brought up this point?
2) Just because (for now) you can?
This conversation has been going on for long enough on this board that you should know that at the very least, opponents of SSM don't use POWER as a reason for their voting habits.
Are you asserting that they are motivated by something other than what has been explained?
Hey, "that's what society does" was your answer. You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours. SenojRetep denied that was his reason. I was asking him what his reason was, as yet he hasn't given any.
Honestly, nothing I have read in this thread or in any other has lead me to any conclusion other than that opponents of SSM either think that everyone should be like them or "our leaders said so". To me, that comes pretty close to it being about power.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:She brought up random because you haven't brought up any secular reason why you would wish to deny equal rights to homosexual couples.
That doesn't make sense in the context of the ongoing discussion. Can you explain?
quote:I know I'm still waiting (to hear one).
What significant rights do same-sex couples in Califonia lack?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The right to be married.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fred Phelps: Because homos are icky.
Well, you can't argue with that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours.
Did I do this specifically, Kate? Where?
I honestly don't remember. In any case, generally, yes-- I agree that social disapproval of a behavior is certainly legitimate reason to enact a law.
In America, we have a judicial system specifically formulated to make sure that the tyranny of the majority doesn't deprive the minority of their Constitutional rights. I support the judiciary in this; I *did* mention, after all, that the CA court was acting within its responsibilities when it struck down prop 22.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours.
Did I do this specifically, Kate? Where?
I honestly don't remember. In any case, generally, yes-- I agree that social disapproval of a behavior is certainly legitimate reason to enact a law.
Here is where (bolding mine):
quote: Originally posted by Scott R:
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion, based on what I said.
EDIT: Specifically, I have a problem with this element of your conclusion:
quote:state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I know I'm still waiting (to hear one).
What significant rights do same-sex couples in Califonia lack?
They don't have rights to the same institution as heterosexual couples (see my post at the top of the page). I could list some reasons for why I think that's significant if you like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Social approval is not a right.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Social approval is not a right.
Is anyone asking for social approval?
Government approval isn't social approval.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:She brought up random because you haven't brought up any secular reason why you would wish to deny equal rights to homosexual couples.
That doesn't make sense in the context of the ongoing discussion. Can you explain?
quote:I know I'm still waiting (to hear one).
What significant rights do same-sex couples in Califonia lack?
We're discussing same-sex marriage. We're discussing reasons why people do and do not want it. No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Same-sex couples in California cannot be married. I'd say that's a significant right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I don't understand how you are confused by this.
Getting the government to pass a law so that SSM are not considered marriage - so they are not socially and culturally accepted - how is that anything but having your disapproval endorsed by the state?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Nor, I repeat, a good religious one. Not that a good religious one would be sufficient to change the law. Just pointing it out.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Nor, I repeat, a good religious one. Not that a good religious one would be sufficient to change the law. Just pointing it out.
There is no religious one that is sufficient to change any law, actually, unless it's regarding the protection of religious freedoms.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jhai, that's what she said.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There is no religious one that is sufficient to change any law, actually, unless it's regarding the protection of religious freedoms.
This is false. If the majority think something is wrong based on a religious reason, it is entirely reasonable for them to pass a law banning it, as long as it doesn't violate any rights (including our right to practice their own religion).
We are a nation that guarantees religious freedom, but we aren't an atheist nation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So if, say, conservative Catholics were in the majority it would be reasonable for us to outlaw divorce or birth control? Chocolate during Lent?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Getting the government to pass a law so that SSM are not considered marriage - so they are not socially and culturally accepted - how is that anything but having your disapproval endorsed by the state?
There's a big difference between this and what you posted initially. The phrase (that you used in the initial accusation) "lifestyles that are different than yours" strikes me as dishonest. In the future, why not just be specific?
1) I believe that a culture has the right to determine what laws, according to its shared beliefs, are enacted.
2) I believe that democracy is (generally) the best means to enable the will of the people.
3) I believe that minorities who do not adhere to the general culture of the majority should be protected, within reason.
4) I believe that same sex marriage is so widely different to what the standard for marriage has been for the past couple centuries, that it is currently not possible for the culture to reasonably accept this minority view. (See #3)
5) I believe that governments, especially in California, New Jersey, and other places, has acted within their powers in protecting this minority viewpoint through domestic partnerships.
6) I believe that control over the definition of a word ultimately rests in the hands of the wider culture, and in a Democracy, as pertains to the government, the directly elected representatives of that culture.
7) I believe that the current brouhaha in CA involves not rights, but the definition of marriage.
8) Secularly, I support the "traditional" view of marriage because I support gender roles in general. I think dual-gendered parents are (all other things being equal) better at passing along gender roles than same sex parents, for obvious reasons.
8) I support gender-roles in general because there are significant differences between women and men, and I think that acknowledging the positive aspects of these gender roles and working to soften the negative aspects of gender roles is important in helping children become a part of civilization.
(Please note all the use of the phrase "in general.")
I think I discussed this at the beginning of this thread; it's okay if you don't agree.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, you may believe you have good reasons for your disapproval. That doesn't change what I wrote.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, I'm probably not going to get back to this thread for the rest of the day, or the weekend.
Don't wait up. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Jhai, that's what she said.
From the context, I believe she said that she'd never heard one, not that one could never exist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't very clear. Dkw is right, though. Even if there were a good but purely religious reason for denying someone human rights, it would not be sufficient reason for denying those rights.
Also, I have yet to see one.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Ah. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
Are you trying to goad me? That seems a little juvenile.
Can you conceive that you could be wrong? If not, I will not be able to participate in a dialogue with you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So if, say, conservative Catholics were in the majority it would be reasonable for us to outlaw divorce or birth control? Chocolate during Lent?
Yes to the first two. Lent is a specific religious celebration, so outlawing chocolate just during Lent should probably be considered forcing people to participate in a Christian event.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Will you participate in a dialogue with those of us who have said that we could be convinced we were wrong, with a good enough argument?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
If someone actually has a "right" to something, then you probably shouldn't be denying it no matter how good of an argument you have.
But I don't think it has been proven that people have a "right" to marry whomever they want. Human rights are a special class of things that the majority is not allowed to vote away, but it is also a very limited class of things. You don't have a right to everything. For instance, although some people think they do, people do not have a right to buy gas for less than $3. And, although people sometimes think they do, people don't have a right to get an "A" in any college class that they do the homework for. The concept of basic human right is limited to things like the right to life, the right to liberty, etc.
So, the question then is, should we consider the right to marry whomever we want to be among those basic rights? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
Suppose for a moment that someone presented convincing evidence that continuing to allow interracial marriage is harmful to society as a whole. Suppose further that this evidence is corroborated in many independent unbiased studies, and as a result I am utterly convinced of its veracity. Should I then, in this scenario, support a ban on interracial marriage?
So Peter, why insist that Kate admit to the possibility of being wrong on an entirely irrelevant topic? I am willing to concede the possibility that I am wrong about the harmlessness of SSM. Would you present your reasons to me instead?
And Kate, I must admit, I am confused at your refusal to allow any possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. I understand unconditionally asserting that it is a right and must be protected (and so I assert), but making unequivocal statements about the consequences to society seems to me to be arrogance at best. I would have expected a little more humility from you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The concept of basic human right is limited to things like the right to life, the right to liberty, etc.
So, the question then is, should we consider the right to marry whomever we want to be among those basic rights? If yes, why? If no, why not?
That's an interesting question. Would freedom of marriage fall under freedom of association?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: And Kate, I must admit, I am confused at your refusal to allow any possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. I understand unconditionally asserting that it is a right and must be protected (and so I assert), but making unequivocal statements about the consequences to society seems to me to be arrogance at best. I would have expected a little more humility from you.
That isn't what I asserted. I wrote that it is inconceivable to me (and, yes, I do know what that word means) that the God I believe in would want SSM denied. I wrote that it would be more likely that God either doesn't exist or is entirely different than I know God to be.
More simply, if God is loving and just, God could not will what was neither.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
That makes me feel better. Thanks for clarifying. I am guessing that I'm not the only one who has misread you in this thread, though.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
The Church's multi-million dollar push to pass legislation in a state where they have miniscule representation is not a moral fight, or a fight to protect the dictionary. it is advertising for the Church.
Compare the largest, most profitable, most material possession owning Churches, you will find they are BIG on conversion, and BIG on letting everyone know, that One of the Main Missions of Christ is to Forbid gays to be treated as human, and to let gays know forever and always, they're a special kind of sinner.
When logic collides with tradition, logic becomes evil.
Why should someone who divorced be allowed to marry again, unless they were cheated on? The Bible says that THESE people are NEVER allowed to marry again.
Why does'nt the Church protect marriage from this angle?
Larry King's 7th wife is FAR more of a mockery of Marriage and a commitment to Love than Two Women who live together for 30 years, wouldn't you say?
Fighting to NOT allow the States to recognize 2nd and 3rd marriages would Cost the Churches lots of money. It would be too hard. Many times Churches do what's best for the Growth of the Church, and not the people. Doubt it? Do a little research on Christian Churches from the birth of slavery to the end of slavery in America.
When a Church donates $50 million dollars to fight homosexuals, their doing it to buy publicity that they are 'good godly gay fighters.
"Are you white, heterosexual and angry that gays are making a mockery of God's word? Check us out!"
In America, the LDS Church is probably the LEAST diverse of them all. I've met black jews, white muslims, asian b'hais, hispanic athiests.
In the over 300 Mormons I've met personally on a day to day basis they have ALL been white. 100% of them. You can tell, their usually wearing a name tag, white shirt, slacks and are very happy to talk to you about their religion.
There is something suspicious about one of the least diverse religions in our country trying to suppress people who are not like they are, and their only proof is "It said it in a Magic Book and a Magic Gold Plate that Angels gave us."
In 13 pages of this thread, those who oppose Gay Marriage/Unions have come up with ZERO reasons for them to be treated differently other than "The Magic Book/Magic Gold Angel Plates" said so.
I have proof that 'fighting gays' in the name of Magic unprovable stuff is very, very, very profitable, and an excellent recruiting tool. Where is the proof of harm in gay marriage? Where is the justification or results of all the work done in the 'good godly fight against gays'? Other than all the temples, businesses, farms, ranches, insurance agencies, investment firms and mutual funds?
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO JUSTIFICATION coming from the Bible for a Church to pursue, gain and aquire $50 billion dollars of wealth, land and material things, Nor is there Biblical justification for a Church of Jesus to keep secrets or be so secretive.
The LDS Church got a trillion dollars worth of advertising for $50 million dollars. They've got a hell of a business instinct.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Can you imagine that you might one day regret [pro-SSM] legislation?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing
Here's where you asserted there is no possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. You then clarified to say that you would sooner accept that God was not God than that His will on this issue could be other than what you believe it to be.
But, whatever; I realize that my insistence on you capitulating this point has limited meaningful dialogue I could be having with others. I'll just say one more time, though, that I find Kate's attitude fundamentally damaging to good faith dialogue, both at Hatrack and in our democratic society.
To Jhai's point, both she and Javert have said they would like to hear my argument. I probably won't be able to write much of it out today (I have meetings and then a birthday party for my daughter), but if this thread is still current next Monday (or, if I have time, before then) I will come back to it.
Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Thor, you've met 300 white Mormon missionaries?
That's the only really unbelievable thing you wrote. Everything else you nailed dead on.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
I wouldn't, myself. There doesn't appear to have been any substantive impact on either of those since our federal marriage statutes were modified a few years ago.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
Sure. Just much like the Civil Rights Act cut down on the number of good bus seats that were available to white people. There were probably longer lines at the water fountains, too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses?
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it a demonstrable harm, but I'd agree that it could be considered an inconvenience, with the caveat that the exact same thing is true for letting LDS marry.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
How do you define "substantive?" Just saying, limited resources, either budgets decreased leading to fewer services, or taxes increased to make up for the lost revenue.
I'm really just wondering whether people consider competitive loss due to constrained resources to be a demonstrable harm or not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As with any definition of substantive, it would have to depend on the actual properties of the situation. Waiting slightly longer for a marriage license does not seem to be substantive to me, nor does a slight increase in tax burden. And that's assuming that these would even happen.
Would you agree that if you accept the postulate that diverting resources away from certain people is a demonstrable harm, then you could say that allowing LDS to marry does demonstrative harm to others?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So here goes (in the nine minutes before I need to be to my meeting). Caveat: I'm going to present an analogy, in which I will use a voice that summarizes what I understand many of the pro-SSM arguments to be. Because I don't hold those beliefs, I may misrepresent them or present them in a less than sensitive matter. I apologize if that's the case; it's not my intent. ---- My name is Barack. No, not that one. I'm an 18-year-old black man from Chicago. I recently was admitted to the University of Michigan. However there's a snag; they claim I'm not black.
I'm trans-ethnic. I've always known I was black, but sometimes it's hard for society to accept me as such because of my skin color. People can be so racist sometimes; as if the color of my skin could determine my ethnicity. There are lots of "blacks" with skin color as light as mine, but since both my parents are from Italy, for some reason I can't be in the club.
When the administrations committee denied my blackhood, my acceptance was withdrawn. It seems there are some government privileges you can only receive if you meet their racist definition of what it means to be black.
I feel frustrated that my civil right of self-determination has been violated. They complain that maybe some white kids might claim trans-ethnicity to get admissions privileges, but I think it just comes down to my right to be what I am, which is black.
We trans-ethnics are a small minority, but we deserve our rights just like anyone else. Wasn't the constitution set up to protect people exactly like me from the tyranny of those whose racist beliefs would attempt to use the power of the government to infringe on minority rights?
<edit>In case it's not obvious, my question about demonstrable harm pertains to the admissions benefit. I don't know if people will consider the competitive loss in this case substantive or not. I think it's qualitatively similar to the losses I described before</edit>
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Peter, why don't you just wait until you can lay out your actual argument?
I personally wouldn't engage with someone who insisted on framing the discussion with "would you agree..." and "isn't it true..." preparatory questions. Especially if they signaled that those questions aren't the argument. It smells like a rhetorical trap, or like a cross examination. Don't see why either would be a good way to discuss the matter.
Edit: I wrote this before you last post. Yet, I still don't see your point re: SSM. You're talking about affirmative action now? BTW: any resource squeezes that come from additional marriages seem trivial and easily compensated for, in case that really is your argument. (Worst secular argument against SSM I've ever seen, if that's your argument.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I understand you, what you are saying is that gay people wanting to be married is like a non-black person claiming to be black. That doesn't seem to me to present any of the pro-SSM arguments well as much as it completely ignores them.
edit: I'll lay out the big one for me, to help you see why I think this.
I love (healthy) marriages. I love (healthy) families. I think that they are both incredibly beneficial things for the individuals in them, the people around them, and society as a whole. If there is any one thing I think we can do to make society better, it is to promote the growth of healthy marriages and by extension, families.
I see no reason why gay couples should be denied or at the very least severely disadvantaged when it comes to these incredibly valuable things. I see nothing about them or their relationships that makes them as a group incapable of having healthy marriages and families and I see nothing that would change the great benefits I see to bad things in cases where the marriage is same sex.
---
edit 2: And I'll note that if, say, a Baptist chooses to define marriage as only marriage that happen within their religion, your non-black black person analogy would apply to LDS as well.
[ November 07, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What I read Peter as saying is that letting gay people marry is giving them access to benefits they don't qualify for, and by doing so reducing the availability of those benefits for people who actually do qualify.
Even if I were to grant that letting gay people marry would have those effects, which I don't, I still would not consider this a valid argument. I do not see any reason except a sense of entitlement that would allow someone to say "If you let these two people marry they'll pay less taxes, which means my taxes will go up. Therefore you should not let them marry. But my friends and I still get to marry and get the tax benefits, that's different."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Even if I were to grant that letting gay people marry would have those effects, which I don't, I still would not consider this a valid argument. I do not see any reason except a sense of entitlement that would allow someone to say "If you let these two people marry they'll pay less taxes, which means my taxes will go up. Therefore you should not let them marry. But my friends and I still get to marry and get the tax benefits, that's different."
I agree with this sentiment in this particular context, but not as a general rule.
For example, when I was in undergrad, there was a guy I know who complained that he was not allowed to take a work study job because his family was very rich and he didn't need any financial aid (he really didn't agree with our suggestion that he volunteer to work but not get paid). I think that's a clear case where, because he did not meet the requirements for the program, he should not be allowed to participate in it and that people (or rather one person) who the program was set up to help would have been materially harmed by his participation in it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
SenojRetep: I may point out that throwing an analogy to affirmative action into the mix is kinda messy, because there are those of us that oppose affirmative action on the basis that it *does* treat people differently by race.
Therefore, an argument that assumes that it is a positive thing to determine admission by race and then extends that metaphor to same-sex marriages is essentially cut-off at the very beginning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
I really would appreciate it if people would stop telling me because I support same sex marriage that I hate families. I love families. I even love the families that you are trying to destroy.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The time is coming, the change is on its way.
Right now the Republican Party is in disarray. Right now the various factions underneath its big tent are deciding what must be done to regain power.
The social conservatives will look at their success in California and believe that God will help them if they stick harder to their beliefs.
They will grab Governor Palin, or someone like her, and push to take over the Republican party. If they don't succeed, they will split.
Then, on their own, with the largest most conservative gathering they can muster--they will fall flat on their faces.
They will be so beat that they will not have the power to stop a new, nicer, pro-ssm amendment.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Squick, yeah, I wouldn't put it forth as a general rule. There are some government programs that are only available to people who meet certain qualifications, such as welfare. But those are programs set up to help people who are in some way disadvantaged. Marriage is not.
Added: To use your example -- Work-study programs are there to help lower income students be able to afford college. The gym is there for everyone at the school to use, and is supported by everyone's tuition. If more people suddenly start using the gym, you might have to wait in line for a treadmill. But they have just as much right to be there as you do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ElJay, I figured you meant it in the specific case, but I wanted to head off any idea that it was meant generally.
I think we're pretty much going to agree with the general argument that Peter is trying to make, but very much disagree with his application in this particular case.
edit: I like your added expansion. That's very much where I was going.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
On top of the blatant prejudice, what offends me almost as much is the vast resources churches have been pouring into campaigning against this, in both money and manpower.
What would Jesus do? Certainly not spend multiple fortunes trying to prevent people from having equal rights, when there are oppressed and dying people both at home and all over the world who could have used that money and effort to save their children from death by starvation or had a home to sleep in.
It really disgusts me when religious institutions put this kind of wealth to use for such a foul purpose, when they claim to be supporting Christian ideals of charity and love.
Of all the BETTER things they could devote their time and money to, fixing real problems, which everyone can agree are tragic situations like poverty, disease, war, and hunger, that they choose to use their wealth to put down a minority group speaks volumes about their real beliefs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It really disgusts me when religious institutions put this kind of wealth to use for such a foul purpose, when they claim to be supporting Christian ideals of charity and love.
From their rhetoric, it seems clear that at least some of these institutions - the LDS church in particular - see SSM as something that will destroy society. They are a little unspecific about what the destruction would look like. I suspect that their version of a destroyed society may appear to be a utopia to some of us. In any case, if you believed an atomic bomb was going to go off in the middle of our city, would you be motivated to dedicating resources to finding and disarming the bomb, or to feeding starving kids in Africa?
Their behavior, in this respect (thought not others), is at least internally consistent.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Even within their own (in my view) nonsensical internal consistency, I can't imagine that they could convincingly argue that the potential threat of gay couples getting married in one state (where they have already been getting married, no end of the world in sight)is a MORE worthy cause than people dying in the streets -right now- of exposure and starvation.
No matter how afeared of gay people a religious person may be, I don't see how they can, in good conscience, watch that kind of money being poured into a political campaign about same sex marriage while there are hungry children down the street who are wearing 6th generation, thread-bare hand-me-down clothes and will be lucky to have their electricity still working as a Christmas present.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Of all the BETTER things they could devote their time and money to, fixing real problems, which everyone can agree are tragic situations like poverty, disease, war, and hunger, that they choose to use their wealth to put down a minority group speaks volumes about their real beliefs.
QFT.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
I really would appreciate it if people would stop telling me because I support same sex marriage that I hate families. I love families. I even love the families that you are trying to destroy.
That isn't what the quote is asserting at all Squick. It is saying that those who think same sex marriage will erode the institution of marriage will be seen as old fashioned and not in step with modern common knowledge.
Mighty Cow: As a hypothetical, say gay marriage would accomplish what certain members of the LDS church are convinced it will accomplish. Namely, same-sex marriages are permitted across the country. Over time it is ruled that in public schools, literature supporting same-sex marriage must be included in the curriculum along with different-sex marriage. Public opinion begins to shift towards hostility regarding organizations that continue to believe that only different sex marriages are correct. Thousands and millions of people are raised to believe in this new conventional wisdom, and the church is inhibited in it's ability to reach these people.
Members around the country who might have stayed if they could be talked to and supported leave the church so that society will stop exerting pressure on them. Overall, untold numbers of people who could be enjoying the blessing of the gospel are instead without it.
Laying aside whether you think it would be good if these things happen, or whether or not you agree that Mormonism improves people's lives for the better, what do you propose would be a far better investment for the church in terms of long term happiness from their perspective?
[ November 07, 2008, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I can't say what more would be most effective, but I consider the idea that people should behave the way *I* want them to merely to keep my ideas from become antiquated in the public view morally repehensible. If my ideas are superior, they should be demonstrably so and survive on their own merits. "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves" and all that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right? It all ultimately boils down to rhetoric and who is able to convince the most people that their ideas are superior. Many of the social mores that exist today have existed in previous civilizations in antiquity, but were ultimately bowled over by solid rhetoric or through sheer force. Ultimately the test of time is the only thing that proves which view was truly superior.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right?
If one defines metrics, one can measure objective superiority. If the metric by which you measure is "makes this church not seem outmoded in the future", then the idea does not belong in our pluralistic society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I can't say what more would be most effective, but I consider the idea that people should behave the way *I* want them to merely to keep my ideas from become antiquated in the public view morally repehensible. If my ideas are superior, they should be demonstrably so and survive on their own merits. "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves" and all that.
Granted, but just because an idea prevails does not make it correct, I'm sure you'd agree with that sentiment in light of Proposition 8 passing.
There are plenty of terrible ideas that spread and are not stopped before they totally take over a society for years on end. I'd say communism taking over Russia, China, and North Korea were extremely terrible developments. Perhaps you could argue that they were necessary transitory periods, of that I can't say. But I don't believe good ideas always rise to the stop and remain there. It is not impossible for bad ideas to gain buoyancy for many many years even centuries.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Considering the church continues to gain new members at a relatively high rate in comparison to other religions around the world, stating that the objections to homosexual rights are "outmoding" it is fairly inaccurate.
To be honest, I feel that telling me I'm not *allowed* to believe that homosexuality is immoral because it's based on religious views is morally repugnant. Insulting me and calling me names for believing such is immature at best. I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want. And I have every right to work to push forward those views to others, just as you have a right to push forward your views. And now, of course, that Proposition 8 passed, proponents of gay rights are starting to show their strong belief in the "marginalize, insult, protest, and attack until they agree with us" tactic of rhetorical discourse, which I regret has been used against them in the past. Using it right back does not make them any better than their opposition.
[ November 07, 2008, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right?
Ultimately the test of time is the only thing that proves which view was truly superior.
These statements contradict.
quote: I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want.
Nobody said different. Nonetheless, if someone who believed that a lack of human sacrifice was going to cause the Sun to go out tried to legislate according to those beliefs, you would likely object. You might even call them foolish and immoral.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There are plenty of terrible ideas that spread and are not stopped before they totally take over a society for years on end. I'd say communism taking over Russia, China, and North Korea were extremely terrible developments.
You do raise an interesting point. The bad ideas that have persisted in these examples were the sort that tended to involve the control of other people. Can you think of historical bad ideas that extended individual freedom or inclusiveness?
Another point is that these are not democracies. There is no "marketplace of ideas" in place there. In face, these examples are exactly what I'm talking about - one group with power imposing their ideals on others.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Nobody said different. Nonetheless, if someone who believed that a lack of human sacrifice was going to cause the Sun to go out tried to legislate according to those beliefs, you would likely object. You might even call them foolish and immoral.
Not really. I'd consider the fact that such a view would not be likely to succeed and not worry about it. Even in a situation where such a group held a majority I'd work to improve acceptance of my own views and if that failed, do my best to avoid getting picked for sacrifice duty.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...
Laying aside whether you think it would be good if these things happen, or whether or not you agree that Mormonism improves people's lives for the better, what do you propose would be a far better investment for the church in terms of long term happiness from their perspective?
Setting aside the morality issue, I may note that I find this highly unlikely. In the case that large number of same-sex members (or same-sex sympathetic, its not clear from your example) leave the church, I expect that the Mormon Church would adapt, changing its policy towards homosexuals to better fit in with the times.
I find the probability of the Mormon Church simply standing there numbly as it loses members rather unlikely.
That said, if the goal of the church is simply, as any other business, to increase its members, allocating its funds via a measure of cost effectiveness/members gained, you're right that this approach is much better than charity work overseas, but not for that reason.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
[quote]I find the probability of the Mormon Church simply standing there numbly as it loses members rather unlikely. [/qutoe]
From what I've heard about several past issues, I don't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It is exactly because of several past issues, that I do.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What Mucus said.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It is exactly because of several past issues, that I do.
The church may lose membership in the US, but the gay rights issue doesn't exist in many other countries. There is a grand likelihood that the church will simply step up its efforts abroad and decrease efforts in the US. The church's typical stance on membership loss is that it only hurts those who leave. All in all, the church will continue to grow and the church's detractors will continue to become more pissed off as they realize their actions are effectively doing nothing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What would Jesus do? Certainly not spend multiple fortunes trying to prevent people from having equal rights, when there are oppressed and dying people both at home and all over the world who could have used that money and effort to save their children from death by starvation or had a home to sleep in.
My guess is that Jesus would point out that BOTH sides are wasting money and energy fighting over the issue. I'd think Jesus would say that God decides which marriages are real, not governments - and thus anyone who is married in the eyes of God is married, no matter what the law says on the matter.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The church may lose membership in the US, but the gay rights issue doesn't exist in many other countries. There is a grand likelihood that the church will simply step up its efforts abroad and decrease efforts in the US. The church's typical stance on membership loss is that it only hurts those who leave. All in all, the church will continue to grow and the church's detractors will continue to become more pissed off as they realize their actions are effectively doing nothing.
The rate of growth, as a percentage of membership, has actually been declining, and the convert retention rate is abysmally low, especially outside the US where 80% of converts stop coming to church within a year. Add to this the fact that total membership numbers are inflated substantially by including huge numbers of inactive members in the count. If you were ever baptized by the LDS church, you are included in that tally for life (and beyond) even if you're now making a living hosting drunken orgies with slave-children in Bangkok.
The picture for growth, AS IS, is not pretty. I find it hard to believe the church would just shrug off cultural marginalization in the US and move on to greener pastures.
[ November 08, 2008, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
It's done it before.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's done it before.
The two most similar cases to the current one culminated in changes to doctrine, not a refocus of missionary efforts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:There are plenty of terrible ideas that spread and are not stopped before they totally take over a society for years on end. I'd say communism taking over Russia, China, and North Korea were extremely terrible developments.
You do raise an interesting point. The bad ideas that have persisted in these examples were the sort that tended to involve the control of other people. Can you think of historical bad ideas that extended individual freedom or inclusiveness?
The war in Iraq? I keed I keed!
See that's alittle tricky as there are many events with inclusive intent, but which restrict individual freedom. Commodore Perry forcing Japan to open it's harbor to trade comes to mind. It wasn't until WWII that we realized how disastrous that initial step was.
Does the Bible count? Israelites intermarrying with the Canaanites frequently resulted in licentiousness at best and the sacrificing of children at worst.
The founding fathers attempting to make provisions for slavery rather than simply stamping it out also comes to mind. But I suppose you could say they were being inclusive of a practice that infringed on individual rights so that sort of negates the example.
You raise a good question though Matt. I've been thinking about it for about 30 minutes and I don't have much else. I'll have to sleep on it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 leads to increased fatal car crashes. In theory, one could drink in a responsible manner in which no one was harmed in any way. They just don't.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Sure, and allowing 4-year-old to drive would have similar results. That's not quite what I'm going for here. These cut offs are based on objective skill sets, with an arbitrary cut off tied to an assessment of at what age the average level of proficiency or responsibility is considered to be sufficient. It's very much about a deliberate weighing of risk/reward by objective criteria for measuring harm. These would be examples of the marketplace of ideas successfully weeding out the bad ones.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: As a hypothetical, say gay marriage would accomplish what certain members of the LDS church are convinced it will accomplish. Namely, same-sex marriages are permitted across the country....
Overall, untold numbers of people who could be enjoying the blessing of the gospel are instead without it.
Sorry, but I refuse to accept a far fetched slippery slope argument in support of prejudice, bigotry, and segregation for a hypothetical bad outcome, in defense of a clear and obvious immediate bad outcome.
Untold numbers of people who could be enjoying the blessings of marriage RIGHT NOW are without it!
It infuriates me to see people defending this segregationist BS with imaginary what-ifs and nonsense, fear-mongering fairytales of some celestial doom far down the road that could possibly happen. I feel literally sick.
It's like I'm living in the freaking dark ages! We'd better burn all the single women over 24 as witches, because they might put a pox on our children if we don't!
Somehow it's better to commit a horrible and obvious injustice now rather than face some nonsense future evil which we have no logical reason to believe would EVER come about otherwise? Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It's done it before.
The two most similar cases to the current one culminated in changes to doctrine, not a refocus of missionary efforts.
I can think of one situation that resulted in the entire church *leaving* the country.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Then don't be coy. I've got polygamy and black priesthood. What do you have?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it makes any pro-SSM people feel better, I think it's pretty likely that this issue will flip on its head in 20 or 30 years. Sure that's a freakishly long time away, but considering how young the gay rights movement is compared to how long it took other groups, that ain't half bad.
If you look at the exit polls from all four states, you find a progressive trend towards tolerance the young and younger you go. It's just a matter of waiting for older, less tolerant people to die off. It's been the same way with a lot of issues. I don't have data to back me up on this, but if anyone could find data to oppose me I'd be extremely surprised, but in general I think the older you go, the more racist and intolerant people are, and the younger, the more tolerant.
It really shouldn't be that surprising. Today's elderly grew up in the 30's and 40's. Today's middle aged people grew up during the Civil Rights movement. They grew up in a totally different country than I did in ways I can't fathom just by reading about. My generation grew up watching Will and Grace and Family Matters. It's not that we're naturally predisposed to be more accepting, it's that the culture we grew up in was that way, and we picked it up.
64% of people 18-24 voted against it, 59% of people 25-29 voted against it. 30-39 pretty much split 50/50. It was actually the 40-49 age group that made this happen. 30-39 and 50-64 split almost 50/50. The youth vote cancelled out the AARP vote. But 40-49 year olds voted 59% against.
Anyway, we progress every generation. My grandpa didn't vote this year because he either had to vote for the black guy or the woman, and both were unacceptable. He's a sweet, loveable, awesome old man, and I love him to death even if I shake my head whenever he says "Osama Obama." My mother had no problem voting for a black guy, even if she does decry the fact that black and immigrant families literally bus their kids into our neighborhood during Halloween because their neighborhoods are too dangerous to trick or treat in. It's progress.
Acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage will come the same way. I can understand a lack of patience when it comes to something someone considers a fundamental right, but it will happen, and it'll happen a lot faster from birth to fruition than most, if not all, of the rights struggles we've had in this country. 20 years worth of intolerance dying and new tolerance growing up in a more accepting America (even if it's just pop culturally, that's all it takes) will make more progress than court orders ever could.
America makes progress all too slowly for a great many people, but we never stop moving.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Then don't be coy. I've got polygamy and black priesthood. What do you have?
A date...1846. You know. When the Mormons moved to Utah to escape people who were basically trying to wipe them out.
And those two were not changes in doctrine, merely changes in application. Polygamy, well, that was going to end sooner or later. But since the government decided to outlaw it, which in turn resulted in government representatives breaking up numerous families. The book of Mormon states very specifically that polygamy is wrong in all cases except those allowed by God. Blacks holding the priesthood was going to change. When the declaration preventing such came about, Brigham young was very specific in stating that there would be a time when that declaration would be repealed. And, thanks to the fact that we believe in performing ordinances after someone dies, guess what. Every African American member that has ever lived has the priesthood *now*.
Same sex marriage is something that is absolutely, positively incompatible with many of our core beliefs. The ceremonies in the temple rely entirely on the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred.
[ November 08, 2008, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What, when the Church moved from a US state to an unsettled territory? How exactly was that a refocus of their missionary efforts to maintain or increase their growth as opposed to say, running for their lives? Even then, I think there were some doctrinal compromises regarding the the significance and/or permanence of the land they had to leave, but I'd have to dig to verify that.
Also, we're not talking about a future when the church will be meaningfully persecuted, just one where they are no longer able to obtain any meaningful increase in membership do to their views being at odds with society at large.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
A relatively popular sentiment among gay rights activists at the moment is that the church *should* be persecuted for *daring* to oppose them. Some are calling for boycotts against the state of Utah's tourism industry and against the Sundance Film Festival which is scheduled to take place there. The end result being that gay rights activists believe it is necessary to force people to believe what their views are accurate. And if they don't give, or if they oppose in any way, they should be punished dearly for their impertinence. And you call this progress.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: A relatively popular sentiment among gay rights activists at the moment is that the church *should* be persecuted for *daring* to oppose them. Some are calling for boycotts against the state of Utah's tourism industry and against the Sundance Film Festival which is scheduled to take place there. The end result being that gay rights activists believe it is necessary to force people to believe what their views are accurate. And if they don't give, or if they oppose in any way, they should be punished dearly for their impertinence. And you call this progress.
Reall? A boycott is "persecuting" the church? Really?
And gay rights activists are "forcing" people to believe that their views are accurate? How are they forcing people to believe what they do? Are they, oh I don't know, making a constitutional amendment prohibiting people from visiting Utah?
edit: At this point, I might actually consider voting for that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A relatively popular sentiment among gay rights activists at the moment is that the church *should* be persecuted for *daring* to oppose them.
Please define persecute. Presumably you don't just mean "disagree with", "criticize", or "refuse to patronize businesses associated with."
quote:Some are calling for boycotts against the state of Utah's tourism industry and against the Sundance Film Festival which is scheduled to take place there. The end result being that gay rights activists believe it is necessary to force people to believe what their views are accurate. And if they don't give, or if they oppose in any way, they should be punished dearly for their impertinence.
Dang those uppidy negroes, and their exercise of their first amendment rights to protest injustice.
quote:And you call this progress.
I call what what?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Originally posted by Boris: Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right?
quote: Originally posted by Tresopax: I'd think Jesus would say that God decides which marriages are real, not governments - and thus anyone who is married in the eyes of God is married, no matter what the law says on the matter.
Thank you both. This is the kind of response I failed to think of last night. I got as far as one side is saying that striped and spotted cats are the same while the other says one of those is a dog. I couldn't figure out where to go after that.
It's like saying I'm holding an invisible domesticated quadraped and you get to guess what kind of animal it is. How would you begin to know? You could only determine what I believe it to be.
Marriage isn't a tangible that can be touched and measured. I believe we've got three kinds of marriage in play - government, social, and spiritual. Having one kind doesn't mean you have any of the others.
If you go down and marry a friend to get them a Green Card, you have government marriage with netiher public acceptance nor personal committment. Most people won't consider that a real marriage, including the government if they catch you.
I've got a couple of friends who claim they only got married for the tax breaks, but he loves refering to her as his wife. Even if they don't have a lifetime committment to each other and I don't view what they have as a real marriage, there's a spiritual aspect to their relationship that wasn't there before. There's a government and spiritual marriage - but there may or may not be cultural marriage depending on who's looking at it.
As for myself, I've been dating the same guy for 12 years now and living with him for 5. I occassionally borrow his last name when dealing with the phone company, and I don't correct people if they call him my husband. I feel that our souls are already intertwined; that we're basically married without the piece of paper. We have a spiritual marriage and sometimes a cultural marriage depending on who's looking without having a government marriage.
Just paying the court $90 to get their fancy seal on a piece of paper is not the defining feature of a marriage, in my opinion. I almost feel that arguing the legal side is missing the point. No one has to consider what anyone else has a marriage if they don't want to. People are going to need to see gay relationships in action before they decide if that's really a dog or a cat as it were.
Bascially, I think gay couples need a reality show. I know that sounds flippant, but I genuinely mean it. How many gay people does the average American really know? How is anyone supposed to get inside the lives of people still nervous about even admitting to their orientation? There just aren't enough gays to go around to really make personal impacts on most Americans.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right?
That's a pretty bold statement. Let me ask you this Boris, is the idea that "an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior" superior to "there are ideas that can be proven objectively superior"? If it isn't, then why should I believe anything you say? If it is, then isn't what you claim here incorrect?
When Socrates questioned Protagoras about nearly the same question in the Protagoras, he questioned Protagoras in the same way, and I believe it is the problem with claiming something like what you claimed here Boris. Now, I don't mean to take away from the discussion in the thread, but that seemed fairly important.
quote:A relatively popular sentiment among gay rights activists at the moment is that the church *should* be persecuted for *daring* to oppose them. Some are calling for boycotts against the state of Utah's tourism industry and against the Sundance Film Festival which is scheduled to take place there. The end result being that gay rights activists believe it is necessary to force people to believe what their views are accurate. And if they don't give, or if they oppose in any way, they should be punished dearly for their impertinence. And you call this progress.
Which is exactly what happened in some Christian communities when the movie Dogma came out, some called for boycotts and some believed that the movie should be persecuted for not advocating the proper type of Christianity, and the same thing happened when the Dixie Chicks said what they said about Pres. Bush and when Don Imus insulted the Rutgers Women's basketball team.
Would you call this progress? Were these groups trying to force people to believe that their views were right? Whats the difference between what homosexuals are doing now and what Christians did to Dogma?
See, the difference is simple. We agree with some and disagree with others, and ultimately, this is what this is about, whether you agree that these activists are correct or not. Because truly, one man's activist is another man's oppressor.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: To be honest, I feel that telling me I'm not *allowed* to believe that homosexuality is immoral because it's based on religious views is morally repugnant. Insulting me and calling me names for believing such is immature at best. I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want. And I have every right to work to push forward those views to others, just as you have a right to push forward your views.
What motivates you to say this? You expressed a similar sentiment in another thread and, while I basically agree with it, I don't see anybody actually trying to tell you that you can't believe what you want.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: As a hypothetical, say gay marriage would accomplish what certain members of the LDS church are convinced it will accomplish. Namely, same-sex marriages are permitted across the country....
Overall, untold numbers of people who could be enjoying the blessing of the gospel are instead without it.
Sorry, but I refuse to accept a far fetched slippery slope argument in support of prejudice, bigotry, and segregation for a hypothetical bad outcome, in defense of a clear and obvious immediate bad outcome.
Untold numbers of people who could be enjoying the blessings of marriage RIGHT NOW are without it!
It infuriates me to see people defending this segregationist BS with imaginary what-ifs and nonsense, fear-mongering fairytales of some celestial doom far down the road that could possibly happen. I feel literally sick.
It's like I'm living in the freaking dark ages! We'd better burn all the single women over 24 as witches, because they might put a pox on our children if we don't!
Somehow it's better to commit a horrible and obvious injustice now rather than face some nonsense future evil which we have no logical reason to believe would EVER come about otherwise?
You're the one saying the church could be investing it's money in more worthy causes. Don't get angry because a series of assumptions certain people have do not match yours. To a Mormon the blessings of a temporal marriage are not as important as the blessings of an eternal marriage. If you see opponents of same sex marriage as no different than witch burners than we can't continue to converse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The attacks on the Mormon Church -specifically the tax exemption revocation attempt and, to a lesser extent, the boycott - arising from Prop 8 are going to badly backfire on those making them. Regardless of the correctness of those seeking revocation (morally or legally*), it will be perceived as an attempt to silence religion on social issues. This will only confirm the fears of many who supported prop 8.
*I think that, under current law, there's no strong case to be made for revocation. Some of those seeking to revoke the exemption recognize this and seek a change to the law.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Matt, you do realize that an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior, right?
That's a pretty bold statement. Let me ask you this Boris, is the idea that "an idea can never be objectively shown to be superior" superior to "there are ideas that can be proven objectively superior"? If it isn't, then why should I believe anything you say? If it is, then isn't what you claim here incorrect?
Neither statement can be shown superior. They are at odds, yes, but objectively, there is no way to prove that either one is correct. The simple answer is that you have no reason whatsoever to believe anything that I say, or anything that anyone says. Belief of a statement or ideal is entirely up to the listener, not the speaker. The speaker's role is to frame his ideas in a way that makes those ideas *seem* superior to another way of thinking. That's what's known as Rhetoric.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:They are at odds, yes, but objectively, there is no way to prove that either one is correct
Only if you're talking about absolutes.
Most people don't, except when they get into philosophical debates like this.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sorry my analogy confused people. No one seemed to get out of it what I thought was pretty obvious. I guess Squicky got the closest.
I'll try to clarify what I meant: "black" is, when speaking of an ethnicity, a social construct. It only means what we agree it means. Personally I don't think the government should define "black." If they want to discriminate in certain benefits, they should do so using objective criteria, rather than social constructs.
Similarly, I consider "married" to be a social construct. It means whatever we agree it means. It is not a right (I don't believe I have a "right" to be married any more than I believe I have a "right" to be black). And when government legislates a social construct, rather than being an impartial arbiter of ideas, it becomes a proponent of ideas.
There are real rights involved, like rights of inheritance, or rights to not be barred from a hospital room. I think divorcing these rights from "marriage" (which is what several other opponents of SSM seem to be advocating) is the right thing to do. I would add that I think basing these rights off of "marriage" (whether under the traditional definition or the one that would include same-sex unions) is still too limiting. I can easily conceive of people who should be able to receive these rights, but will be denied them if the rights continue to be tied to "marriage."
I don't know if that's very clear. "Marriage" (civilly) has come to be a short, simple way to designate a bunch of legal privileges. This should be opened up to more people, including those who want to enjoy those privileges without the societal baggage of being "married." For example, I have two friends who have been together for twenty years. They rely on each other for companionship and support. They don't have any desire to be married because marriage implies sexual attraction, which they don't have. They should be able to receive the privileges currently reserved for those who marry, without being forced to take on the societal expectations of "marriage."
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: This should be opened up to more people, including those who want to enjoy those privileges without the societal baggage of being "married."
I agree. I think roommates should be able to share insurance. They share expenses, I just see that as an extention.
I'm sure there's more that I'd want them to have access to. That's just the only thing that comes to mind right now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... All in all, the church will continue to grow and the church's detractors will continue to become more pissed off as they realize their actions are effectively doing nothing.
I think you've jumped ahead a couple steps. Who are the church's detractors in this conversation and what actions are they making? And how do they relate to same-sex marriage or activists for it?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... See that's alittle tricky as there are many events with inclusive intent, but which restrict individual freedom. Commodore Perry forcing Japan to open it's harbor to trade comes to mind. It wasn't until WWII that we realized how disastrous that initial step was.
Not the greatest example either way, I don't think the opening of Japan had much to do with Japanese "freedom" or inclusiveness so much as it was the freedom of Americans to trade wherever they wanted to.
MattP: You're handling that sub-thread better than I could have. Thanks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 leads to increased fatal car crashes. In theory, one could drink in a responsible manner in which no one was harmed in any way. They just don't.
Do you have any data for this? THe drinking age in several European countries is 18; I'm not aware of any huge increase in car crashes, fatal or otherwise. Even in binge-drinking countries like Norway.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 leads to increased fatal car crashes. In theory, one could drink in a responsible manner in which no one was harmed in any way. They just don't.
Do you have any data for this? THe drinking age in several European countries is 18; I'm not aware of any huge increase in car crashes, fatal or otherwise. Even in binge-drinking countries like Norway.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: To be honest, I feel that telling me I'm not *allowed* to believe that homosexuality is immoral because it's based on religious views is morally repugnant. I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want. And I have every right to work to push forward those views to others, just as you have a right to push forward your views.
Excellent point Boris!
Due to my Religious views, I believe that greedy churches obsessed with money and material possessions are immoral corporations.
"In their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words." - peter 2:3
"See, this is the man who did not make God his strength, but had faith in his goods and his property, and made himself strong in his wealth." Psalms 52:7
"Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter." Isaiah 56:11
"Then he said to them, "Be careful to guard yourselves against every kind of greed, because a person's life doesn't consist of the amount of possessions he has." Luke 12:15
"How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but on the inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." - matthew 23:25
"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." Tim 6:10
"For everything that is in the world-the desire for fleshly gratification, the desire for possessions, and worldly arrogance-is not from the Father but is from the world." John 2:16
"But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but on the inside you are full of greed and evil." --- Luke 11:39
"They seduce unsteady souls and have had their hearts expertly trained in greed." Peter 2:14
"Deacons, too, must be serious. They must not be two-faced, addicted to wine, or greedy for money." Tim 3:8
Interesting. Tell me again why a church needs $50 billion dollars?
Can you find as many quotes about homosexuality?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: To a Mormon the blessings of a temporal marriage are not as important as the blessings of an eternal marriage. If you see opponents of same sex marriage as no different than witch burners than we can't continue to converse.
Does a gay couple getting married invalidate your eternal marriage? If not, then why don't you enjoy your eternal marriage and let them enjoy their temporal one?
Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins, so you may as well let them have a bit of happiness while they're on earth, or do you begrudge them that too?
Opponents of same-sex marriage ARE akin to witch burners. They're using their spiritual beliefs to oppress another group - a group which is in now way a threat to them in any demonstrable way, but only in some vague, what-if, potentially spiritually dangerous way.
Any time a choice comes up between doing a real, obvious evil NOW, vs. the mere possibility of some future supernatural ill, which will only come to pass under some imagined future scenario, I don't see how any truly moral person can choose the obvious and guaranteed evil now just to protect their own best interests for fear of some unlikely and unsupported future scenario.
If that isn't a perfect example of selfishness, greed, and oppression, I don't know what is. I find it repugnant.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Thanks SenjoRetep. I don't like trying to find references to things that I read a while ago.
So, it seems like everyone is ok with the idea of civil unions for all, marriage for none (at a government level). Religious people are good cause then gays still aren't married and gays are happy because they are legally on an equal footing. So, why isn't this happening?
ETA- MC- LDS don't believe anyone is going to burn in hell.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:My guess is that Jesus would point out that BOTH sides are wasting money and energy fighting over the issue.
I agree, I would also point out that something Jesus already said pertains to this situation: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's"
While he said this in response to questions concerning taxation, I think it gets to the heart of the SSM debate: does marriage belong to God or to the State? I say that Marriage as it exists in a religion, should not be touched by the government, but so long as marriage exists in the legal realm, as a contract between two people, it needs to be extended to everyone.
I disagree with the Church's decision to intervene in this matter, I think it has only served to deepen existing hostilities toward the church and further alienate liberal members and ex-members of the Church. I recognize the desire of the LDS Church to not be forced into recognizing or performing Same Sex Marriages, but I believe their efforts would be better applied toward influencing SSM laws to protect a church's right to not do so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Do you have any data for this? THe drinking age in several European countries is 18; I'm not aware of any huge increase in car crashes, fatal or otherwise. Even in binge-drinking countries like Norway.
Or Canada for that matter, our age is 19 and I think we have disproportionately fewer accidents.
quote: Drinking and driving is a subset of alcohol-related crashes. In 2000, road crashes involving a driver who had been drinking killed 864 people, representing almost 30 per cent of all road fatalities. This is down by one-third from 1995, when 1,296 motor vehicle deaths involved a drinking driver. Of the drinking-driving road fatalities, almost half (422) were drivers whose blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was over 0.08.
In contrast, the United States has seen no substantial change in drink-driving fatalities over the past few years. In 1995, traffic fatalities involving a drinking driver represented 42 per cent of road fatalities (17,732 deaths); in 2000, they represented 41 per cent (17,380 deaths).
Thus, not only is a drinking driver over-represented by 11% in American traffic fatalities but Canadian traffic fatalities involving drunk drivers are less than *half* as common after adjusting for population.
I'm not impressed.
Edit to add: It also seems that the Slate article's sentence on New Zealand has been corrected and the new one is not very convincing
quote:In 1999, by comparison, New Zealand lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18, and while alcohol-related crashes involving 15- to 19-year-olds subsequently fell, they declined far less than in the overall population.
[ November 08, 2008, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins
Pretty much no one goes to hell according to the Mormons. The bad guys just go to a version of heaven that's just totally awesome instead of the super totally radical awesome version that faithful members of the church get to go to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Does a gay couple getting married invalidate your eternal marriage? If not, then why don't you enjoy your eternal marriage and let them enjoy their temporal one?
You're missing the point. Your original assertion was that Mormons are wasting their money on a less than valuable effort. I pointed that out from many a Mormon's perspective, the more people select homosexuality as their desired lifestyle, and to be clear, whether or not somebody decides to be gay is often not a cut and dry matter, they are placing themselves in a position where their being ultimately happy is in jeopardy. I not suggesting we drag anybody kicking and screaming into heaven.
quote: Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins, so you may as well let them have a bit of happiness while they're on earth, or do you begrudge them that too?
You are mistaken, and gravely so. Perhaps you are unaware that nobody can go to hell in ignorance. I don't believe people lobbying for same-sex marriage are prime candidates for hell. If they genuinely fell what they are doing is right, I do not believe God will ignore that in his judgments. But I do believe that all these people will ultimately find that the direction these people are taking their lives is contrary to God's will, and adjustments will have to made ultimately. This isn't any different though than any other human being.
quote: Opponents of same-sex marriage ARE akin to witch burners. They're using their spiritual beliefs to oppress another group - a group which is in now way a threat to them in any demonstrable way, but only in some vague, what-if, potentially spiritually dangerous way.
If you say so. I don't think Proposition 8 was necessary and I voted against a similar ban that passed here.
quote: Any time a choice comes up between doing a real, obvious evil NOW, vs. the mere possibility of some future supernatural ill, which will only come to pass under some imagined future scenario, I don't see how any truly moral person can choose the obvious and guaranteed evil now just to protect their own best interests for fear of some unlikely and unsupported future scenario.
I don't think you have any idea what the ultimate effects of Proposition 8 being defeated are. You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
quote: If that isn't a perfect example of selfishness, greed, and oppression, I don't know what is. I find it repugnant.
I hope you are never in a position where others find you repugnant just because they don't understand where you are coming from.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins
Pretty much no one goes to hell according to the Mormons. The bad guys just go to a version of heaven that's just totally awesome instead of the super totally radical awesome version that faithful members of the church get to go to.
Not exactly Matt. There certainly is a place reserved for those who hate God and all righteousness and have decided to fight all that is good for all eternity. There is nothing awesome about that place. But you are right, I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits that definition.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Not exactly Matt. There certainly is a place reserved for those who hate God and all righteousness and have decided to fight all that is good for all eternity. There is nothing awesome about that place. But you are right, I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits that definition.
I'm not sure where I'm "not exactly" right. Almost no one goes to hell - check. Everyone else goes to heaven, even those we might consider bad guys - check. Worthy members of the church get a better heaven - check.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: To be honest, I feel that telling me I'm not *allowed* to believe that homosexuality is immoral because it's based on religious views is morally repugnant. Insulting me and calling me names for believing such is immature at best. I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want. And I have every right to work to push forward those views to others, just as you have a right to push forward your views. And now, of course, that Proposition 8 passed, proponents of gay rights are starting to show their strong belief in the "marginalize, insult, protest, and attack until they agree with us" tactic of rhetorical discourse, which I regret has been used against them in the past. Using it right back does not make them any better than their opposition.
I agree with everything you've said here, which is exactly why I do not understand supporting laws which ban gays from marrying. You have every right to your view of morality. I have every right to mine. We have every right to share, discuss, and persuade. Why, though, should the law get involved here? This is my fundamental hang up when it comes to gay marriage bans.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Banning marriage for same sex couples only closes one method of getting what they want. There are a million and one ways that gay rights activists could be getting exactly what they want (or at least, what they *say* they want). Why are they not attempting to find and exploit other ways of getting what they want instead of taking a battering ram to their opposition? I don't necessarily object to gays having the legal benefits of married couples, but the way they are going about it is completely bull headed.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You're missing the point...whether or not somebody decides to be gay is often not a cut and dry matter, they are placing themselves in a position where their being ultimately happy is in jeopardy.
Gay people will tell you that they never "decided" to be gay. But you're the one missing the point - You're forcing them into a position where their happiness is RIGHT NOW being taken away, for the mere CHANCE that at some point in the future they might, somehow put their happiness in jeopardy.
quote: You are mistaken, and gravely so. Perhaps you are unaware that nobody can go to hell in ignorance. This isn't any different though than any other human being.
Except in the fact that the church isn't paying millions to legislate away other potential sinful behavior.
quote: I don't think you have any idea what the ultimate effects of Proposition 8 being defeated are. You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
So what it comes down to is that you want to make sure that YOUR group doesn't get "jeered" at, and to do so you are trampling all over the rights of another group. This is my point - out of fear of some unlikely and unknowable possible future that would be merely uncomfortable for your group, you're willing - and perhaps eager - to deprive another group of their rights and happiness.
How is it possible to be more selfish and less charitable than for a powerful group to commit a clear and immediate wrong in defense of a minor possible future wrong?
quote: I hope you are never in a position where others find you repugnant just because they don't understand where you are coming from.
I hope I am never in a position where others find me repugnant because I am using my position of wealth and power to oppress a minority group I don't agree with.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Public opinion begins to shift towards hostility regarding organizations that continue to believe that only different sex marriages are correct. Thousands and millions of people are raised to believe in this new conventional wisdom, and the church is inhibited in it's ability to reach these people.
And
quote: You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
I just want to make sure that I'm really understanding the ramifications of your argument.
What it looks to me like you're saying, is that you fear that in the future, people will start to see the Mormon's denial of marriage to same sex couples as prejudiced, and you don't want to be seen that way.
So to combat this, you want to encourage everyone else to feel the same way you do, by intentionally holding back the social acceptance of gay people.
Your church wants to legislate prejudice and segregation, so that fewer people will realize how prejudiced you are.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think it is important to remind people (AGAIN) that the church itself provided no funding. When they talk about millions of dollars, it is from members.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The money didn't come from the church coffers, but from the people who belong to the church, and with the direction of the church leadership. Duly noted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Public opinion begins to shift towards hostility regarding organizations that continue to believe that only different sex marriages are correct. Thousands and millions of people are raised to believe in this new conventional wisdom, and the church is inhibited in it's ability to reach these people.
And
quote: You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
I just want to make sure that I'm really understanding the ramifications of your argument.
What it looks to me like you're saying, is that you fear that in the future, people will start to see the Mormon's denial of marriage to same sex couples as prejudiced, and you don't want to be seen that way.
So to combat this, you want to encourage everyone else to feel the same way you do, by intentionally holding back the social acceptance of gay people.
Your church wants to legislate prejudice and segregation, so that fewer people will realize how prejudiced you are.
You really should consider the effects of repeated head bashing on your ability to reason things. I don't know why you simply keep repeating the charge that my church has no idea what it's talking about, and just wants to harm gay people. Neither of those things are true.
Please posit what you think both the short and long term effects of allowing same-sex marriage across the country would be. Quit banging your head over my guesses. Also just because I am attempting, (albeit poorly) to argue from the other side does not mean I am unsympathetic to your POV. Again I voted AGAINST an identical ban that passed here in Utah, I promise you it was not because I misread the ballot proposal.
Furthermore, there are plenty of bad ideas that are only stopped by suppression. Do I think same-sex marriage is one of these? I don't think so, I don't know enough about the long lasting effects of permitting it to say.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The money didn't come from the church coffers, but from the people who belong to the church, and with the direction of the church leadership. Duly noted.
For me, this is an important thing. I can honestly say that none of my money went to fund this. And that is actually extremely important to me personally.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Quick! Go get some rifles and pistols before Obama wants to take away all our guns!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know why you simply keep repeating the charge that my church has no idea what it's talking about, and just wants to harm gay people. Neither of those things are true.
The important thing is that it doesn't matter if the church "wants" to harm gay people, its actions ARE harming them. And you're right that I don't know if the church's fears about the future are founded or not, but we can all see the immediate and obvious effects of denying same sex couples marriage rights.
quote: Please posit what you think both the short and long term effects of allowing same-sex marriage across the country would be.
I'd guess that over the short term, many gay couples who have been happily living together for years or decades will finally be able to enjoy the legal rights that straight couples have had forever.
Over the long term, gay teens may run away from home and commit suicide less often as they realize that they aren't worthless and that they can be treated with respect and equality.
quote:Also just because I am attempting, (albeit poorly) to argue from the other side does not mean I am unsympathetic to your POV. Again I voted AGAINST an identical ban that passed here in Utah, I promise you it was not because I misread the ballot proposal.
Furthermore, there are plenty of bad ideas that are only stopped by suppression. Do I think same-sex marriage is one of these? I don't think so, I don't know enough about the long lasting effects of permitting it to say.
If you agree with me, I wish you'd stop defending prejudice just for the sake of agreeing with a leadership that supports it, or out of fear of some unsupported future event.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Banning marriage for same sex couples only closes one method of getting what they want. There are a million and one ways that gay rights activists could be getting exactly what they want (or at least, what they *say* they want). Why are they not attempting to find and exploit other ways of getting what they want instead of taking a battering ram to their opposition? I don't necessarily object to gays having the legal benefits of married couples, but the way they are going about it is completely bull headed.
Why shouldn't a gay couple get married? Why should they have to try one of these "million and one" other ways?
As for those other ways...I don't know about how things work out there in California, but I know that in many places the anti-gay platform is working hard to eliminate those choices. Here in Kansas, for example, civil unions are also not acceptable.
So I ask again:
Why shouldn't gays get married?
What rights is it ok for them to have?
What rights is it not ok for them to have?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow: The problem is is that I will defend prejudice for the sake of agreeing with a CERTAIN leader, my God. In this instance He has yet to take a clear stance and so I have wiggle room, but for many in my religion they believe they already understand the correct position. You took a very conservative road in predicting the future, and that is good as you are likely right in what you predicted. But you don't know some of the unintended side effects of your policy. You don't know how many future generations will find the gay lifestyle more comfortable, and though their sexuality was still undecided, because of particular social pressures they chart that course. For you that is just fine, for many others they earnestly believe it's a bad decision. Sure we are all so happy that slavery ended in the South, but what of the fact that the South has lagged behind the rest of the country economically ever since?
We won the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed, and now the country is still in the hands of strong men. Organized crime is so powerful there they have to be negotiated with rather than dealt with. Call it the ends justify the means, but don't pretend anyone knows what's going to happen exactly, and don't act like it can only be good. Even things that seem objectively good for everyone still carry a price.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In this instance He has yet to take a clear stance and so I have wiggle room...
Are you sure? I believe the church leadership was actually pretty firm on this point.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
MightyCow, do you not feel that the even remote possibility that one group of people might lose constitutional rights as a result of giving rights to another group is a problem? I would think that it would be wise to find a course of action that would allow the rights of all parties to be protected in all cases rather than plowing through without thinking or caring about "small possible outcomes."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: In this instance He has yet to take a clear stance and so I have wiggle room...
Are you sure? I believe the church leadership was actually pretty firm on this point.
Pretty firm yes, but not something along the lines of, "God has spoken, and He commands his church to obey."
I see this as similar to when Heber J. Grant asked the church not to overturn prohibition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
You know, that shouldn't be scare-quoted. There is a general right in this country to have the government reflect the will of the majority. Just as we do with other rights, we circumscribe that right in certain situations when it conflicts with other rights. But it's still a right.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
The right of religious groups to preach and teach what they want to. There is a very real fear among religious people that once gay rights activists get what they say they want that they'll then move to attempt to squelch religious disapproval of homosexuality. Discounting those fears as baseless and idiotic is nothing short of arrogant and pigheaded. If you really want to open a discourse with someone, it's probably good to address their fears and make sure they do not become a reality, rather than toss them aside and call the people who have those fears idiots.
Unfortunately, gay rights activists are so concerned with getting what they want that they fail to realize there are other people involved in it. More often than not, the immediate reaction they have to religious opposition is to cry out that religious people are full of hatred and shout with cries of "homophobe!" I have some serious issues with this. It seems like every person who pushes for gay rights feels it is their duty to tell me why I don't support them, rather than actually talking to me to figure out the real reason and get to the root of the problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The government does not have the right to change what you teach and preach by law. Your real reason is a bogeyman.
The Catholic Church can still preach and teach against divorce, for example. What you do within your own church, what your doctrine is determined to be, is up to your church. Government doesn't have a say in that.
And as far as that goes, what about the rights of those churches who support SSM? Don't they get to preach and teach what they want to?
I think that gay rights activists should move to change what their churches teach and preach regarding inclusivity, but that that activism belongs within the churches not in government. For example, as a Catholic I feel it is my duty to pray and argue for more inclusivity within the Catholic Church. I have no business using the law to help me change your church doctrine.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The government does not have the right to change what you teach and preach by law. Your real reason is a bogeyman.
Who said anything about the government? All they have to do is keep suing and suing and suing. You can sue anyone for anything, remember? But hey, I like how you just discounted my comments as nonsense. Way to prove my point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boris, that doesn't prove your point at all.
Are there lawsuits now for non-members to be married with LDS rites? Are they successful?
The Catholic Church has not been swamped by lawsuits from divorced people suing to be married in the Church, have they?
People can, true, sue for anything they want. It is not reasonable to think that these lawsuits would be successful.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There are plenty of things that the LDS church teaches against that are legal. People could theoretically sue the church for not providing whiskey and slots in the Las Vegas temple cafeteria, but you don't see Monson issuing official declarations about that.
Geez, it's possible that Kanye West could sue my broke white grandma for reparations. Does that mean we should repeal the Emancipation Proclamation?
Saying that we should deny gay people civil rights because one of them might try to sue your church makes about as much sense as saying that we should nuke Canada before they start sending over suicide bombers. Wild hypothetical fantasies are no basis for aggressive preemptive action.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
The right of religious groups to preach and teach what they want to. There is a very real fear among religious people that once gay rights activists get what they say they want that they'll then move to attempt to squelch religious disapproval of homosexuality. Discounting those fears as baseless and idiotic is nothing short of arrogant and pigheaded. If you really want to open a discourse with someone, it's probably good to address their fears and make sure they do not become a reality, rather than toss them aside and call the people who have those fears idiots.
Unfortunately, gay rights activists are so concerned with getting what they want that they fail to realize there are other people involved in it. More often than not, the immediate reaction they have to religious opposition is to cry out that religious people are full of hatred and shout with cries of "homophobe!" I have some serious issues with this. It seems like every person who pushes for gay rights feels it is their duty to tell me why I don't support them, rather than actually talking to me to figure out the real reason and get to the root of the problem.
Considering all religions should be burnt and disposed of into the ashheap of history I don't think your making a good point.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Wild hypothetical fantasies are no basis for aggressive preemptive action.
But they *are* basis for negotiation. And the hypothetical is not wild at all. It is not uncommon for non-LDS couples to be married in LDS churches or on church owned property. What would happen if a same sex couple asked to be married in an LDS church or on church owned property and got turned down? They could make a case for a discrimination lawsuit. And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
And Blayne, in order to get what *you* want, you'd have to kill me and that's something I really don't think you're capable of.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
Got a link?
If it happened the way you say, it sounds like an injustice was perpetrated against a religious institution by some gay people. So why didn't the LDS church put its time, money and resources behind fighting that specific injustice, rather than perpetrating a new injustice against an entire culture of uninvolved people in retaliation?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
BS. I know the case you are talking about and it is not even close to being analogous to an LDS chapel. It wasn't a chapel or church, it was property owned by a church, specifically a pavilion. The church that owned the property was not forced to officiate, merely to rent the facilities that they rent to all other comers, for many other purposes. The same case could have been brought, and won, by a Nazi brunch or a Satanist chili cook-off. The event was not even a marriage. It occured in NJ, which does not have legal SSM. So it's a total red herring for a campaign about the legalization of SSM.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I go off on the dishonesty of "yes on 8" campaign., You are, presumably in ignorance, repeating something that is sorta kinda the truth, but is missing so much context that it's easy for you and others to equate it to a wholly different, much less palatable, and much less likely, situation.
[ November 09, 2008, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And Blayne, in order to get what *you* want, you'd have to kill me and that's something I really don't think you're capable of.
Why not? You religious types are always pointing out that atheist regimes have the best atrocities. Blayne is even a Mao fanboi. But even without that, you will eventually die, and who is to say that your children will be as faithful as you are? Or if not them, then their children again. Truth is patient. It might even come to you personally someday. Many people have crises of faith, and some of them return to the sunlit lands.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
I believe you're refering to the property owned by a group related to the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. It's not analogous -- the part of the property in question was being operated as a public park and the association which owned and operated it applied for and accepted public funds for maintaining the property as public-use. That was central to the lawsuit.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
I believe you're refering to the property owned by a group related to the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. It's not analogous -- the part of the property in question was being operated as a public park and the association which owned and operated it applied for and accepted public funds for maintaining the property as public-use. That was central to the lawsuit.
Here's an article that cites some of the public but religious institutitions that are finding adapting to leagalized SSM challenging. It cites the NJ case, along with Catholic Charities here in MA and a NM case involving a wedding photographer who was sued when she refused to photograph a commitment ceremony.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Did you notice that none of those examples have anything to do with SSM? The examples you cite don't actually involve marriages at all. There is no SSM in NJ or NM and the Catholic Charities case involved adoptions to gays, regardless of marriage status.
Now, if your case is for the right to disciminate against homosexuals then those examples might be germane, but that wasn't the issue with Proposition 8. It's already illegal in CA, regardless of the status of SSM, to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Again, it is so tiring to see so many irrelevant arguments being used to support the case against SSM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
KoM, that was out of line. Dial it back, 'k?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say I don't think it was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If I'd thought you thought it was, I wouldn't've said anything. I figured you could use a second opinion.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be to moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime. So get over it and quit acting like you're better than anyone else. Your ideas and arguments are neither new or interesting and it's not worth my time trying to talk up to the pedestal you've placed yourself on.
And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think I can post in this discussion any more. I want to say thank you to the people who have been polite and honest, and I won't say anything at all to the few people who I really want to throttle right now.
I will say that I'm very sad to see some of the things posted here are being treated with even a slight level of acceptance.
To me, it's deeply disturbing that so many people look at this issue from such a perspective that they can't see the clear and real parallels to segregation, and that they aren't deathly ashamed to be part of an organization that would perpetuate such nonsense, fear-mongering, and prejudice.
If I were part of such an organization, I'd either drop out, or fight for change. I certainly wouldn't defend such a terrible error in judgment.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause.
Who's ignoring anything? Every time one of these specious arguments against SSM comes up, I point out why it is not an argument against SSM.
The battle over discrimination against gays, at least in the states where SSM is likely to occur, is largely over, and those who support discrimination have already lost. Every time you bring up an instance of, horror of horrors, someone being prevented from discriminating against someone because they were gay, you are fighting yesterday's fight, not making a case against SSM. And when you do that in the context of a discussion about the possible ramifications of SSM, you are lying, just like the Yes on 8 campaign lied, with the full support of several churches.
[ November 10, 2008, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Okay, look. You can do one of two things. You can try to get people to see your point of view by acknowledging their fears and working around them, or you can keep beating away at the issue with a hammer and ridiculing your opponents until they shut up. Only one of these methods is going to result in a peaceful end to the issue. Guess which one you're *not* doing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be to moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime. So get over it and quit acting like you're better than anyone else. Your ideas and arguments are neither new or interesting and it's not worth my time trying to talk up to the pedestal you've placed yourself on.
And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
I don't think you could be that brave in front of a firing squad.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You'd have to get me there first, Blayne. Good luck.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not campaigning here, Boris. I'm pointing out the dishonesty in the "yes on 8" campaign. I'm also pointing out the hypocricy of churches that claim to hold honesty to be a virtue using deceptive messaging to convince other people to support their views politically. The best tactic for addressing fears is, I think, to show that those fears are unfounded. If you think there's a monster under the bed, wouldn't showing you the absense of said monster put an end to that pretty quickly?
If you think I'm wrong, tell me why, don't just complain that I'm being too strident.
Also, who am I ridiculing? Do you consider having your claims shown to be false to be a form of ridicule?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
Got a link?
If it happened the way you say, it sounds like an injustice was perpetrated against a religious institution by some gay people. So why didn't the LDS church put its time, money and resources behind fighting that specific injustice, rather than perpetrating a new injustice against an entire culture of uninvolved people in retaliation?
You are missing the point entirely. The LDS Church was visited by one of God's angels and that Angel gave them Divine Knowledge. Homosexuals and their defenders do not have divine knowledge. The LDS Church and all other Churches are doing what is best for all people. Gays are just trying to do what is best for gays. The Churches have God and all of his resources on their side, homosexuals only have San Francisco. See?
If they deserved rights, they would already have them. There is no point in arguing, some one without divine knowledge arguing against the divine knowledge of a Church is like a pre-schooler arguing with Stephen Hawking.
Seriously, it's a sinner telling God He is wrong.
That is not right.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... I don't think you could be that brave in front of a firing squad.
Please stop. We already have a Christian with delusions of persecution. Why add delusions of leading a persecution?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Blayne, implied threats on other members are not okay. Please remove your post, and dial it back.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
Boris, a large part of the reason that people are afraid is because of the scary ad campaign funded in part by LDS members. People are afraid of these things because the anti-SSM advocates use them as scare tactics.
Also, how would the gay rights movement benefit if it stopped trying to "beat down the door"? How are they supposed to achieve civil rights without demanding them? Should they just wait until you say that God says that they can have families? Or do you mean that if they just shut up and rode quietly in the back of the bus, people wouldn't be so worried about them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be too moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
I won't argue the point. There's such a thing as fair warning, after all.
quote:As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime.
I've already seen one; I was born in such a world. Eventually the colonies catch up.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think what Boris is saying is not to stop fighting for stuff, but to fight with less venom. Be willing to state explicitely that a church will not be forced to perform a marriage it does not accept. Instead of just saying anyone who disagree with us only does so because they hate gays, address the fears people have (not give in to them, but try to reassure people). Talk about why society in general will be better by granting these rights (if you cannot think of a way society is better through your actions, maybe they aren't good- though I can think of many ways all of society will be improved for all with ssm so that is kinda a moot point). Basically, tjhe difference between a positive campaign and a negative campaign.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lovely. Death threats. I'm so impressed by the humanity.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. When there are insulting protests staged against homosexuals, the Mormons aren't there. Mormons tend to work through orderly, respectful democratic processes. We don't carry "God hates ..." signs, and we don't promote derision of any kind. Our church promotes the idea that all of society benefits from the traditional structure of marriage, and that it is worth some difficult sacrifices to keep that structure strong. But we never teach that those who disagree with us are worthy of spite.
Personally, I would not have voted for Prop 8, so having a lot of vitriol directed at me because I'm part of a minority religious group doesn't feel that great. Mormons weren't the only supporters of Prop 8 by a long shot, and the fact that we're being singled out this way simply shows that the opponents of Prop 8 know how to scapegoat a minority as well as anyone.
The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Gay people have eight wives?
Dang. And I thought that the stereotype of straight women being attracted to gay men was just well, a stereotype.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
No kidding.
There was a good editorial the other day about how encouraging raging religious persecution based on lies is perhaps not the best way to try and prove your moral superiority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Ha! Perhaps it's because I didn't grow up in the culture but came to it later, but I never thought of it that way before.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, while understanding thread drift means not all posts can be addressed, I just wanted to ask those who asked to hear my arguments opposing redefining marriage to include same-sex couples whether they had any response.
Specifically my assertion that only extending the legal privileges currently associated with "marriage" <edit>to homosexual couples</edit> is still insufficient. There are people living in loving, commited, long term, socially stable relationships who should be able to receive those benefits, regardless of the specific sexuality (or lack there of) of their relationships. To adequately bestow those legal privileges on those not in a sexual relationship it seems necessary to refer to that social contract as something other than "marriage."
If the argument is that we need to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships in order to "prevent prejudice," then I think the intent is tantamount to using the force of law to enforce a specific morality, which is counter to the proper uses of government.
To Squicky's point from a couple pages ago:
quote:I love (healthy) marriages. I love (healthy) families. I think that they are both incredibly beneficial things for the individuals in them, the people around them, and society as a whole. If there is any one thing I think we can do to make society better, it is to promote the growth of healthy marriages and by extension, families.
I see no reason why gay couples should be denied or at the very least severely disadvantaged when it comes to these incredibly valuable things. I see nothing about them or their relationships that makes them as a group incapable of having healthy marriages and families and I see nothing that would change the great benefits I see to bad things in cases where the marriage is same sex.
Other than the language you use, I would agree. I think it's wonderful when people find someone they can depend on, both for them and for society. Just because I disapprove of the sexual relationship doesn't mean that I view the social stability that comes with the relationship as a bad thing.
To my perspective, much of the problem comes not from the increasing social acceptability of homosexuality, but from the decreasing role of local community. I posit that 100 years ago in <edit>New England (and elsewhere as well, I just had a particular image of such a couple in my head when I wrote this)</edit>, there were many same-sex couples whose sexual relationship was opaque from the community, but who would have been afforded by the local community at least some if not most of the privileges currently being fought for. In the move to more impersonal communities, where medical care, estate settlement, and other important functions are being provided by people unacquainted with the individuals involved the legal institution of "marriage" became a convenient way to make those decisions. The legal function and the social function were joined. If we really want to support all long-term, committed loving relationships, we should divorce these two functions from each other. Because the state shouldn't care, for the purposes of providing legal privileges, whether my partner is my lover.
[ November 10, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Wasn't that a decision by your church based on your leadership's understanding of God's will?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They don't believe that.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
"RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?"
An Excellent Article by Cal Thomas, a conservative writer.
He says Religious Conservative should be more like Christ and stop relying to use the government to change everything.
[ November 10, 2008, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Unicorn Feelings ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who is they? I could very well be confused about the reasons for the current doctrine regarding polygamy. I thought it was a church leadershio decision rather than people making individual decisions to alter the pattern of their families.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
UF, thanks for sharing the article, but could you please excerpt it instead and link to the full thing, since it's copyrighted? Thanks.
--PJ
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. hat those who disagree with us are worthy of spite.
There are more Homosexuals in California than any other state in California. It's like their Home State.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, it's going to be interesting to see the prop 8 opponents protesting right next to the traditional anti-Mormon "Christian" protesters in SLC at the next general conference (my memory may be faulty - whatever the big meeting is that people report on here when it happens).
I wonder which group will be more obnoxious. Maybe they'll distract each other.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I wonder which group will be more obnoxious. Maybe they'll distract each other.
That would be fantastic. I'd love to see the dilemma worked out - who do they hate more? Mormons or homosexuals? Who do they hate more? Mormons or Phelpsians?
I suppose it is possible they could unite and decide to hate Mormons better together than apart. How heartwarming that would be.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Thor: Good article.
Puppy: Do you think it was right when the government imposed their religious beliefs on Utah and the Mormon faith back then? Do you think it's right for the Mormons to turn around and do the same thing to another group? As I've said before, the Mormons are behaving like abused children who grow up to abuse the next generation.
We all must stand up for each others rights if we are to keep our own.
But at the same time you have to understand the rage coming from the gay community. They were not the ones who threw the first stone here. The Mormons are reaping what they have sown.
It is my hope that some time SOON, Prop Hate will be overturned, The DOMA will be repealed and the Mormons will stop pushing hate against gay people. There's a lot of beautiful things about the Mormon faith. But it's tough for people to see that when anti-gay hate is what you put on display.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's tough to see how someone can argue that they are for social justice and freedom for all when they are waving around anti-religious hate and lies.
In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church. If that's how they are making their case, it is failing to be convincing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. When there are insulting protests staged against homosexuals, the Mormons aren't there.
The homosexuals aren't trying to take anything away from you. The church can't get behind the "yes on 8" campaign in a big way and then when people get upset about that claim to have a "live and let live" attitude about things. The "yes on 8" campaign was a greater violence to gays who want to be married than any protest is to the LDS church.
quote:Personally, I would not have voted for Prop 8, so having a lot of vitriol directed at me because I'm part of a minority religious group doesn't feel that great.
Are they protesting at your house? It seems to me that the vitriol is being directed at the church.
quote:Mormons weren't the only supporters of Prop 8 by a long shot, and the fact that we're being singled out this way simply shows that the opponents of Prop 8 know how to scapegoat a minority as well as anyone.
Quite the opposite. The LDS church is being singled out not because it is an impotent minority, but because it provided by far the most support for the Prop 8 campaign in terms of time and dollars contributed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church. If that's how they are making their case, it is failing to be convincing.
Surely you realize that most of us godless lefties find his outbursts just as rediculous as you do. I stopped responding to anything from him weeks ago.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's tough to see how someone can argue that they are for social justice and freedom for all when they are waving around anti-religious hate and lies.
In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church.
Can you link it?
I don't want Persecution of any Church.
All the Larger Churches and Religions have their major flaws.
Members of their church can believe their church is perfect or is the sole source of God's Voice, but it is not right or fair for the members of that church to ask all American people or the American Government to believe that it is perfect, or the one true carrier of the Word of God.
Churches can grow as large as they like, but they cannot and should not be able to force their morals or beliefs on others.
I agree with the Cal Thomas approach, work on BEING really great people and let people flock to you. Showing up on someone's door step and them asking them to believe what you believe is not the same thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Thanks for the clarification on "they".
I would make one correction to the rest of that paragraph. It is possible to acknowledge that the Church made a decision based on the church's belief that it was divine revelation without sharing that belief. One can believe that polygamy was ended because the church leadership believed that they had received divine revelation to that end and that the church's leadership also believes that they have received divine instruction regarding SSM without believing that either of those things are actually true. I should have been more careful with my phrasing.
I believe that it is also possible for most or many church members (not just LDS, but for many churches, mine included) to be heavily influenced by such pronouncements from leadership without all members abiding by them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Thanks for the clarification on "they".
I would make one correction to the rest of that paragraph. It is possible to acknowledge that the Church made a decision based on the church's belief that it was divine revelation without sharing that belief. One can believe that polygamy was ended because the church leadership believed that they had received divine revelation to that end and that the church's leadership also believes that they have received divine instruction regarding SSM without believing that either of those things are actually true. I should have been more careful with my phrasing.
I believe that it is also possible for most or many church members (not just LDS, but for many churches, mine included) to be heavily influenced by such pronouncements from leadership without all members abiding by them.
OK quick question, is the google ad below a photoshopped pic of John McCain giving a peck on the cheek to Joe Biden?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:OK quick question, is the google ad below a photoshopped pic of John McCain giving a peck on the cheek to Joe Biden?
It would seem to be, in my window...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It's two men giving each other a deep kiss for me that claims to link to a ssm poll.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Before I forget it, Kmbboots said something important:
quote:Boris, a large part of the reason that people are afraid is because of the scary ad campaign funded in part by LDS members.
In fact, back last spring, the California Supreme Court decided to permit same sex marriages. That surprised me and others, as few had expected the court to make that ruling, but nobody was very surprised because the legislature had twice voted to legalize SSM. Even if Schwarzenegger had vetoed those bills, everyone assumed California would sooner or later get a governor who would sign something similar. So according to the polls, nobody much cared except for gays. Perhaps two out of three approved, and one out of three disapproved, but only the largely Mormon-financed ad campaign created the present level of fear and hostility. And any damage suffered by either side has to be weighed against the fact that the California legislature will almost certainly put a measure to repeal Proposition 8 before the voters in a very few years, and it will probably pass. So in all likelihood those Mormons who donated and worked for Proposition 8 will have achieved nothing lasting except to identify themselves as members of the Church of Hate, which should I think be of concern to their leaders. That is not likely to help missionary efforts in California, and a proposal to shut down all the California wineries would have just as good a chance of success in the long run. But of course people can disagree with my estimate of the probabilities, or think that doing what is useless is still morally required.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The DOMA will be repealed and the Mormons will stop pushing hate against gay people. There's a lot of beautiful things about the Mormon faith. But it's tough for people to see that when anti-gay hate is what you put on display.
Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"? If not, I pity your lack of imagination. If so, I'm betting we can have this conversation without you accusing my people of motives that (1) they do not universally have, and (2) are irrelevant to whether or not this legislation is valid or good.
quote:Do you think it was right when the government imposed their religious beliefs on Utah and the Mormon faith back then? Do you think it's right for the Mormons to turn around and do the same thing to another group? As I've said before, the Mormons are behaving like abused children who grow up to abuse the next generation.
While I don't think my ancestors were hurting anyone through their practice of polygamy, and the vitriol directed against them was out of proportion, I do believe that polygamy is a vastly inferior system to monogamy, and that society benefits, as a whole, from enforcing monogamy (both through the structure of the laws, and through social sanctions against cheating and promiscuity). I don't have any problem with the fact that Utah was not allowed to be a part of the union without disavowing polygamy.
So I don't think that the government "abused" my ancestors, and I don't see the Church's support of traditional monogamy as "abuse", either. Every social system has people who benefit more or less than they would under a different system. My church's position has nothing to do with hating someone and everything to do with promoting a system that they believe carries the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
For example, if it were demonstrable that a society that disallows a certain form of marriage (not gay marriage, specifically, but any system, including polygamy, hetero monogamy, or whatever) has a statistically higher chance of raising more well-adjusted and successful children, then it might be a perfectly fair thing to ask those who would benefit from that form of marriage to give up what they want in favor of a better outcome for everyone, across the board.
I don't think that we're able to demonstrate such a thing about gay marriage — certainly, we can't do so scientifically, having never tried it experimentally. But if someone, for whatever reason, believes the scenario I described above to be the case, I think it's perfectly possible for them to support a ban on a particular marriage practice without being motivated by hate.
Did that make sense? Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Mormons who donated and worked for Proposition 8 will have achieved nothing lasting except to identify themselves as members of the Church of Hate, which should I think be of concern to their leaders. That is not likely to help missionary efforts in California, and a proposal to shut down all the California wineries would have just as good a chance of success in the long run. But of course people can disagree with my estimate of the probabilities, or think that doing what is useless is still morally required.
While I wouldn't have used these words, this is a fair approximation of why I would not have voted for or supported Prop 8. From my perspective, it seems like the downsides far outweigh the potential benefits.
But I also don't have a complete perspective on the consequences of either choice, so I support the church leaders' decision, in theory. I just don't understand it, and would have trouble acting on it, directly, myself.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
SenojRetep said, "In the move to more impersonal communities, where medical care, estate settlement, and other important functions are being provided by people unacquainted with the individuals involved the legal institution of "marriage" became a convenient way to make those decisions." This seems to me exactly correct, which is why the demand for SSM exists mostly in large cities rather than small towns. And perhaps better solutions could exist, but the political situation gives no other solution a chance. Saying otherwise is like asking why Proposition 8 was not amended to say explicitly that existing SSMs would be dissolved, rather than leaving everyone to wonder. That was because the whole campaign would have had to be started over, and assuredly failed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
Sure. But favoring traditional marriage (well, the current version of traditional, anyway) is not the same thing as preventing others from enjoying the same recognition from the state that you enjoy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
When you (generic you) actively work to subvert someone's civil rights, I don't think you could be accused of SECRETLY hating them.
But allowing your premise for the moment.. How would the result be any different if they DID hate gays?
quote:While I don't think my ancestors were hurting anyone through their practice of polygamy, and the vitriol directed against them was out of proportion,
My ancestors too. My fathers side of the family is Mormon going way back. In fact, I have a distant cousin who is the governor of Utah.
quote: I don't have any problem with the fact that Utah was not allowed to be a part of the union without disavowing polygamy.
So because you're fine with yours (and my) ancestors losing their rights, people who are still alive should be happy to lose their rights as well?
quote: So I don't think that the government "abused" my
I do. And I'm trying to stop the same abuse from being piled upon people today.
quote: ancestors, and I don't see the Church's support of traditional monogamy as "abuse", either. Every social system has people who benefit more or less than they would under a different system. My church's position has nothing to do with hating someone and everything to do with promoting a system that they believe carries the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
Hey, what does it matter if we strip a few people of their rights so long as it helps society as a whole? Doesn't matter that they haven't done anything wrong, we're making an omelette here! Crack those eggs!
And what if the people who think religion is child abuse manage to get a majority? Will you happily lay down your rights when they vote for the society that THEY think is best?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
There is an old saying, "When words do not match behavior, look at behavior." It doesn't matter so much as to what people feel when they vote to deny gay marriage, it is the behavior that supporters are responding to.
The act of denying equality is hurtful. Allowing equality in SSM does not hurt my marriage or your marriage.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
Hate is rather a strong word. I do think that there are few anti-SSM activists who are not repulsed by teh buttsechs, secretly or otherwise. But in any case, just the arguments that you and BlackBlade have given here, about believing that in the long run homosexuality is bad for people, shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I do think that there are few anti-SSM activists who are not repulsed by teh buttsechs, secretly or otherwise.
I'm sure there are plenty of pro-SSM activists who are, secretly or otherwise. Seems kind of a non sequitur to me though. The debate (thankfully) doesn't seem to be about what kind of sex people are having.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's one thing to support SSM despite the ickiness, and another to fight against it because of it. There is arguably some virtue in the former, not so much in the latter.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Yes it is. Whenever anyone takes a position on an issue that affects other people, he is making choices for someone else. Is the moral to not take positions on issues that affect someone else?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Pix:
quote:When you (generic you) actively work to subvert someone's civil rights, I don't think you could be accused of SECRETLY hating them.
But allowing your premise for the moment.. How would the result be any different if they DID hate gays?
If there isn't a difference, in your mind, then why don't you debate about the results, and not about the purported motivations, since the former is the actual source of contention, and the latter is unhelpful, inflammatory, and usually wrong?
quote:So because you're fine with yours (and my) ancestors losing their rights, people who are still alive should be happy to lose their rights as well?
I hope you realize that I'm not actually arguing for the banning of gay marriage. I'm arguing that you should not assume that people who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate or bigotry, and that making such an assertion raises tensions and lowers the level of discourse without actually accomplishing anything.
When I make these arguments, I'm trying to show that they can be valid without the assumption of hate. Not that we should necessarily act on them.
My personal position is that gay couples should have every right currently offered to straight couples, but that the word "marriage" should be set aside from government use to allow different subcultures to define it different ways as they see fit. Pretty different from the Prop 8 position.
lem:
quote:It doesn't matter so much as to what people feel when they vote to deny gay marriage, it is the behavior that supporters are responding to.
Then please, let's argue behavior, and stop exclusively using language that goes to motivation.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
You know, one of the reasons I care so much about this "motivation" discussion is the fact that once this debate has moved on, and gay marriage is commonly accepted in the US (which I think is 95% likely to be the outcome within the next couple of decades), my church will still not perform them.
This won't be because of "lingering bigotry". This will be because our doctrine teaches that human sexual dimorphism, and the custom of marriage, were explicitly designed by God to reflect the way things work in the eternities, and that those aspects of eternal life are immutable. They weren't arbitrarily made up by God as a funny human thing. They're a permanent part of the reality that exists beyond our view.
Unless our doctrine changes in a fundamental way, I don't see gay marriage becoming a part of Mormon life. Which should be fine — we're a minority religion, and people who disagree with our doctrine aren't required to believe it. They have a lot of other options.
But if it becomes "common knowledge" that the only reason to deny gay marriage is because of hate and bigotry, then we will be accused of hate and bigotry and held in very low regard, despite the fact that many of us (and by then, the vast majority of us) won't deserve it at all.
So I'd really like this argument to be about practice, and not about motivation, to avoid applying a stigma to my people that, whatever you might think about us today, will NOT be fair in the future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: You know, one of the reasons I care so much about this "motivation" discussion is the fact that once this debate has moved on, and gay marriage is commonly accepted in the US (which I think is 95% likely to be the outcome within the next couple of decades), my church will still not perform them.
This won't be because of "lingering bigotry". This will be because our doctrine teaches that human sexual dimorphism, and the custom of marriage, were explicitly designed by God to reflect the way things work in the eternities, and that those aspects of eternal life are immutable. They weren't arbitrarily made up by God as a funny human thing. They're a permanent part of the reality that exists beyond our view.
Unless our doctrine changes in a fundamental way, I don't see gay marriage becoming a part of Mormon life. Which should be fine — we're a minority religion, and people who disagree with our doctrine aren't required to believe it. They have a lot of other options.
But if it becomes "common knowledge" that the only reason to deny gay marriage is because of hate and bigotry, then we will be accused of hate and bigotry and held in very low regard, despite the fact that many of us (and by then, the vast majority of us) won't deserve it at all.
So I'd really like this argument to be about practice, and not about motivation, to avoid applying a stigma to my people that, whatever you might think about us today, will NOT be fair in the future.
Somehow I was unable to state all these ideas in multiple posts. I need to work on being succinct.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: While I wouldn't have used these words, this is a fair approximation of why I would not have voted for or supported Prop 8. From my perspective, it seems like the downsides far outweigh the potential benefits. ...
Bingo.
I think that this is one big reason why despite having a leaning towards legal same-sex marriage, I haven't really specifically singled out the Mormon Church. The likely unintended consequences of their move are enough for me.
Its "ok"* for the Catholic Church to adopt such a public stance against same-sex marriage (though I would note with some amusement that their efforts seem to go to waste in Quebec). Their size and diversity ensure that not every Catholic is stained.
* (in the sense that they will overcome)
However, the Mormon Church is small enough and marginal enough that the perception will stick. People from across the country (even internationally) will wonder what happened in California, will find out, and their perception of Mormons which at best is often "that wacky Christian sect with all the missionaries" will change to "that wacky Christian sect with all the missionaries and really hates gays." All they've really done is take the heat. The proposition won't last, but the stigma will.
It is kind of unfair, but most unintended consequences are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Its "ok"* for the Catholic Church to adopt such a public stance against same-sex marriage (though I would note with some amusement that their efforts seem to go to waste in Quebec). Their size and diversity ensure that not every Catholic is stained.
* (in the sense that they will overcome)
I don't think it is okay. The Catholic Church had been more conspicious in its absence from the news on this, though. It seems that the more noteworthy involvement had been about Catholics who have taken stands against Prop 8 contrary to official Church teaching.
As you said, large and diverse.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(I don't know if you understood this, and if you did, thats fine. But to elaborate, I meant "ok" in the public image sense (the Catholic church won't be permanently tarred as anti-same sex) rather than the moral sense)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I can understand churches not wanting to marry gay couples but do they really have to go after Civil Unions? All it is is a legal contract that gives them tax benefits, let em gave it. Leave "real" marriages up to individual demoninations some will recognize em' some won't. Let the ones that will do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can understand churches not wanting to marry gay couples but do they really have to go after Civil Unions? All it is is a legal contract that gives them tax benefits, let em gave it. Leave "real" marriages up to individual demoninations some will recognize em' some won't. Let the ones that will do it.
As far as I know Blayne, nobody in this thread or even the Mormon church has stated their intention of revoking civil unions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's a proposal being drafted for civil unions in Utah as we speak. Let's see how they react.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There's a proposal being drafted for civil unions in Utah as we speak. Let's see how they react.
What's a civil union? Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There were a bunch of protests over Prop 8 last weekend. Mostly in California, one in SLC, and one in Chicago. I love my city.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
For instance, Vermont's Civil Union law specifically limits civil unions to same-sex couples who aren't immediately related (first-cousin or closer). I think this is unfairly discriminatory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
I imagine they're hammering the language out now, precisely to address this sort of nitpicking.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
I imagine they're hammering the language out now, precisely to address this sort of nitpicking.
Why do you think it's nitpicking?
I think it fundamentally changes the nature of what a "civil union" should be understood to be: from a validation of a sexual relationship (in which I don't see why the government should be involved) to an easy way of extending a class of legal privileges to anyone in a committed, socially-stable, long-term relationship.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
California's domestic partnership law is similarly discriminatory. Why should the state care whether domestic partners are related? Or of the same-sex?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There were a bunch of protests over Prop 8 last weekend. Mostly in California, one in SLC, and one in Chicago. I love my city.
Also Seattle and NYC (NYC may not have happened yet, but I know it was planned.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Puppy: What goes on in your church is none of my business. Otherwise I'd be on about the misogyny of your dogma. I'm not. I don't care. No one else cares either. YOUR church. YOUR business.
But your church threw tens of millions of dollars to thwart other people's civil rights in another state.
I'd have loved it if we, as two groups, had left each other alone. But you (plural you) wouldn't mind your own business.
Now you're getting protests.
If you (plural you) were worried about being hated, you did the wrong thing. Next time, try a smile and a handshake instead of stomping on people's civil rights.
Pix
PS: I still like and respect you, Puppy. I think you were just handed something that's hard to defend.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
I imagine they're hammering the language out now, precisely to address this sort of nitpicking.
Why do you think it's nitpicking?
I think it fundamentally changes the nature of what a "civil union" should be understood to be: from a validation of a sexual relationship (in which I don't see why the government should be involved) to an easy way of extending a class of legal privileges to anyone in a committed, socially-stable, long-term relationship.
Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Yes.
<edit>With the caveat that an appropriately non-sexual term be found for that relationship. I don't know if "civil union" or "domestic partnership" has already been overly corrupted by the battle over SSM, but they both strike me as being in the right spirit</edit>.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
As commanded/preached by the church.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
One thing about the LDS stance, and its backers, that needs to be understood before any advance can be made.
Its not hate
There is no low viscous dehumanizing hatred in the secret bowels of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or in the majority of its members who backed proposition 8.
Until the gay rights protesters realize this then they will be written off as hate-mongers.
Its not hate that motivates them.
Its something even worse.
Its fear.
Now fear can lead to hate, can lead to violence and destruction, but it hasn't yet.
Its fear that their ideas and beliefs are threatened by two girls kissing, or a couple of manly men holding hands and promising a lifetime of commitment to each other.
Its fear that legalizing Adam and Steve means that their church has less import, less power, less meaning in our current culture.
Its fear that their children will see happy gay couples, and unhappy straight couples, and be driven to that gay relationship in search of happiness.
Its fear that sinister gay protesters are going to force their church to perform sins of consecrating what should be condoned.
And its fear that is bred and fed by leaders, wolves in shepherds clothing, that want to tie their congregations together, to give them an enemy to fight.
I want to know what is the bigger threat to the church? Gay marriages recognized by the state, or church leaders who bear false witness in order to spread fear, hoping to scare their congregations into behaving.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But those members made the choice. And those of us who thought prop8 should be opposed were told that our opposition was perfectly acceptable (atleast everyone I know of).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
I think this, now oft-repeated refrain, is a bit of an obfuscation.
The counsel from the church was everything but a direct commandment. No, the church didn't force members to donate time and money, but they very strongly encouraged it. It's perfectly reasonable to credit the church for the political activities of its membership in this campaign.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Yes it is. Whenever anyone takes a position on an issue that affects other people, he is making choices for someone else. Is the moral to not take positions on issues that affect someone else?
When was the last time a group other than gays had a choice about their sex and love lives made for them by legislation?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
It's not the votes of individual members that made the difference. What really turned this issue around was the members who took the Presidency letter for what it was - a call to arms. People who would normally just cast their vote or donate a hundred dollars to a political campaign all of a sudden became political activists.
Members donated more money and in greater numbers than if left to their own devices and consciences. Ward and stake resources were used to plan campaign activities.
I've spoken to one church member who SUPPORTED prop 8 who elected to say home from Sacrament Meeting until after the election so she could avoid the constant politicing from the pulpit on this issue.
This was absolutely an organized campaign by the church that started with a directive from the highest authority that the church recognizes on the earth. Who signed the checks at the end of the day is not nearly as relevant as what the status quo was prior to the "yes" campaign and what influences changed that status quo.
[ November 11, 2008, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
I think this, now oft-repeated refrain, is a bit of an obfuscation. ...
I may also add that it is a bit misleading since the campaign used church organization and resources for help rather than the implication that the church was really hands-off.
Right from the horses mouth:
quote: Church Readies Members on Proposition 8
As the Proposition 8 campaign in support of traditional marriage enters its last two weeks, the Protect Marriage Coalition is encouraging its members to make phone calls in support of the measure. The Church is participating with the Coalition in support of this endeavor.
...
At the request of the Protect Marriage Coalition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making arrangements for them to call friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of the effort to defend traditional marriage. The coalition has asked members of the many participating churches and organizations to contribute in whatever way they can to the effort to pass Proposition 8, including by phoning.
I may have my opinions on this guy, but he makes a damn good argument.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Kieth O. is an idiot. First he says he doesn't know why anyone would support Prop. 8 and then he goes off on a triad against those who did? First get to know the supporters reasons and then you might have somewhere to start where your not speaking to your Choir.
I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context. Religion isn't about "Love," but about G-d and how G-d defines love. Sometimes love is even defined in religion about what others take as hate in defense of things greater than the worth of individual humans. The Scriptures, if you have read them, even limit love to very specific actions more than feelings. That includes the New Testament and sayings of Jesus who said a few things that could be taken as hate speech. He called a few people, and groups, names. Love in religion doesn't start with the love of people (and that can even be a sign of an evil heart), but the love of G-d and what He defines as righteousness.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, your religion is completely foreign to me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Talking about the Mormon church in general includes a lot of people who opposed the prop and who would have thrown a massive fit if tithing money was used on the campaign. Which is why it annoys me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Then you simply have to understand that when we say "Church", we're criticizing the Mormon Church as opposed to the Mormon people.
Hmmm, that sounds familiar. *L*
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I may have my opinions on this guy, but he makes a damn good argument.
That's not an argument; it's an impassioned plea. A very well-written and executed one. But one that I find personally unmoving, because it addresses none of the core issues.
<edit>Or, if what he presents are in fact the core issues, it strengthens my support for overturning SSM, since the arguments stand essentially on the ground of legislating against prejudice, which I view as a misuse of the force of law.</edit>
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Talking about the Mormon church in general includes a lot of people who opposed the prop and who would have thrown a massive fit if tithing money was used on the campaign. Which is why it annoys me.
The existence of a quiet minority that opposes the leadership on this matter does not make the characterization inaccurate. Also, to the extent that church resources were used to support the campaign, your tithing money was used for this purpose.
[ November 11, 2008, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If you (plural you) were worried about being hated, you did the wrong thing. Next time, try a smile and a handshake instead of stomping on people's civil rights.
What I'm protesting isn't "being hated" — you can't be a Mormon without developing a thick skin for that. I'm protesting being accused of hate. It unnecessary and unfair, and your argument could work perfectly well without including that untruth.
The church may have motivations you don't share, but those motivations are not hate. They include faith (that opposing gay marriage will displease many people now, but will ultimately benefit all of society in the long run), fear (not a generalized, irrational "fear of the gays", but a fear that changes to the surrounding society and its language will make it much harder to promulgate their own culture and religion), and a number of other individual motives. But hate is not a significant universal motivation.
Accusing the church of "hate" when its motives are something entirely different is wrong, however justified you might feel in lashing out.
I do appreciate your having given me the benefit of the doubt. And I assure you that many, many of my brethren deserve the same. The fact that someone supports or promotes ideas that you think are bad does not mean that the people are bad, or have bad motivations. When two people evaluate the potential consequences of a particular action in different ways, it is perfectly possible for one to support the action, and another to oppose it, without either party have an evil, hateful motive. The sooner they recognize this fact, the sooner they can reach a compromise that satisfies them both.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Yes.
<edit>With the caveat that an appropriately non-sexual term be found for that relationship. I don't know if "civil union" or "domestic partnership" has already been overly corrupted by the battle over SSM, but they both strike me as being in the right spirit</edit>.
I agree in principle. But to paraphrase, are you then opposing SSM because existing SSM proposals don't go far enough? That is, they don't extend the legal benefits to a wide enough group? Wouldn't extension of the legal benefits to an additional group at least be an improvement over the current situation?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I agree in principle. But to paraphrase, are you then opposing SSM because existing SSM proposals don't go far enough? That is, they don't extend the legal benefits to a wide enough group? Wouldn't extension of the legal benefits to an additional group at least be an improvement over the current situation?
Not necessarily. For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings. If, instead, states only required that two people make consensual long-term commitment to one another, regardless of their implicit or explicit sexual relationship, I would get on board.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think, again, that we are overlooking the fact that civil marriage is more than a contract. It creates one unit where there had been two. It joins families as well as finances and possesions. When you enter into a SSM marriage, you get in-laws just as in heterosexual marriage And marriage creates new families. This is true even when a married couple has no children. They are still each other's family.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Not necessarily. For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings. If, instead, states only required that two people make consensual long-term commitment to one another, regardless of their implicit or explicit sexual relationship, I would get on board.</edit>
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan to me. I don't think the government should deny legal rights to one set of two committed individuals verses any other set.
The Church was never against Domestic Partnership laws in California that tried to give these rights. Granted, these laws were ruled to be unequal, but instead of changing the laws to be the same, they made sweeping decisions about the definition of marriage. It's simply not about rights. It's about that definition. I'm finding myself getting pretty libertarian on this, I guess, but I don't think the government should be trusted to define marriage one way or another.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings
Why?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: The Church was never against Domestic Partnership laws in California that tried to give these rights.
Which "Church" are you talking about?
Because if you mean the Catholic or the LDS churches, those groups did oppose Domestic partnerships.
''I think it's probably the most comprehensive and emphatic and definitive statement the Vatican has yet issued,'' said C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. ''The church is not only opposed to same-sex marriage, but also to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and homosexual adoptions.''
And the LDS church:
"In October 2004, the First Presidency's office issued a statement saying the church 'favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.'"
I'm not aware of any other church that is routinely refered to simply as "the Church", so can I ask which Church you were referring to?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
The domestic partnership laws in California don't say anything about marriage, which is what the First Presidency's message is referring to. If the issue were about rights, the LDS church would have likely thrown its weight behind fighting those laws like it did for Prop 8. Did they do that? No. It might have been somewhat disapproving of DPs, but not to the degree that is was for the changing of the definition of marriage. So arguments that the LDS Church only wants to take away rights is false. That's the point I was very poorly trying to say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So arguments that the LDS Church only wants to take away rights is false.
I think you failed to prove your point, here.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why?
Because I feel it violates the freedom of conscience of a large number of people, including myself.
<edit>I assume you meant why I would oppose simply extending the "marriage" label in order to grant the legal privileges. If you meant why I would have misgivings about establishing a new term, and including both hetero- and homosexual partnerships, but no others, it is because I think it would be silly to come up with an inclusive label, and then exclude some group of people that could benefit from it.</edit>
[ November 11, 2008, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: [The domestic partnership laws in California don't say anything about marriage, which is what the First Presidency's message is referring to.
Did you read the quote? "[The LDS church] favors measures...that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
quote:If the issue were about rights, the LDS church would have likely thrown its weight behind fighting those laws like it did for Prop 8.
They opposed the granting of any legal status to gay couples. How is that supporting their rights?
Even today, they support lots of rights only conditionally, "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family". So, does the LDS think that gay people being in relationships infringe on straight families? Well, lets see what they wrote in 2004:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. " [italics mine]
Hmmm...So they believe that gay relationships undermine the family, they reserve their support for hospital visits and the like only so long as it doesn't "impinge" on the family. This isn't me imagining what the LDS stance is, this is me reading quotes from published statements directly from the church itself.
quote:It might have been somewhat disapproving of DPs, but not to the degree that is was for the changing of the definition of marriage.
This isn't a question of degree.
You wrote that the LDS was "never against" domestic partnerships.
Do you still think that this is an accurate statement? Let me remind you of the official statement below:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures ...that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.""
quote:So arguments that the LDS Church only wants to take away rights is false. That's the point I was very poorly trying to say.
If they didn't want to take away rights, they wouldn't make their support of their rights conditional. We know from their writing that the LDS church thinks that same-sex relationships damage "the family". We know from their writing that they support same-sex couple rights only to the extent that they don't "impinge" on "the family". This isn't interpretation, these are direct quotes.
Sorry, but I am going to put 2 and 2 together here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And their families or ones like theirs are the only ones that matter.
Using the law to destroy families that aren't patterned the way their families are patterned is fine.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why?
Because I feel it violates the freedom of conscience of a large number of people, including myself.
<edit>I assume you meant why I would oppose simply extending the "marriage" label in order to grant the legal privileges. ...
Yes, that's what I meant.
But I don't understand what you meant. That is, I don't understand why your freedom of conscience would be violated. Do you mean in a legal sense, in that churches would ultimately be legally forced to recognize and/or perform marriages that they would not have otherwise?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I don't understand what you meant. That is, I don't understand why your freedom of conscience would be violated. Do you mean in a legal sense, in that churches would ultimately be legally forced to recognize and/or perform marriages that they would not have otherwise?
No. I mean that the government would be legislating an approved way of thinking about and referring to homosexual relationships which violates my (and many others') personal conscience. I don't feel the government should take sides by legislating private morality, and that's exactly what I feel it would be doing in extending the term "marriage" to cover homosexual relationships.
<edit>To head off any charges of hypocrisy, I should point out that my support for prop 8 (which legally defines marriage contrary to the private conscience of lots of other people) is strictly reactionary. The government had already taken sides, and so I supported prop 8 as a less bad alternative to the current state of affairs. On principle, I think it's a lousy thing for a government to define a social construct; but since it already had, I felt it should define it correctly. If a proposal that got the government out of the marriage business completely were instituted, I would support an effort to repeal the amendment passed as part of prop 8.</edit>
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh, I see. And that trumps the extension of the legal benefits to an additional group of people, ergo you don't support the extension?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Oh, I see. And that trumps the extension of the legal benefits to an additional group of people, ergo you don't support the extension?
In the hypothetical, probably (depending on what the legal benefits are and how large the subpopulation whose freedom of conscience is being violated is and a few other factors). In the specific case of CA, where the legal benefits were already conferred (albeit through a faulty mechanism), then absolutely.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. Thanks for explaining. I hope you didn't feel like I was baiting you for some "gotcha" moment.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context.
I don't know what book you're reading, but I'm pretty sure it ain't the Bible.
Matthew 22:36-38
quote:36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
1 Corinthians 13:1-7
quote: 1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Luke 6:35-36
quote:35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
And this, I don't even know what to say.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: No. I mean that the government would be legislating an approved way of thinking about and referring to homosexual relationships which violates my (and many others') personal conscience.
You are arguing that you should TAKE AWAY OTHER PEOELES' RIGHTS, because otherwise the government is FORCING YOU TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY?
I swear to all that is good in this world, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. To defend legislating against SSM, people have to step completely outside of reality and into some bizarro world where it makes sense to segregate, hate, fear, and demean others in the name of a Loving God.
Edit: Here's the worst part about these arguments - the fears that several of you are trying to avoid by preventing SSM HAVE ALREADY COME TO PASS.
Look around you - people are already protesting the anti-gay bigotry evidenced by the Church. People already see these actions as prejudice. You aren't even fooling yourself.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I swear to all that is good in this world, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. To defend legislating against SSM, people have to step completely outside of reality and into some bizarro world where it makes sense to segregate, hate, fear, and demean others in the name of a Loving God.
You should remember that as little as fifteen years ago, very few people were arguing in favor of same-sex marriage either because they disagreed with the idea, or because it seemed like an utter impossibility. Recognition and acceptance of gays in the military was the issue du jour, and it didn't work out the way the pro-gay agenda intended.
If living in a world where gay marriage seems unattainable due to the attitudes of others is like the Twilight Zone or Bizarro World for you, how did you survive the nineties?
Can you understand that for some people who never seriously considered the idea until this decade, the emergence of gay marriage as a possibility also feels like the Twilight Zone? It's a new, unfamiliar concept, and you should not be at all surprised that it is taking time to catch on.
I'm curious if you think that all the people who vote in favor of gay marriage today, but who would not have fifteen or twenty years ago when public opinion was much further in the "against" direction, are also bigots? Closet bigots, perhaps. Or repentant bigots. Or maybe all this name-calling is a waste of time, and we ought to be discussing the actual issue.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I already admitted that in the past I was bigoted against gay people, because I didn't think they needed to get married. I'm not proud of it, but I have the introspection and intellectual honesty to admit that I was wrong in the past, dead wrong, and it was largely due to prejudice and ignorance.
I didn't know any gay people, I didn't understand the issues, and I went with what was popular, and what society seemed to support, rather than actually considering the issue, looking it in terms of prejudice and segregation, and seeing how wrong I was.
Once I got to know some gay people, I found out that they're just people, and it was idiotic of me to think they should be treated any differently from anyone else.
Once I realized that all the fear and prejudice people were using for excuses, trying to disguise in a veil of religious belief or societal pressure or what's "normal" was just excuses and a smoke screen to prevent us from realizing that it's just prejudice and segregation, I was ashamed and realized that I needed to change my mind.
I do understand what's going on here. Nobody wants to admit that their strongly held beliefs are actually prejudiced. It's much more comfortable from an introspective and world-view standpoint to insist that other people are wrong, and what we believe is right. It's hard to change your beliefs, especially when doing so forces you to admit that your past beliefs were deeply wrong and hurtful.
What surprises me though, is the logical stretches people are going to in order to justify and deny the prejudice. Some of these explanations are just crazy.
The idea that the government will force us to think differently or that we might feel uncomfortable if we allow other people equal rights, so it's better to deny them their equality in order to protect our delicate sensibilities - I'm just amazed that people can give these arguments out loud, and not realize how nonsensical and completely unjust they are.
It's easy to justify things to ourselves when we don't think about them to much, but to actually think through the argument and come up with some of the least compelling arguments I've seen really and honestly surprises me.
I guess I can take solace in the fact that with such flimsy arguments, it will be easier for people to realize the cognitive dissonance and accept the fact that it's better to admit to having been wrong and correct it, than to stubbornly hold on to that error and compound it.
Edit: And I think the name calling IS necessary. It's only when we're made uncomfortable that we have any good reason to change. It is the very fact that people are willing to soften the blow, make justifications, and think around the issue that even people who sort-of, kind-of see the point are willing to sit by while their friends or their Church condemn SSM.
If you can pretend it's not really so bad, and it's someone else's problem, and that gosh darn, change takes time, and there's no reason to push it, of course it takes time.
If we call a spade a spade, and make people see the uncomfortable truth, that regardless of justifications, people are being prejudiced and supporting segregation, maybe they'll realize that they don't want to be called a bigot, they don't want to BE a bigot, they just want to stay in their comfort zone and pretend it doesn't matter to them.
If I can make people uncomfortable enough that they realize it does matter, maybe they'll step up and say something positive next time, instead of just NOT saying something negative.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Ah, the modern face of the evils of organized religion. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...
You are arguing that you should TAKE AWAY OTHER PEOELES' RIGHTS, because otherwise the government is FORCING YOU TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY?
As a side note, how many wallbashes have you done in this thread? You're going to get a concussion Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context.
I don't know what book you're reading, but I'm pretty sure it ain't the Bible.
Define love, please.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...
You are arguing that you should TAKE AWAY OTHER PEOELES' RIGHTS, because otherwise the government is FORCING YOU TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY?
As a side note, how many wallbashes have you done in this thread? You're going to get a concussion
It adds a dash of hysteria to the misrepresentations and ad hominems.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Ah, the modern face of the evils of organized religion.
I find it very interesting that none of the religious crowd have used the word "evil" in describing their opponents, and yet your side seems to have brought that word out first.
Maybe it's just a coincidence. You seem to be injecting alot of emotion in your statements MC, I am sure everyone here knows you feel strongly and passionately about your position. I don't think anyone here would accuse you of being false. But when you flat out tell somebody that when they support their spiritual leader that they MUST be committing sin is frankly very disrespectful and presumptuous. All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
To assume that those who endeavor to obey a prophet must be evil or else complete imbeciles is very insulting. You may have found organized religion wanting, but you don't know that nobody has found a more direct link to God through it. You may have concluded that in this instance the church's stance regarding same sex marriage proves that it's leadership does not speak for any God, real or imagined. But don't speak as if you must be right, and the rest of us are fools or evil agents.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Define love, please.
Clearly, there are many definitions of love, but I think it's clear within the context of Christianity that Jesus' love was very inclusive, accepting of faults, forgiving of failings, and was never withheld from anyone because they were wrong, because their beliefs or behaviors were against his teachings, or because they were part of an excluded or shunned group.
We may have different definitions of love, but when someone tries to tell me that a Christian based love is the basis for injustice and exclusion, I refuse to accept that as valid.
Jesus made a specific point to show EXTRA love to people who were considered sinners, outcasts, and the people put down by society.
People often bring up the idea that Jesus condemned their behavior, or hated the sin and loved the sinner, which I find little scriptural backing for, but the important point is that Jesus never used any sort of force, emotional, physical, legal, or spiritual to make people change, and while he asked them to make an effort to be better - he gave them the best of himself anyway.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But when you flat out tell somebody that when they support their spiritual leader that they MUST be committing sin is frankly very disrespectful and presumptuous.
Would you say that it's more, or less disrespectful and presumptuous than when your spiritual leaders tell your congregation that all the gay people MUST be committing a sin, and should be legally prevented from doing so?
The evil I was referring to is when someone KNOWS right from wrong, and intentionally chooses to do wrong because their leadership instructs them to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: their position supersedes mine.
All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
Are you saying that you thought those people or the people who followed them were correct to do so? I don't understand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: their position supersedes mine.
All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
Are you saying that you thought those people or the people who followed them were correct to do so? I don't understand.
You seem to have added some inadvertent text when you quoted me. I was saying that those of us who still believe in divine revelation are fully aware of the atrocities committed in the name of God. I can't give a line by line synopsis of when somebody really was doing what God commanded. We are aware of these terrible acts but have not concluded that God just doesn't command anyone to do anything controversial. Jesus himself says concerning disapproval of Christians, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."
MC: I can't speak for my leaders, neither can you. We do not know their motivations. My God has not told me that they have instructed amiss. As they have not out and out said "God commands that His saints act thus..." I cannot definitively say what God's opinion is on the matter. I do believe my church's leaders are doing what they think is right, they are not evil men seeking to harm others.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You know, I'm just going to state a couple things and then hope I never get drawn into this discussion again. The LDS church was not responsible for the tactics and messages used in the Yes on 8 campaign. The church constantly called for civility and kindness in the effort. That the campaigners chose not to do that as much as possible is not the fault of the church. From what I see, gay rights activists are crying foul over the message that was used in the yes on 8 campaign. That's perfectly fine. But they're also using those *exact same* tactics to get back at their detractors. There's a word for that. It's called hypocrisy. And you may think that religious groups are being hypocritical by refusing to give rights to homosexuals, but fighting perceived hypocrisy with hypocrisy does absolutely *nothing* but cause those you're fighting to dig in deeper and fight against you even harder.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You're suggesting they ought to turn their other cheeks?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. You Christians go ahead and turn your cheek first, then. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Funny...guess what the church's official response to the protests and vitriol leveled against it lately has been?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A press release about being unfairly singled out and implying persecution?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Yeah. A press release...oooh. That's just so evil.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seriously?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm curious, Boris. What other official response might they have made?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade,
Yeah, I missed deleting some of your post when I quoted. I still don't understand your answer, though. Should the people who committed terrible acts in the name of God have committed those acts? Were they right because they were following someone who purported to speak for God?
Or should those who thought or felt that those acts were terrible have resisted?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade,
Yeah, I missed deleting some of your post when I quoted. I still don't understand your answer, though. Should the people who committed terrible acts in the name of God have committed those acts? Were they right because they were following someone who purported to speak for God?
Or should those who thought or felt that those acts were terrible have resisted?
Again I can't say what would have been best. I was not in those people's situations. Nonbelievers often condemn the Israelites because according to their own record they forcefully removed the inhabitants of Canaan under God's orders.
What's the difference between Abraham and a guy who thinks God wants him to actually slay his own son? One of them was spared at the last second from doing something they didn't want to, and the other actually went through with it.
When a person of another faith says to me, "I know God has spoken to me and wants me to belong to this religion," I cannot always say they are wrong. All I can do is examine for myself what God is saying to me. Maybe God did indeed guide them to join that religion as a stepping stone for something else. Maybe one day God will fundamentally alter the way I see the universe and inform me that Mormonism was a means to an end.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One of them was spared at the last second from doing something they didn't want to, and the other actually went through with it.
You realize God doesn't stop everyone in the Bible from fulfilling even His bloodiest requests, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So if you can't know when someone is truly speaking for God, don't you have to rely on your own God-given reason and knowledge and compassion? And the Holy Spirit that is God's gift to each of us?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nonbelievers often condemn the Israelites because according to their own record they forcefully removed the inhabitants of Canaan under God's orders.
To make it perfectly clear, when I have referenced this event the intent is not really to condemn the Israelites. After all, they're long dust along with their victims.
No, what I actually condemn (and fear) is the concept that one can look at at event like genocide, understand that it is evil in all other contexts, and yet condone it in this one context simply because one believes that one's deity commanded it.
I don't want to pick on this post, but it is certainly a vivid depiction of the problem. When one cannot look to one's own conscience to judge whether genocide is wrong, whether killing one's own child is wrong, and whether another religion with its own set of arbitrary dictates is wrong, then the three are disturbingly close. (Say separated seemingly by only two hard breaks ) They are seemingly judged as being right or wrong based on a religious story.
For others, that may not necessarily be a problem, god determines which of those acts is wrong or right, no harm no foul. But from the POV of an atheist who doesn't believe in a god, this essentially means that potentially a small group of people decide what "god" thinks and relays that to others.
Now for some, kmbboots whose communication with her god is roughly equivalent to communicating with herself, this is less fearsome.
But the idea that perfectly reasonable people can allow religion to dictate action and belief *as a group* AND *against* what one feels is their own conscience, thats what is actually being condemned when I use that reference.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Originally posted by Mighty Cow: People often bring up the idea that Jesus condemned their behavior, or hated the sin and loved the sinner, which I find little scriptural backing for, but the important point is that Jesus never used any sort of force, emotional, physical, legal, or spiritual to make people change, and while he asked them to make an effort to be better - he gave them the best of himself anyway.
I think most people are thinking of the woman set up on the adultary charge when he told her to go and sin no more. Jesus loved everyone regardless, but he did ask that they not commit immoral behavior. Look at his treatment of the Pharases and the money changers. That was the best of himself?
Jesus never talked about homosexuality. It only comes up a couple times here and there. But if one believes that God is opposed to the act, it's really hard to get behind the idea of putting society's stamp of approval on the behavior in defiance of how they see God's will.
Are there even any similar situations in our past? The closest I can think of is 501c status for a group. It probably started as a way to reward charities, as a form of approval. Today, it's just a set of criteria to be met that confers tax exempt status. I wonder if there was a similar uproar when the first group the majority disapproved of applied for 501c recognition?
It all comes back to viewpoint. Some people see America as an exclusively secular government - but not everyone does. Some people see the marriage liscence as a validation of widely held religious thinking on the matter - others don't.
Just screaming equal rights and prejudice over and over does nothing to address the fundamental gap in thinking on the issues. You don't get to frame the debate just by being the most persistant. Eventually, the other guy will just walk away, and then everyone loses.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I certainly do, reference the Book of Mormon's Nephi and his slaying of Laban. He certainly had a serious moral dilemma about what he had been commanded to do.
kmbboots: You misunderstand. I can know when somebody is speaking for God, because as you said I have my reason, and the Holy Ghost which is God's gift to all who desire it. I cannot always know if God has spoken to a person.
Mucus: To be clear I don't believe the Israelites killed the Canaanites purely because they were "different." Likewise I am doubtful that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed purely because of homosexuality. I think a careful reading of the record gives hints that both instances had more going on. I wish I could flesh this out more but I'm late for work, I'll try and get back to you today. Sufficeth to say I don't think God says, "This GROUP of people need to die."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know whether you're quoting "different" from or where you got idea that I was saying that S&G were destroyed purely because of homosexuality.
Thats not terribly relevant to the my point.
It is interesting that you claim that God never says that a group of people die. I don't want to misquote you, but I've previously noticed that in a thread where Lisa was very aggressively defending the Israelites and their genocide, that you didn't in fact claim that her interpretation was strictly untrue. Simply that while it was distasteful, that it was necessary.
Edit to add:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Do you really think it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a situation however implausible?
quote:
quote:What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
That's not a defense, its an observation of fact. The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order, we have no reason to assume it was for humane reasons or just because of sheer stiff-neckedness.
...
Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not? They didn't target this group of people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, they targeted their religion. If anything it should be called theocide, as they burned all their idols too. The rationale for killing the non virginal women was that they as a group invited Israelites to participate in their fertility rites, and this included having sex in the presence of idols.
Ah, so I slightly misremembered. It was more that maybe it wasn't quite genocide and there were mitigating circumstances, but it was a direct order.
[ November 12, 2008, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: You misunderstand. I can know when somebody is speaking for God, because as you said I have my reason, and the Holy Ghost which is God's gift to all who desire it. I cannot always know if God has spoken to a person.
How do you know any more than the people who committed atrocities by following others who they knew spoke for God?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Its called faith kmbboots. You seem to say you have it, but you don't talk as if you know what it is; especially not from a religious standpoint. I could be wrong. Maybe you are an agnostic and just don't know it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have faith in God and in God's goodness. I don't have the same faith in people who claim to speak for God. Particularly when what those people say contradicts God's goodness.
I would think that any survey of history shows that such people often mislead their followers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, I forgot to add a link for the previous quote. Here it is. link Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But the idea that perfectly reasonable people can allow religion to dictate action and belief *as a group* AND *against* what one feels is their own conscience, thats what is actually being condemned when I use that reference.
This is an interesting point in this context as in the LDS Church conscience is believed to be a gift from God, much as the Holy Ghost is. All people are said to be given the gift of conscience, or the "Light of Christ" while those who are baptised into the Church are also given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What does one do when the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost disagree? How is that even possible?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I can't speak directly to those questions since I don't think in those terms. I wasn't speaking about Mormonism in specific but rather religion (and yes, forces like nationalism) as a whole.
If we must bring it back to Mormonism in specific, it may be worth considering Lanfear's post,
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: ... When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
and deciding how each of of those phrases corresponds to the situation. Is that a case of the "Holy Ghost" as given by the Church overriding the conscience or the Light of Christ"? I don't know.
But from my POV, it seems to illustrate the point directly.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Jesus never talked about homosexuality. It only comes up a couple times here and there. But if one believes that God is opposed to the act, it's really hard to get behind the idea of putting society's stamp of approval on the behavior in defiance of how they see God's will.
This I understand, but what I don't understand why Churches choose to only enforce Homosexuality. Jesus is very clear that you can only divorce if your spouse cheats on you, and if not, you are in SIN and can never remarry. Or even going as far as to say that if you had pre-marital sex you can't get married, because in marriage wife and husband are supposed to wait until marriage.
The Churches are OK and silent about 4th, 5th, and 6th marriages but very vocal and militant about homosexuality. My guess is because it is easy.
Also, with all the sins and the way of the world, I do not know why Churches act like homosexuality is somehow WORSE than the other sins, but somehow homosexuals deserve extra special scorn and human judgement.
In my brothers neighborhood of Conservative Wealthy Christians, I had a long pool side debate with a baptist over homosexuals, rights, unions marriages and sins.
He was against homosexuality in all ways, shapes and forms. His wife agreed 100%. They were fighting to keep the tradition of marriage sacred.
About a year later, it turns our he got his 21 year old mistress pregnant. The marriage ended in a messy divorce with 3 children caught in the middle.
They should have spent more time strengthening THEIR marriage as opposed to spending so much emotional energy trying to save everyone's marriage. I am sure the irony is lost on them.
Maybe I am wrong and Homosexuality is the biggest problem facing the world today, and once the Churches fix it, everyone on Earth will enjoy a better quality of life.
oh, and i found it so American that the Black Californian's voted 70% to pass Prop 8 'solidifying marriage' and Barack Obama himself noted that 70% of Black Children grow up in a home without a father.
In my Stars and the universe class, we watched a movie in the planetarium on Galaxies, how there are trillions in the universe, and when we watched the part on Galaxies colliding (which was awesome) I marveled at how little we know yet so many love to claim such an absoluteness of Truth and Wisdom. yeah, okey dokey.
Oh, and, In Religion in America class this week, we're doing Islam and Women's rights, and an expert on Muslim Women's rights said, "Religion and Culture" have been used for thousands of years justify the inferiority of women.
I guess, as a Christian, I am so skeptical of religion because I've read a lot of history. A Church being '100% True' would have to actually PROVE it to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is something I also fail to understand. No one has ever been able to explain to me (perhaps I am just difficult) why we allow people who take the Lord's name in vain to serve in the military. Or allow people who fail to honor their parent to teach school?
Homosexuality isn't even in the "big ten".
Homosexuality is barely mentioned in the bible and not at all in the Gospels. In the NT, Paul mentions it a few times and it isn't like Paul (though inspired) got everything right - he was writing from a specific context as well.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
MightyCow:
quote:I already admitted that in the past I was bigoted against gay people, because I didn't think they needed to get married. I'm not proud of it, but I have the introspection and intellectual honesty to admit that I was wrong in the past, dead wrong, and it was largely due to prejudice and ignorance.
I didn't know any gay people, I didn't understand the issues, and I went with what was popular, and what society seemed to support, rather than actually considering the issue, looking it in terms of prejudice and segregation, and seeing how wrong I was.
Once I got to know some gay people, I found out that they're just people, and it was idiotic of me to think they should be treated any differently from anyone else.
Once I realized that all the fear and prejudice people were using for excuses, trying to disguise in a veil of religious belief or societal pressure or what's "normal" was just excuses and a smoke screen to prevent us from realizing that it's just prejudice and segregation, I was ashamed and realized that I needed to change my mind.
I do understand what's going on here. Nobody wants to admit that their strongly held beliefs are actually prejudiced.
So, let me see if I have this right. Because you saw your own motivation for opposing gay marriage as bigoted/prejudiced, you are therefore assuming that everyone else who holds that same opinion must therefore have the same motivation? And any other motivation they cite is merely a smokescreen?
May I assume that even if, in objective reality, someone opposed to gay marriage truly did have a different motivation, you would assume they were lying or deceiving themselves, and accuse them of being a bigot?
How does one argue with logic like that?
[ November 12, 2008, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:This is an interesting point in this context as in the LDS Church conscience is believed to be a gift from God, much as the Holy Ghost is. All people are said to be given the gift of conscience, or the "Light of Christ" while those who are baptised into the Church are also given the gift of the Holy Ghost.
What does one do when the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost disagree? How is that even possible?
I think the two are perceived in such identical ways that it would be hard to tell that was happening.
But I get what you're driving at. Across the board, I believe that everyone is responsible for following his own conscience, and if your conscience disagrees with the Church, then the first thing you must do is resolve that conflict somehow.
Sometimes that might mean realizing that your initial conscientious reaction is wrong, or should be suspended for the time being, based on faith in the organization. Sometimes it might mean making yourself an exception to the organization's ruling. Either way, when the decision is made, it's your own. Individuals are always responsible for what they choose, even if they do it in the service of a larger organization.
No one should ever abdicate their decision-making to someone else. Choices of this importance should always be made consciously and deliberately, as an individual. I believe that Church doctrine fully supports my opinion in this.
EDIT: Rereading the quote, I DIDN'T actually get what you were driving at I missed that you were talking about two different groups of people. I was imagining the two conflicting within an individual.
So my point still stands, but as a non-sequitur, rather than as a response
[ November 12, 2008, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
You have no idea how many times today that unedited remark ate at me.
kmbboots: While there are wolves prowling in sheep's clothing that does not compel us to conclude that nobody is authorized by God to speak. Look at the numerous prophets in the Old and New Testaments. We didn't have instances where sometimes the prophet was right in how they spoke for God and sometimes they weren't. Prophets far from being perfect made mistakes of course, but not in regards to revealing God's word. I don't think God would intentionally call somebody to be a prophet who was going to deceive the people.
I think it is pointless to state that were the prophet to command me to do something that I believed God disagreed with that I would not do it. It's obvious my first allegiance is to God, but I do not believe that the prophet and God are going to give me mixed messages. If that ever happens, I will have a serious crisis of faith that makes my strivings with same sex marriage look like kindergarten.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure we do. Jesus tells us to beware of false prophets. There must have been some. Read Jeremiah. Here are a couple of samples, but you should read the whole thing.
quote: "For both prophet and priest are polluted; Even in My house I have found their wickedness," declares the LORD.
quote: They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. (Jer 23:16b)
quote: Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; (Jer 23:16a)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: I've already acknowledged the existence of false prophets. I'm protesting the existence of a man called to be a the prophet over God's people later turning and leading folks astray. This type of prophet is known as a, "fallen prophet."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I've argued for gay rights at Hatrack since I was what, fifteen? I don't feel any urgent need to continue beating the horse. But in just seven short years, most of the world's come around to the reality that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Where will we be in another seven years?
The LDS church didn't feel like revising their racial policies until the 1970's, and it's probably going to be late to this equal-rights party too. And your kids are probably going to be just as ashamed of you as they would be of the people who argued against black equality. Rightly so.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Please bear in mind that Christianity is a bit more complex than even some Christians will allow.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
One of the "rules" for Mormons is that their prophet can't ever be a false one. That was prophesied by an earlier Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith perhaps, but I'm not sure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
edited because I probably went too far.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Frankly, I think the LDS members who were against Prop 8 have to do some serious gymnastics to support that opposition in the context of the official statement of the church, but I think equal rights for gays are more important than resolving cognitive dissonance for Mormons, so I don't usually speak to that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
What evidence do you have that they were official prophets? They could have been called prophets because they themselves call themselves prophets. They could have been known as prophets because the people in general accepted them as such. People who prophesy are often called prophets even though that is not their official station. See Saul dancing and prophesying thus giving rise to the saying, "Is Saul among the prophets?" Take Balaam a non-israelite man with the prophetic gift. He gives us some of the most pointed prophecies about the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of Israel. He converses with God and angels. However later he sides with the Canaanites and is slain by the Israelites in one of their battles.
Here is an example of a man with the prophetic gift aka a prophet who falls. This is still in stark contrast to men like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Jesus, Peter, etc. Men like these were actually called to lead God's people. They enjoyed communion with God. These men were authorized to speak for God as far as His commands pertained to the entire church. There is no instance of men in this head prophetic office falling from their station. They typically lived out their lives and were then replaced.
Matt P: That was Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration-1. "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
Just to make sure we fully understand each other. Does that mean you're completely erasing that sentence (and that the Christian god does say that certain groups of people have to die) or just that you wanted to tackle it at a different time.
I don't mind dropping the topic if its not one you want to pursue, but I just want to clarify.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Lalo:
quote:The LDS church didn't feel like revising their racial policies until the 1970's, and it's probably going to be late to this equal-rights party too. And your kids are probably going to be just as ashamed of you as they would be of the people who argued against black equality. Rightly so.
The "blacks and the priesthood" issue was founded in a simple Church policy that, when changed, had very few ramifications for our doctrine at large. The main thing the Church had to get over, from a doctrinal point of view, was years of unofficial folk doctrine, which shouldn't have been believed to begin with.
Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
(Unlike many other Christian faiths, Mormonism doesn't reject gay marriage because of a couple of passing comments in Deuteronomy. We've got some foundational ideas about the nature of our souls, the afterlife, etc, that don't work with gay marriage. It's not a "god said not to" issue for us, internally, as much as it's a "well, that wouldn't make any sense with what we believe" issue.)
It seems more likely to me that the Church will not start performing gay marriages any time soon, but that, in the future, it may become more supportive of gay marriages between individuals who aren't of our faith. Just a guess. No particular evidence to back it up.
EDIT: Oh, but on the subject of "shame". I think that because of this doctrinal issue, our reluctance to accept gay marriage is going to keep making sense, even after public opinion has shifted completely in favor of it. As long as there's a clear reason for the policy, there's less to be confused or ashamed about. I think that the dominant emotion on the subject will be frustration that the outside world refuses to understand the reasons behind our policy, and just calls us names instead.
[ November 12, 2008, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus: There was a bit of a misunderstanding. I meant to erase that final sentence with the words, "Sufficeth..." Unfortunately I hit post, noticed the error and when I attempted to edit it my internet just was not working. Since I was already pressed for time I just left without fixing the mistake.
Just to make sure we fully understand each other. Does that mean you're completely erasing that sentence (and that the Christian god does say that certain groups of people have to die) or just that you wanted to tackle it at a different time.
I don't mind dropping the topic if its not one you want to pursue, but I just want to clarify.
Strike the whole sentence. It's not worded the way I intended. I'm willing to discuss the concept of justifiable genocide, but I'm not sure where you wanted to go with it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
I don't think the issue is as difficult as all that. You already have a second-class Heaven; why not a second-class eternal marriage, for those who can't deal with the male-and-female thing?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong. The Church is designed in such a way that finding out we're wrong isn't fatal, but it's much harder than simply changing a rule.
I don't think the issue is as difficult as all that. You already have a second-class Heaven; why not a second-class eternal marriage, for those who can't deal with the male-and-female thing?
Mormons already have a tiered system in the afterlife. It allows for a large degree of variation between those tiers. Beyond that, there are scriptures stating that only marriage between a man and woman done under the proper authority is of eternal import.
But how things work in the afterlife is certainly something I think we know next to nothing about. Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, "We're you to gaze into heaven for 5 minutes, you would know more than has ever been written on the subject."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Puppy, this is just not true. The relevance is quite different, and but "irrelevant" is quite simply incorrect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
What evidence do you have that they were official prophets? They could have been called prophets because they themselves call themselves prophets. They could have been known as prophets because the people in general accepted them as such.
I'm going to have to agree with BB on this one. I see no textual evidence that they were "official" prophets (whatever that means), and quite a bit that they were not.
I disagree about Bilaam, though. He was a true prophet, despite his best intentions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage. They don't believe that marriages during mortality have any relevance to the eternal world, so it seems like a bit of a technicality to me ...
Puppy, this is just not true. The relevance is quite different, and but "irrelevant" is quite simply incorrect.
Gonna chime in to second Dag on that one. Although I do support same-sex marriage. But that is because I don't believe that gender roles have eternal significance, not because I don't believe marriage does.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, has resigned following threats of a boycott over his donation of $1000 to the Proposition 8 campaign. Since the donation was entirely proper, I do not see he deserved that; and I hope this pattern does not spread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Free speech, man. People have a right to boycott whatever they like. Just as they have a right to donate to whatever they like. You cannot claim that the boycott is improper and the donation proper.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
How is this different from getting someone fired because he is a registered Republican? And would that be proper?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would we know which was which?
ETA: The prophets that were denounced in Jeremiah were "official" prophets. The were sanctioned by the religious authority.
What evidence do you have that they were official prophets? They could have been called prophets because they themselves call themselves prophets. They could have been known as prophets because the people in general accepted them as such.
I'm going to have to agree with BB on this one. I see no textual evidence that they were "official" prophets (whatever that means), and quite a bit that they were not.
I disagree about Bilaam, though. He was a true prophet, despite his best intentions.
Oh I wasn't trying to say that Balaam was not a true prophet. I think the evidence points to that he was. I was making a distinction between him and the prophet leading the Israelites at the time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, musical theatre. If you can't be intolerant of gays when you're in musical theatre, where can you?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Strike the whole sentence. It's not worded the way I intended. I'm willing to discuss the concept of justifiable genocide, but I'm not sure where you wanted to go with it.
That's ok. I've already said my piece and it seems the conversation has moved on. I just wanted to make sure I understood you properly.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: The main thing the Church had to get over, from a doctrinal point of view, was years of unofficial folk doctrine, which shouldn't have been believed to begin with.
Gay marriage is tougher. Were the Church to start sanctioning it within the Church, that would be a much bigger foundational change to the way our doctrine views the nature of gender and marriage. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But it's less likely because of the sheer size of the change. Making that change would mean that our current understanding of a lot of core ideas is just dead wrong.
Fair enough, that your church doesn't want to concede a point on which your religious doctrine depends. But at what point does common sense overrule doctrine? If your religious tenets hypothetically depended on discrimination against interracial couples, at what point do you recognize that a) your religion is incorrect, or b) the stigma against homosexuality is just another "unofficial folk doctrine" you "shouldn't have been believed to begin with"?
Even if conforming to equal rights requires an overhaul of the entire Mormon religion, isn't ending discrimination worth the cost? It doesn't sound like you believe there's any reason to oppose homosexual rights besides religious commandment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh I wasn't trying to say that Balaam was not a true prophet. I think the evidence points to that he was. I was making a distinction between him and the prophet leading the Israelites at the time.
I disagree with that as well. Moshe was a prophet for the Jews; Bilaam was a prophet for the gentiles. They also made different choices about listening to God. And there were many other prophets among the Jews (Aaron and Miriam, among others), albeit none on the level of Moshe. I don't believe in such a thing as a fallen prophet; there are those who are true prophets, and those who are not. Although I suppose there could be one of the former who lost his prophecy and became one of the latter -- but we are agreed that is not the case with Bilaam.
quote:Homosexuality isn't even in the "big ten".
No, but it is in the Big Three.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I am not comfortable with pushing you to question what seems to be a core "all or nothing" tenet of your religion, so I won't go any further.
Rivka, I don't know what you consider the big three* nor do I need to. For people who follow the other restrictions, dietary and so forth, keeping all the rules is at least consistent. Again, it is not appropriate, at least on this forum, to express my opinions of your core beliefs.
*As far as I am concerned, there are really only two.
[ November 13, 2008, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: So, let me see if I have this right. Because you saw your own motivation for opposing gay marriage as bigoted/prejudiced, you are therefore assuming that everyone else who holds that same opinion must therefore have the same motivation?
I've explained before, but you may not have been in the discussion at that point, so I'll reiterate. It doesn't matter what the justification people give, denying equality to a minority group is prejudice, period. People can dress it up any way they like, it doesn't make it less wrong.
Segregationists felt like they had some really compelling reasons why black people couldn't go to the same school as white people, or why people of different races couldn't get married - probably lots of the same reasons people use to explain why gay people can't marry one another.
Prejudice is prejudice.
quote: How does one argue with logic like that?
I'll let you know, as soon as you tell me how to argue with the idea that people get a pass for being bigoted because someone who supposedly has God's ear tells them God says it's cool.
Oh wait, here's one.
Hey all. God just told me we should let gay people get married. Cool? Great, discussion over.
I guess we're at a deadlock now, as far as having God's backing, so people are going to have to go with their conscience and hopefully take a look at this history of our country and decide if they really want to be this generation's segregationists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rivka, I don't know what you consider the big three* nor do I need to. For people who follow the other restrictions, dietary and so forth, keeping all the rules is at least consistent.
That wasn't actually my point. Judaism did influence Christianity, neh? It makes sense that the three better-to-allow-yourself-to-be-killed-than-do (idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality) of Judaism would be extra important to at least some Christians too.
I was trying to answer your question, not asking for a backhanded slap at my beliefs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know why my declining to pick at or criticize your core beliefs is a slap. I don't think that it is appropriate for me to do on this thread.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That wasn't actually my point. Judaism did influence Christianity, neh? It makes sense that the three better-to-allow-yourself-to-be-killed-than-do (idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality) of Judaism would be extra important to at least some Christians too.
I was trying to answer your question, not asking for a backhanded slap at my beliefs.
Could you cite what passages name the big three? I'm not familiar with Judaism. I'm wondering if "sexual immorality" specifically names homosexuality, and if not, what else identifies homosexuality as immoral behavior.
That said, even discussing this issue in religious terms lends credibility to "I say God says so" argument, which I don't think is legitimate. I suppose if one wants to explicitly ban homosexuals from one's own religion, that's their choice, but why would the LDS Church attack non-Mormon homosexuals in California?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I'm not familiar with Judaism.
Clearly. (And I really don't mean that in a snarky way.) Citing passages is the way Christians do it. In any case, I have no interest in debating my religious beliefs with you.
Kate, it was not so much what you said but how you said it. Why include that sentence at all?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: The Churches are OK and silent about 4th, 5th, and 6th marriages but very vocal and militant about homosexuality. My guess is because it is easy.
This I completely agree with. It's easy to pick on gays because they squick a lot of people out regardless of religion.
When you tackle divorce, you have to tell the guy in the second pew tithing every week that he's screwing it up for everyone. He might get his feelings hurt and change churches and then where would you be?
I have to admit, I love that Pastor Dan never pulled any punches on the subject. His theory seemed to be that society's general permissive attitude was what hurts marriage. It's not just sex or divorce but the underlying assumption that a marriage is replaceable that's the problem.
I would love to see churches focus more on reaffirming marriage. It is important. Divorce does hurt others. Ask me why it took me 12 years to decide I was ok with marrying my boyfriend some time. It wasn't just my own parents' divorce that made it look like a bad idea.
I will give my least favorite gay marriage argument some credit. While I don't feel that "straight people have already ruined marriage" is a pro-anything argument, it is a valid sentiment. Shouldn't we get back to marriage meaning something before we spend all this time worrying about who gets the title passed out to them by folks who don't get to speak for God anyway?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [W]hy would the LDS Church attack non-Mormon homosexuals in California?
Calling the church's involvement an "attack" is about as honest as an add showing missionaries as home invaders.
But I was wondering what you thought of my proposal, Lalo. Change the CA domestic partnership statute to cover any long-term, committed relationship (be it heterosexual, homosexual, or non-sexual) and end the practice of state-sanctioned marriage. This seems to me to achieve equality (not just for people in homosexual relationships, but for a larger group of people who deserve the rights), and meet the true interests of the state, while preserving the rights of those who oppose gay marriage.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
From a practical perspective, how would that work when people move in from other states? Would a married couple moving to California be considered a domestic partnership under CA law? What about a married same-sex couple from one of the states (or countries) that recognize such? A couple with a civil-union from another state?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: From a practical perspective, how would that work when people move in from other states? Would a married couple moving to California be considered a domestic partnership under CA law? What about a married same-sex couple from one of the states (or countries) that recognize such? A couple with a civil-union from another state?
Administratively, I think it would be less messy (or at least no more messy) than instituting SSM (against which there are constitutional bans in several states as well as federal bans in some countries, including our own).
I'd mostly considered the problem of people moving out, which I think is fairly simply resolved. But for people moving in, I agree the situation is tricky. I guess I would say that marriages would end at the CA border, but be recognized as domestic partnerships. Same with out-of-state or out-of-country marriages, as well as civil unions/domestic partnerships. But I'd have to give it more thought before I felt secure in that opinion.
<edit>How do states resolve local requirements on things like medical exams, or bar exams with the Full Faith and Credit Clause? What about something like a liquor license, which can be granted in one state but not recognized in another, due to local restrictions on alcohol sales?</edit>
[ November 13, 2008, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: How is this different from getting someone fired because he is a registered Republican? And would that be proper?
It is different in that he did not get fired, he resigned. And it is different because the people threatening the boycott were not making hiring and firing decisions, they were making buying or not buying decisions. Are you suggesting that they should be forced to buy from companies whose policies they dislike?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The School is doing a sort-of boycott of the business of another big financial supporter of Prop 8. We moved an event we were planning. With our interest in justice and diversity, we just didn't feel it was appropriate to hold an event at this person's business.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dag and dkw, sorry if I got your doctrine wrong
You've got to understand, most of my experience with the details of traditional Christian doctrine comes from traditional Christians attacking my beliefs, and this is one of the points of contention. They make a big deal of the exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees about marriage and the resurrection, and overemphasize the idea that there is no marriage in heaven. But they may be overstating their position to score points against my faith It wouldn't be the first time.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Lalo:
quote:Fair enough, that your church doesn't want to concede a point on which your religious doctrine depends. But at what point does common sense overrule doctrine? If your religious tenets hypothetically depended on discrimination against interracial couples, at what point do you recognize that a) your religion is incorrect, or b) the stigma against homosexuality is just another "unofficial folk doctrine" you "shouldn't have been believed to begin with"?
Even if conforming to equal rights requires an overhaul of the entire Mormon religion, isn't ending discrimination worth the cost? It doesn't sound like you believe there's any reason to oppose homosexual rights besides religious commandment.
The problem is that we're not free to decide what we overhaul and what we don't. It wouldn't be a religion if we could just make it up as we went along.
Like I said, it's possible that our understanding could be revised in some way to make gay marriage feasible sometime down the road. It's much less likely than the racial thing, and I know you have to see the difference. Race is a very superficial human feature that disappears after a generation of intermarriage. Gender is a feature of all complex organisms that has been a part of us for eons, and that we cannot continue as a species without. It would have been much harder to claim that racial differences had eternal significance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: How is this different from getting someone fired because he is a registered Republican? And would that be proper?
It is different in that he did not get fired, he resigned.
If he had been fired, would it be any different? The company would just be looking after its economic interest; it wouldn't have anything to do with his political views.
More murkily, should a company be able to justify not hiring someone with unpopular political views because it could effect them economically? Should they be able to restrict what political views employees are able to express while in their employ, because of potential economic impact?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:It doesn't matter what the justification people give, denying equality to a minority group is prejudice, period. People can dress it up any way they like, it doesn't make it less wrong.
You do know what the word "prejudice" means, right? "An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts; Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative; An irrational hostile attitude, fear or hatred towards a particular group, race or religion"
These are all motivations, not actions. The fact that a person takes a particular action does not begin to tell you what their motivation is.
You can say that denying a minority group X, Y, and Z is "always wrong", and that would be just fine ... but it's illogical to say that it is "always prejudice".
To take a totally inflammatory example, look at abortion. Some people see abortion as an issue of bigotry and discrimination — to deny a woman the right to be free from the burden of pregnancy the way a man is free of that burden (or the burden of the government intervening in certain medical decisions) is unfairly discriminatory against the woman. They see anti-abortion advocates as patriarchal misogynists who just want to subjugate women.
However, many anti-abortion advocates don't see it that way at all. They see the fetus as a living thing with rights of its own, in conflict with the rights of the mother, and they believe that there are times when the fetus's rights should win out.
This position isn't inherently prejudicial against women. There are lots of reasons why people disagree with it, usually having to do with whether or not a fetus should have rights, and when. But disagreeing with this position doesn't make it a prejudiced position. Prejudice has nothing to do with it.
(Note that, since I'm not trying to start an abortion debate, I tried to represent both sides dispassionately, without bringing in my personal feelings on the matter.)
My point here is that you can disagree with someone about the likely consequences of gay marriage, whether it is worth the tradeoffs, etc. But accusing them of terrible motivations that they may or may not have is wrong, it's bad form, and I daresay, it is more prejudicial than the positions you are criticizing. If you'll refer to the definition above, presuming to assert things about your opponents that you could not possibly know, in order to create a negative impression of them, is, actually, the very definition of prejudice.
[ November 13, 2008, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: It wouldn't be a religion if we could just make it up as we went along.
Am I the only one who finds this funny?
(probably)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
btw, on the guy who quit...
Jimmy the Greek was fired for less.
Jimmy was in an entertainment business with a lot of black people in it. He said something about blacks.
The mormon guy QUIT an entertainment business with a lot of gay people in it. He gave a caca load of money to an anti-gay cause.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: It wouldn't be a religion if we could just make it up as we went along.
Am I the only one who finds this funny?
Nope. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Pix:
quote:Am I the only one who finds this funny?
(probably)
I knew someone would go for this joke, but at its core, it doesn't make any sense. The thing people criticize about religion is how little it changes in the face of new ideas or evidence, not that its followers are changing their minds all the time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think so, actually. I think it's that people first make things up, and then treat them (literally) as Holy Writ. Here as in so many other things, though, Mormons are something of an exception, since your revelation does change over time.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Puppy: The fact that religion lags behind the times doesn't mean it doesn't change. People tend to follow the parts of the bible they like and discard the parts they don't.
But this is a digression.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Another funny thing on signs at the anti-Mormon rallies, by the way:
"Go back to Utah!"
I wonder if the protestors realize that the Mormons were probably in California long before their ancestors were.
It's like when anti-immigrant types in Los Angeles tell minorities to "go home" — when Los Angeles was originally settled by Mexicans with Indian and African heritage.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They make a big deal of the exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees about marriage and the resurrection, and overemphasize the idea that there is no marriage in heaven.
That's interesting. I've never heard that used as an attack on Mormonism, though I've heard it several times from Mormons who were trying to demonstrate the superiority of their faith.
I think the "familes forever" thing is an unusual differentiator as few members of other Christian denominations don't already believe they will be reunited with their families when they go to heaven. The specific technicalities of the relationships, which is the only real differentiator, just doesn't seem important.
Mormons make a lot of the "til death do you part" of non-temple marriages, but that parting refers to the temporary physical separation between a spouse that passes on and the one that remains. Mormons don't escape that any more than anyone else.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The fact that religion lags behind the times doesn't mean it doesn't change.
Right. Have you read my other posts? I've been talking about this very thing. Change is slow, however, because most religions don't have mechanisms built in to allow old ideas to be rejected. This can make change a painful process.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Puppy: I'm glad to hear you imply that they need to change.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I think the "familes forever" thing is an unusual differentiator as few members of other Christian denominations don't already believe they will be reunited with their families when they go to heaven. The specific technicalities of the relationships, which is the only real differentiator, just doesn't seem important.
Mormons make a lot of the "til death do you part" of non-temple marriages, but that parting refers to the temporary physical separation between a spouse that passes on and the one that remains. Mormons don't escape that any more than anyone else.
That's funny. You're right that most individual Christians do believe that they'll be reunited with their families after death ... but the scripture-bashing ones who come after Mormons explicitly deny it, and say that our beliefs on the matter make us heretics I wonder what the members of their own congregations would think if they heard them.
Still, I assumed that the scripture-bashers were correct about the dogma of their church, and that Christians who believed in families continuing after death were believing in a pleasant, incorrect "folk doctrine".
Of course, with the lack of central authority among Evangelicals, I guess it's hard to draw a line between "official doctrine" and "what some folks believe".
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The reason I find what Puppy said funny has nothing to do with the speed of the change. For an atheist like me religion *is* "made up", and all changes to it are made up "as we went along". Nowhere is rapid change suggested. Of course, now that I explained my reasons it won't be funny anymore. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Puppy: I'm glad to hear you imply that they need to change.
Of course they do. Mankind is inherently imperfect. However perfect we might think God is, there is no way we're going to get our side of it right the first time. Just like science, religion needs to be agile, and needs to respond to new information. When it fails to do so, it inevitably gets replaced by a new religious movement (even if the new movement sometimes has the same name as the old one).
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Corwin, I know we've gotten past the humor by now, but I still want to make sure my point is there. Individual religious people can't just decide to make up new doctrines without essentially denying their reasons for belief in the first place. You choose a religion because you think it has something to teach you, and because you think its source of information is better than yours.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Change is slow, however, because most religions don't have mechanisms built in to allow old ideas to be rejected. This can make change a painful process.
Depends on your POV.
From my POV, there isn't too much difference in this sense between the continual revelations of Mormons, reincarnations of the Dali Lama, the Pope, or the Imams of Islam. All in one sense can be viewed as a mechanism to regulate change, both in the sense of controlling dissent but also to allow old ideas to finally be rejected.
That this mechanism lags society is hardly a surprise since control of the mechanism is dominated by the old (and a too progressive approach would probably promote schism, as with the Anglicans and their same-sex marriage problem)
Still, most religions (counted by believers anyways) do have them in one form or another.
And there is always the large number of Chinese beliefs and philosophies which are inherently mix-and-match (and hence allow change) in their practical application anyways. (A more cynical view might note that this is not too different in practise from many more liberal WASPs anyways)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That's funny. You're right that most individual Christians do believe that they'll be reunited with their families after death ... but the scripture-bashing ones who come after Mormons explicitly deny it, and say that our beliefs on the matter make us heretics I wonder what the members of their own congregations would think if they heard them.
Heard who? What prominant religious organizations claim that, as a matter of doctrine, families cannot be reunited in heaven? This seems much more like something that Mormons would say that other churches say, in an effort to convince people to convert, than something that would actually be said by people who are critical of the LDS church. That's not to say that there isn't someone, somewhere saying it. It's a big world. But as a part of any organized movement against the LDS faith, or as doctrine of any large Christian organization? I doubt it.
If anything, I think the way that the LDS church describes heaven as a number of separate levels is more scary, from a family perspective, given that different members of a family could end up in different levels depending on their individual worthiness. Instead of "all good people go to heaven" it's "all good people go to A heaven, and the really good ones to to a different heaven than everyone else". Your husband and daughter didn't make it to the Celestial kingdom? Ah well, that's unfortunate.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: How is this different from getting someone fired because he is a registered Republican? And would that be proper?
It is different in that he did not get fired, he resigned.
If he had been fired, would it be any different? The company would just be looking after its economic interest; it wouldn't have anything to do with his political views.
More murkily, should a company be able to justify not hiring someone with unpopular political views because it could affect them economically? Should they be able to restrict what political views employees are able to express while in their employ, because of potential economic impact?
I think there is a distinction to be drawn between "firing for political opinions" and "firing for actions leading to a boycott of the company", even if the actions in question were of a political nature and on private time. One is a response to internal convictions of the employee, and presumably illegal. The other is a response to external factors. In any case, what do you suggest as the alternative? You cannot force people to do business with a company they do not like. If an effective boycott materialises, it seems to me you have a choice between firing, resignation, or bankruptcy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Corwin, I know we've gotten past the humor by now, but I still want to make sure my point is there. Individual religious people can't just decide to make up new doctrines without essentially denying their reasons for belief in the first place.
Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Some of the remarks on this thread seem to me unkind to faithful members of various religious traditions. Someone who is born into or joins a tradition which has been elaborated for hundreds or thousands of years may have good reason to think that that scholars in that tradition and its leaders probably know more about a current controversy than he does, and that he should take their official pronouncements very seriously when deciding how to act. That does not rule out the possibility that his own conscience may decide they are wrong, and he may be forced to act on that, but it can and should greatly weaken his confidence that he is in fact right in doing so.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Matt:
quote:Heard who? What prominant religious organizations claim that, as a matter of doctrine, families cannot be reunited in heaven? This seems much more like something that Mormons would say that other churches say, in an effort to convince people to convert, than something that would actually be said by people who are critical of the LDS church. That's not to say that there isn't someone, somewhere saying it. It's a big world. But as a part of any organized movement against the LDS faith, or as doctrine of any large Christian organization? I doubt it.
The disagreement isn't actually so much about whether you'll see people again, but whether you'll still "be married" and carry on your life together (which is the part that seems relevant to gay marriage). I don't think I'm allowed to link anti-Mormon content on this forum, but a simple Google search will reveal that this is an extremely common criticism that we hear all the time. Enough to make it very easy for a Mormon to draw the conclusion that this is a universal belief among traditional Christians.
King:
quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from? Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Actually, the differences between our beliefs and other Christians' beliefs on this subject sometimes make me wonder why many other Christians don't support gay marriage.
Because the word "marriage" in English and the Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible translated as "marriage" all refer to heterosexual unions.
It's not an issue of allowing or forbidding gay marriage. Going by the Bible, there's simply no such thing as gay marriage. It can't be supported because it doesn't exist. Homosexual committed relationships exist, but they aren't marriage, so couldn't be supported as such. (And, of course, they qualify as "sexual immorality" anyway, see rivka's Judaism comments earlier in this thread.)
If we legalize "gay marriage" all we're doing is using the law to change the definition of an English word. That would mean that all the Bible translations would then be less accurate... we'd need a new word to translate the Greek/Hebrew concepts since "marriage" wouldn't fit as well; it would imply things not in the text. And of course, no such word currently exists.
Consider the plight of Bible believers trying to teach someone. If they get hold of someone who does believe the Bible, but doesn't know much about it (yes, it's not a great idea to believe a book without knowing much about it, but the religion here would actually be trying to correct that), then passages about marriage could be construed as meaning either homosexual or heterosexual, but that is assuredly not what was intended by the writers.
So a whole extra layer of complexity is added wherein a person has to be taught about translation issues and why "marriage" in the Bible doesn't mean what "marriage" in English does.
It's one thing when a language naturally evolves. Words change meaning, but usually there will still be a word to refer to a certain concept. For instance, the King James translation of the Bible is in 1611 English, very out of date. Where it says "meat," we would say food. What we call meat, it calls "flesh." To read 1611 English as if it was modern English would be to misunderstand what it means.
The KJV is thus an inaccurate translation, made so by the march of time, the natural evolution of language.
It's less fun when it's done by judicial fiat. It ends up retconning passages in religious books, with no obvious words to update the translation.
Since people think using language, changing the language is an attempt to change the way people think. Certain religious folks tend to see trying to do this instantly by law as a sort of 1984-ish newspeak meant to get people to accept SSM as coequal, not by persuasion, but by indoctrination.
All of the (false, evil, prejudiced) accusations of bigotry against anti-SSM folks on this very thread only serve to reinforce the idea that many pro-SSMers are trying to change people's minds about the equality and morality of homosexual relationships by any tactics necessary.
The oft-made comparison to racial equality fails, because prejudice *was* the motive for most people to want to enforce segration; it wasn't part of their religion; and it was a judgment, not on the morality of someone's actions, but on someone's appearance or heritage. One is thus a judgment, the other a prejudgment.
The analogy fails, completely and utterly, and is only kept alive because it's so successful as an intimidation tactic. Furthermore apparently 70% of black voters don't believe the two movements are analogous, as they voted in favor of proposition 8.
(I realize proponents of SSM likely don't *care* at all about the difficulties anti-SSM religious folk will face. But I just felt like explaining it. Might help partially shed light on the "how does allowing gay marriage hurt you, anyway" question.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from?
You might want to use the example of _some_ Catholics and their attitude toward birth control. Or toward SSM.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Puppy:
quote:Like I said, it's possible that our understanding could be revised in some way to make gay marriage feasible sometime down the road. It's much less likely than the racial thing, and I know you have to see the difference. Race is a very superficial human feature that disappears after a generation of intermarriage. Gender is a feature of all complex organisms that has been a part of us for eons, and that we cannot continue as a species without. It would have been much harder to claim that racial differences had eternal significance.
I wanted to comment on this, because of the distinction you drew between race (superficial) and sex (fundamental).
To the extent that race is a thing, it is simply genetic. You're right that interbreeding between groups that possess different visible traits can cause it to essentially disappear, and that this is not as easy or natural to do with sex.
But sex is also genetic. Unless we all die or somehow stop forward technological progress, we will eventually reach the point where an individual mind - a collection of experiences, a pattern of thought, an auia/spirit/intelligence - will be able to move between bodies. Bodies of different sex, or sexless bodies, bodies of another species, or electronic ones.
Perhaps the LDS church could adopt the view that the spirit itself is still gendered, and that the physical attributes of the body don't change the fundamental aspect of eternal gender. But wouldn't it be easier to recognize that sex is just determined by our genes, which are merely physical?
The eternal sex identity thing is already unable to deal with the existence of exotic combinations of the X and Y chromosomes that result in an individual that isn't physically male or female: they are ambiguously sexed. What's the sex of their spirit in those cases? I think the current view is that God knows and it's up to us to treat those people with compassion. I don't know for sure, but I think in cases where someone is ambiguously sexed, but someone decided to keep the male sex organs and discard the female ones in infancy, the LDS church would treat that person as a man...wouldn't they? Or are they excluded from temple marriage?
If you rely on the physical body to indicate the eternal gender, what are you gonna do when people can change at a whim?
I'm not throwing down a gauntlet here, I just think that in 200 or 500 years, if we reach that level of technology, the LDS church will HAVE to change its views on how spiritual gender is related to genetically determined features, and this WILL impact the same sex marriage question. If there's no way to know for sure that the two people in an opposite sex marriage started out their lives that way, how could you deny the same sacrament to people of the same sex?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Question: How does the Mormon church deal with people who are intersex? Sex (and to an even larger extent, gender) is not a binary thing, despite what some may wish or claim.
Edit: Scifibum beat me to it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Corwin, I know we've gotten past the humor by now, but I still want to make sure my point is there. Individual religious people can't just decide to make up new doctrines without essentially denying their reasons for belief in the first place.
Sure they can - the Bible is filled with individual religious people who defy religious tradition after being inspired by God to do so. And history is filled with examples of people who, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, looked at the world around them and came to their own individual conclusions that defied what their church was teaching at the time.
quote:You choose a religion because you think it has something to teach you, and because you think its source of information is better than yours.
I don't think this is true in all or most cases. Many choose a religion because, based on the information available to them, they think it is true. And many choose a church because they recognize that, even if the members of that church don't have any more information than they do, they need guidance in order to understand and sort through that information which is available to us.
For some religions, the church is located between God and the individual. But I think for many other religious traditions (particularly Protestant Christians), God and the individual interact directly, with the church alongside acting more as guidance than as the giver of doctrine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Corwin, I know we've gotten past the humor by now, but I still want to make sure my point is there. Individual religious people can't just decide to make up new doctrines without essentially denying their reasons for belief in the first place.
Sure they can - the Bible is filled with individual religious people who defy religious tradition after being inspired by God to do so. And history is filled with examples of people who, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, looked at the world around them and came to their own individual conclusions that defied what their church was teaching at the time.
And some of them have become great leaders, teachers and even saints (in the Catholic tradition).
quote:
quote: You choose a religion because you think it has something to teach you, and because you think its source of information is better than yours.
I don't think this is true in all or most cases. Many choose a religion because, based on the information available to them, they think it is true. And many choose a church because they recognize that, even if the members of that church don't have any more information than they do, they need guidance in order to understand and sort through that information which is available to us.
For some religions, the church is located between God and the individual. But I think for many other religious traditions (particularly Protestant Christians), God and the individual interact directly, with the church alongside acting more as guidance than as the giver of doctrine.
For some, it is because God is present when we gather. We support each other. Although we have personal relationships with God, religion is a group project.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tres:
quote:Sure they can - the Bible is filled with individual religious people who defy religious tradition after being inspired by God to do so.
Obviously, the "inspired by God to do so" part introduces a new element to the equation. My own religion was founded this way. However, I wouldn't consider the receipt of divine inspiration (assuming that it's real) to be an arbitrary decision on the part of the recipient
scifibum:
Mormons do believe that sexual dimorphism among humans was specifically designed by God to reflect a reality that exists beyond this world. We believe that gender is a trait that He has, and that it is an important part of an individual's eternal identity, and ability to live as He does.
We believe that He designed our bodies for a lot of specific purposes. Our brains support abstract rational thought, which is essential to making moral choices. We have the ability to use tools to create things and generate prosperity for ourselves and one another. All of these abilities give us experience doing things that are similar to what God does. They give us a window into His life and His experience, and the intent is for us to one day take all that we've learned and join Him in that life.
If we were to, on a large scale, alter ourselves in such a way that we completely frustrated those purposes, I think that this particular project (of raising heirs to join God in His pursuits) would cease to be meaningful, and we would cease to be human in the way that matters, spiritually. God would either (1) prevent it, (2) end the project when it happened, or (3) revise His purposes to account for it. But things could not simply continue unchanged. Individual cases of crossed genes can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (and I believe that is how the Church handles them, too). An entire species that is no longer in the image of God creates an entirely new challenge.
(Again, if someday our understanding of the eternal world is revised in some way that makes gender no longer significant to "the image of God", then my opinion on this will change. But thus far, that seems unlikely.)
With the way Mormon doctrine currently stands, I think it's fair to say that we consider gender to be as fundamental and eternal a difference as, say, the difference between a proton and an electron. They're both made of the same stuff, but there is a fundamental distinction that determines how they can combine. If your purpose is to create (non-ionized) Hydrogen, then a pair of protons or a pair of electrons won't work. Only one of each.
That isn't a moral or judgmental pronouncement. It's just the way it works, and certainly, if your purpose is NOT to make Hydrogen, but to make a positively-charged Helium ion, then a pair of protons is exactly what you want.
But because we belong to a particular order of people who follow a particular religion, I think it's fair for us to say that the purpose of our faith is to generate Hydrogen (or whatever), and that we need to follow certain protocols in order to achieve that goal.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am not sure of the doctrine on this issues, but my mother claims one of her friends (so, basically a friend of a friend story) was ambigious gender. The parents picked male and he was raised that way. He went to the temple and served a mission, married a girl and adopted kids. Genetic testing as an adult revealed he was indeed genetically a female. The church continued to treat him as a male and he contiuned living that way. Of course, my mom hasn't seen him for many years, so not really sure how his life turned out after that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:
quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from? [/QB]
I have seen many Catholics quoted as saying that they simply disagree with the Church on this, and feel no guilt over living accordingly.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: We believe that He designed our bodies for a lot of specific purposes. Our brains support abstract rational thought, which is essential to making moral choices. We have the ability to use tools to create things and generate prosperity for ourselves and one another. All of these abilities give us experience doing things that are similar to what God does. They give us a window into His life and His experience, and the intent is for us to one day take all that we've learned and join Him in that life.
If we were to, on a large scale, alter ourselves in such a way that we completely frustrated those purposes, I think that this particular project (of raising heirs to join God in His pursuits) would cease to be meaningful, and we would cease to be human in the way that matters, spiritually. God would either (1) prevent it, (2) end the project when it happened, or (3) revise His purposes to account for it. But things could not simply continue unchanged. Individual cases of crossed genes can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (and I believe that is how the Church handles them, too). An entire species that is no longer in the image of God creates an entirely new challenge.
What about altering ourselves on a large scale to better those purposes? For example, there are numerous imperfections with our bodies that could potentially be fixed by genetic engineering.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
When the Franklin Institute had the Star Wars exhibit, there was a part on cybernetic enhancement and its potential effects. It was rather interesting for them to point out a few social problems inherent with the idea.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from?
I have seen many Catholics quoted as saying that they simply disagree with the Church on this, and feel no guilt over living accordingly.
Especially in Quebec.
I would also add that the question of what is violating doctrine is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. If someone here decides to switch between two very similar churches, simply on account of their stance on same-sex, is that a violation of doctrine?
What if we go further to China where many people pick and choose traditions and beliefs ad-hoc from Taoism, Confucianism, and ancestor worship anyways?
Religions with strict anti-dissent controls and relatively homogeneous doctrines among their population are common, but certainly are not the rule.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: When the Franklin Institute had the Star Wars exhibit, there was a part on cybernetic enhancement and its potential effects. It was rather interesting for them to point out a few social problems inherent with the idea.
From time to time I've thought about making a thread about why the potential creation of artificial intelligence is simultaneously super exciting and super scary (and why, despite the fact that I am uneasy about the whole concept in general, I have basically decided to make it my field of study).
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I can't wait for Prop 9.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
On an odd related note, xkcd now informs us that (as verified here http://www.google.com/trends?q=men+kissing&geo=US ) Utah holds the record among all states in terms of searching for "men kissing"
*shrug*
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Which means exactly nothing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
From Mucus' link:
quote:1. Utah, United States 2. Kentucky, United States 3. South Carolina, United States 4. Indiana, United States 5. Ohio, United States 6. Connecticut, United States 7. New Jersey, United States 8. Michigan, United States 9. Georgia, United States 10. Pennsylvania, United States
California isn't even in the top 10. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, either:
1. Despite the seeming concentration in California, there is actually many more homosexuals in the states listed above, self-identification on all sides be damned.
-OR-
2. There is no methodology, numbers given, explanation, or point to this. It means nothing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wonder if there are more "other-than-Google" resources for those sorts of searches in non-California places. That is, is the likelihood of actually seeing men kissing live -- or being actually able to kiss a man oneself, without it being as significantly unusual event -- making it less likely that one would default to googling information, stories, or images? Or, even moreso, having an easy and direct access to stories, videos, etc., available at hand making Google less of a primary source?
I honestly don't know. I don't really think it matters so much; as katharina indicates, I wouldn't find it compelling to draw firm conclusions about any of this, other than just the bare facts of what is presented. (Further interpretation is a whole other ball of wax.) It does strike me that there are a whole host of potentially confounding variables that might be at play, and that makes me even more wary of drawing such conclusions.
[ December 27, 2008, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
1. If I thought it mattered much, I wouldn't have posted it as coming from xkcd. Since it does come from xkcd, obviously humour is important factor.
In any case, its an undeniable fact that Google records more searches for that term from Utah than any other state. However, your interpretations about what that means is your own and I haven't given any, hence *shrug*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin
In case it isn't clear, Mucus, I register neither quibble nor surprise in reaction to your last post. I knew you were just presenting it as an interesting tidbit -- you even *shrug*ged.
It was clear to me you weren't advancing a particular thesis. I was musing on my own about why such theses would be more complicated to defend than may be apparent, but again, it was clear to me you weren't going that direction, anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, thats ok. I was intending to respond to katharina's post, hence the repeated use of the word "methodology" and the structure of the post. I probably should have made that more clear.
I just wanted to make it explicit that I was not in agreement with either point 1 or point 2.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus has shown an interest in Utahns who show an interest in men kissing. I must uncover the meaning of this! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So, either:
No, I think that's a false dichotomy. It could be that homosexuals in California use other search terms, which is something we could check with Google Trends by testing other similar sets of search terms and looking at the geographic results.
I also enjoyed the top search location for "raptors on hoverboards." Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, there are many other possible explanations (differing usage of Google, not always gay men searching, and numerous other variants).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It means nothing.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Oh my goodness! Searches for "gay men kissing" are most common in Ohio!!!
As Katharina stated this means absolutely nothing. Though it does say a lot about the people who are making a big deal about it. Specifically that they have all the maturity of a group of giggling teenagers making fun of the weird kid in class.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Specifically, what people do you think are making a big deal about it?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The bloggers that brought it up in the first place, for one. And just for future reference, Mucus, despite your *shrug* the mere act of posting this tidbit in this particular thread, which had been thankfully off the front page for over a month, infers a certain amount of meaning in and of itself, don't you think?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'll bet that the people who find glee in those google statistics are those (like myself) who are amused at the idea of Utah being full of closet cases.
I'll bet that the people who want to explain away those stats are those who are horrified at the idea of Utah being full of closet cases.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And people who find glee in those google statistics sit around and laugh about it and make fun of those stupid conservatives despite the fact that these statistics really do mean absolutely nothing. An attitude that just screams high school locker room.
Those of us who are explaining away the statistics are actually *thinking* about it before pointing and laughing.
And let's go further. What's wrong with people who are "in the closet"? That's their choice and yet you mock them. How immature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What's wrong with people who are "in the closet"?
Seriously, can you think of nothing?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
They like coats and jackets?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
What I thought was weird was that everything I searched for the trends for was the same-- most often searched for in Utah, specifically Salt Lake City.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The bloggers that brought it up in the first place, for one. And just for future reference, Mucus, despite your *shrug* the mere act of posting this tidbit in this particular thread, which had been thankfully off the front page for over a month, infers a certain amount of meaning in and of itself, don't you think?
What bloggers?
As for the second part, yes, it means I find xkcd amusing and wish to share it, something I've been pretty upfront about.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But you chose this thread, not one of the several xkcd threads. Or a new thread.
As Boris said, "this particular thread".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Its fairly easy to access this thread through my profile since I started it. The thread is also relatively recent and is gay related.
I'd have to use the search function to find an xkcd thread. I also don't think its important enough to start a completely new thread.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Some gays were mad that Barack choose Rick Warren for his inauguration, due to his position on marriage. I thought it was a good move.
I didn't know Rick Warren was muslim.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What bloggers?
Did you read the text in the comic? "Bloggers were recently amused to discover..."
Also, do you post a link to every XKCD comic there is? Just the ones you think are funny? Or do you post the links to make a specific point? If you didn't think it was deserving a completely new thread, then why did you post it at all?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The text says "amused", you expanded on that to "people who find glee in those google statistics sit around and laugh about it and make fun of those stupid conservatives despite the fact that these statistics really do mean absolutely nothing."
I had assumed that you had additional information that had led to that rather drastic expansion.
I post links to XKCD comics that I find amusing.
I post many things that are interesting, yet not important enough for a new thread, in existing threads. This is pretty common procedure.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I think Foust pretty well proved that my assumption that people were laughing about it and mocking conservatives was accurate. And as you know, the guy who writes XKCD has a talent for understatement. It wouldn't take a very large stretch of the imagination to believe that that is exactly what is happening.
Furthermore, the act of posting the comic in this particular thread suggests an attempt to foster such "glee" in the people who agree with you. The *shrug* seems to me to be little more than a way to deflect your true purpose.
Perhaps instead of backpedaling and trying to defend your choices, you should apologize for fostering such mockery. Whether whether that was your intention or not.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Boris. Knock it off. Geez, he found something funny. No need to make a federal case out of it.
You'd think you were, like, in the closet or something, the way you're acting so oversensitive about it.
I mean, if you're gonna throw hostile accusations over someone showing a probably fictional bit of humor...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's too bad really, that there are so many closeted gay men in Utah, although it's not surprising if the friendly attitude about the internet search stats here is any judge of how they'd be welcomed out.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
What's really funny, is that Kissing Men and Men Kissing show the same exact trends. Because they're the same thing according to the search engine. Guess what the first response is...10 secrets to a great first kiss - According to men. Sounds like a lot of women have been trying to figure out how to kiss. Not very surprising to me that Utah is at the top there, since kissing is such a big deal there. Oops...that has nothing to do with gay men.
edit: And Megabyte, I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. Mucus gave me an opportunity to point it out. Foust proved my point. You did, too, by stating that I "must be in the closet" by the way I was treating this. I suppose it's so much easier to believe that you're right about everything if the people who don't agree with you are just idiots who don't know what's best for themselves. Thank you for proving, though, that one of the admirable tenants of liberal-mindedness, to avoid offending others, is something that isn't really held to very often.
[ December 29, 2008, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Boris, can I ask why this is such a big deal to you?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Read my edit, Tom.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Boris:
My use of that sarcastic statement was in fact intentional.
I don't care about what "other people" do. I'm not them. Talking about "so many liberals" is meaningless to me, because Morbo isn't them, and I'm not them either. All I see is what you're doing right now.
And that little sarcastic bit? Just a flippant taste of your own medicine. Do unto others.
And for you to take my reaction to your stupid insults and apply it to others?
Once again, do unto others, or I'll do back to you, you, you, cartoonish villain.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I mean, seriously, Boris. I don't even believe that statement. And where do you get I'm even a standard liberal, except through your own bland stereotypes?
Since when do you imagine not offending others has been a tenet of mine? What do you know of me, or how varied liberals tend to be, Boris? I mean really.
I said what I said because you pissed me off, because you're acting like a brat. Get offended all you want. There's, in fact, nothing to agree with or disagree with in your statement. You were just being a jerk, so I was making fun of what I see as such. Because perhaps, you'll see "gosh, I was wrong, this doesn't feel good, maybe I shouldn't do it to others!"
Well, I don't expect that to happen, but it was fun to say it anyway! Don't take sarcastic things as serious, dude. Let jokes be.
After all, there are plenty of jokes out there for the opposite side. You imagine, really, that making fun of people is merely a commonly liberal trait?
This is the internet, dude. Look at places like AOL and myspace, and then come back here. You'll be surprised to find, gasp, that making fun of people tends to be a common trait of all human groups, everywhere.
Or at least online, anyway.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Arguments aside, are you *really* using myspace as an example for any kind of behavior on the internet that one should emulate? Really?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Hey, never let it be said that I've turned down a meaningful dialogue about the plight of closeted homosexual Mormons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Or that you've ever turned down a chance to mock and condescend to people instead of respecting their stories about themselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does it really still bother you that I don't think you've ever actually felt God? I mean, seriously, you should really get over that. I'm not going to suddenly change my mind just because you've chosen to interpret an experience incorrectly, and it seems silly for you to haul out that old complaint every time you believe you've got the flimsiest pretext.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe, just maybe, she wasn't talking about herself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I think Foust pretty well proved that my assumption that people were laughing about it and mocking conservatives was accurate.
Except Foust posted *after* your long description of "people." More confusingly, after I asked you "what people", you replied "the bloggers" and not Foust. So which people did you actually mean in your first two posts?
I'm not questioning that such people exist. I've merely been trying to figure out who *exactly* you've been talking about.
quote: Perhaps instead of backpedaling and trying to defend your choices, you should apologize for fostering such mockery. Whether whether that was your intention or not.
What choices, exactly?
From my POV, all I've really chosen to do is post a description of an XKCD comic and a link to the Google Trends that it references in a relevant thread. I also haven't even provided an interpretation. I suppose that those are two choices, are those the choices that you mean? Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Boris:
My use of that sarcastic statement was in fact intentional.
I don't care about what "other people" do. I'm not them. Talking about "so many liberals" is meaningless to me, because Morbo isn't them, and I'm not them either. All I see is what you're doing right now.
And that little sarcastic bit? Just a flippant taste of your own medicine. Do unto others.
And for you to take my reaction to your stupid insults and apply it to others?
Once again, do unto others, or I'll do back to you, you, you, cartoonish villain.
Do unto others? Hmmm...Did I make a crack about someone's sexuality in here? Anywhere? Did I make fun of another person's beliefs? No. I've been calling for a *stop* to the name calling. I have not called one person a name in here. All I did was point out that there are people who are acting like teenagers and calling it enlightenment. Do you think that type of attitude is intelligent? Do you really think that mocking people is a good way to get them to see your point of view? Ever?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Oops...that has nothing to do with gay men.
Who are you trying to refute?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Thank you for proving, though, that one of the admirable tenants of liberal-mindedness, to avoid offending others, is something that isn't really held to very often.
Do the names Chretien or Trudeau, both famously outspoken Liberal Prime Ministers of Canada, mean nothing to you?
Since when is non-offensiveness a tenant of liberals?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
...
I suppose it's so much easier to believe that you're right about everything if the people who don't agree with you are just idiots who don't know what's best for themselves.
Irony Explosion! Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Don't talk about sex, don't question religion and please don't interrupt religion as it preaches to you about sex, ok?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
...
I suppose it's so much easier to believe that you're right about everything if the people who don't agree with you are just idiots who don't know what's best for themselves.
Irony Explosion!
Stating an observation about the attitude of a group of people is not mocking them. Mocking would be, "You stupid liberals, you don't have a clue unless someone tells you what to think! HAHA!" or perhaps, "I'm surprised about the election this year. I mean, those democrats are usually so stoned, I'm surprised they were able to find the voting booth." I didn't do that.
I'm more than happy to engage in dialogue. And I've tried to on many occasions. Unfortunately, it very hard to when you know that at some point the person you're talking to is going to treat you like you have brain damage rather than attempt to view the world from a different perspective.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Thank you for proving, though, that one of the admirable tenants of liberal-mindedness, to avoid offending others, is something that isn't really held to very often.
Do the names Chretien or Trudeau, both famously outspoken Liberal Prime Ministers of Canada, mean nothing to you?
I love my country, but I don't think those names mean much to anyone outside of Canada. I'm sure that most Americans have no idea who they are.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Trudeau? Doesn't he write and draw Doonesbury?
That strip totally jumped the shark when Reagan left office.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I love my country, but I don't think those names mean much to anyone outside of Canada. I'm sure that most Americans have no idea who they are.
Thats obviously my point. Making a general statement about liberals is pretty silly if you don't know about some of the most prominent actual Liberals or what they believe.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
sarcasticmuppet:
Certainly not worth emulating. My point was clearly that if you look there, you discover that people in general tend to be the way Boris is decrying. Not just liberals.
As for Boris:
I didn't make fun of your beliefs at all. And the crack on your sexuality? The fact that you're so stuck up as to take that as a serious insinuation, as opposed to the clearly facetious statement it was, well, it says something. Nothing about your sexuality, certainly, but something.
All I was doing was pointing out how like a teenager you are acting like, and how annoying it is.
Through example.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: All I was doing was pointing out how like a teenager you are acting like, and how annoying it is.
I learned it from watching you!!! Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes, well, I stopped being a teenager only recently; I suppose it isn't much of a stretch for me to act like one from time to time.
Look, I'm sorry, man. It was rude, and I know it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What drives me crazy about this thread is that the truth of the situation seems, from a moral and common sense standpoint, quite simple.
The human race's ability to alienate parts of itself is incredible. The evidence that this alienation is most often unwarranted is overwhelming.
That uncertainty you feel is the same fear your ancestors felt with regards to any number of people they weren't quite comfortable with and with whom you now interact without blinking an eye. You do not quail to see a woman casting a vote at a ballot station. One day, your children will not quail to see a homosexual couple exchanging vows.
You might ask, "if I cannot trust my gut, what can I trust?" Don't worry, your gut is a powerful weapon and you will still have it when you need to. Murder, neglect, abuse, war- they will all still look wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Making a general statement about liberals is pretty silly if you don't know about some of the most prominent actual Liberals or what they believe.
Prominent? To whom?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: What drives me crazy about this thread is that the truth of the situation seems, from a moral and common sense standpoint, quite simple.
The human race's ability to alienate parts of itself is incredible. The evidence that this alienation is most often unwarranted is overwhelming.
That uncertainty you feel is the same fear your ancestors felt with regards to any number of people they weren't quite comfortable with and with whom you now interact without blinking an eye. You do not quail to see a woman casting a vote at a ballot station. One day, your children will not quail to see a homosexual couple exchanging vows.
You might ask, "if I cannot trust my gut, what can I trust?" Don't worry, your gut is a powerful weapon and you will still have it when you need to. Murder, neglect, abuse, war- they will all still look wrong.
I don't think it's the same, specifically, because I don't have that feeling you speak about.
I was part of a group of 5 friends in high school. We were all best friends with one another - 4 guys, and one girl. As high school progressed, each one of my male friends, one in 9th, another in 10th, and the last in the summer between 11th and 12th came out of the closet. It was sad for me as I suppose whenever I was speaking about women and stuff...they were humoring me. Seriously, all 4 of my best friends liked men...
ANYWAYS - I'm still insanely close with them. My best friend is the one who came out last, and he just visited his boyfriend's family for christmas.
Now they disagree with me vehemently on this issue, and I don't blame them - but I don't think the government should give incentives to gay families.
But I don't feel like im discriminating or that it is a matter of equality - I just think that the most successful familial unit is the heterosexual one. I don't think its icky, or that I don't want my children to be around "those people" - and I'm not going to toss around bible either.
I think Gays should be allowed to visit one another in the hospital, and all the trappings of couplehood, but I think that financial incentives which we currently give to married couples - which we give, presumably because we think it's a good thing for people to get married and start families - shouldn't be extended in this case.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Armoth- " I just think that the most successful familial unit is the heterosexual one"
Successful how? What should we measure to compare different family structures? If those measurements show that homosexual couples form family units that are on average just as successful as the family units heterosexual couples form, would you reverse your position?
"but I think that financial incentives which we currently give to married couples - which we give, presumably because we think it's a good thing for people to get married and start families - shouldn't be extended in this case. "
What benefit do you think is gained by not providing the financial benefits to same sex couples planning on starting families that outweighs the benefits that would be gained by providing the financial benefits and protections that families headed by straight couples get?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I love my country, but I don't think those names mean much to anyone outside of Canada. I'm sure that most Americans have no idea who they are.
Thats obviously my point. Making a general statement about liberals is pretty silly if you don't know about some of the most prominent actual Liberals or what they believe.
Yeah -- my point was just that Trudeau and Chrétien are only prominent within Canada. Remember Jean Poutine?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Armoth: I think Gays should be allowed to visit one another in the hospital, and all the trappings of couplehood, but I think that financial incentives which we currently give to married couples - which we give, presumably because we think it's a good thing for people to get married and start families - shouldn't be extended in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Armoth- " I just think that the most successful familial unit is the heterosexual one"
Successful how? What should we measure to compare different family structures? If those measurements show that homosexual couples form family units that are on average just as successful as the family units heterosexual couples form, would you reverse your position?
"but I think that financial incentives which we currently give to married couples - which we give, presumably because we think it's a good thing for people to get married and start families - shouldn't be extended in this case. "
What benefit do you think is gained by not providing the financial benefits to same sex couples planning on starting families that outweighs the benefits that would be gained by providing the financial benefits and protections that families headed by straight couples get?
I believe in gender roles and that any good partnership needs to be made of both gender roles. (I don't mean to say that men need to be males and women females, but that both the male and female gender role need to be represented). The challenge to conquer the world, the encouragement and strength of the father balanced with the love, compassion, heart and soul of the mother. This is the formula, I believe, makes for a successful marriage, on the one hand, and breeds happier, more psychologically healthy, life-readier (I don't quite have a good word...), children.
There are straight couples who do not have this dynamic, I know. There are gay couples who do. There are single parents. But on the whole, I believe that it is essentially a heterosexual dynamic.
This is the argument I have with my friends - they ask that If I am proven wrong, will I change my position. Yes. In a heartbeat. It would make me even happier because it would make a lot of gay people very happy.
As for your second question, a bit more complex:
I think that the gain of giving gay couples incentives are psychological. That is not to belittle the psychological gains, I'm just prefacing. They would make a lot of gay people who feel discriminated against feel like they have gained "equality", respect, etc.
I think that the gain of NOT extending incentives is also psychological, and perhaps even preventative. Psychological in the sense that a statement is made by our society that we believe that a more successful family, on the whole, is a heterosexual one. Perhaps this psychology will be reflected in adoption laws - that heterosexual couples will be given priority over homosexual couples.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So, if I provided several links to studies showing that the health outcomes for children of gay couples is essentially the same for children of straight couples, this would be compelling evidence that your position is wrong?
As for this...
"The challenge to conquer the world, the encouragement and strength of the father balanced with the love, compassion, heart and soul of the mother. This is the formula, I believe, makes for a successful marriage,"
All I can really say is I'm sorry you haven't experienced the world and the myriad successful relationships therein. It might be a personal belief that you hold dearly, but I don't think you could ever demonstrate it to be true enough to discriminate in law based on that belief.
And make no mistake: Denying same sex marriage while allowing opposite sex marriage is, by definition, discrimination. You might believe it is JUSTIFIED discrimination. But to claim it is not discriminatory is to redefine the word.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think that the gain of NOT extending incentives is also psychological, and perhaps even preventative. Psychological in the sense that a statement is made by our society that we believe that a more successful family, on the whole, is a heterosexual one.
When you make your beliefs into law you force them on everyone else. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's clearly more than a statement. You can make a statement through community pressure.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Perhaps this psychology will be reflected in adoption laws - that heterosexual couples will be given priority over homosexual couples.
This is an appeal to stereotypes and is dangerous in general. Adoption agencies should be looking at the backgrounds of couples applying for adoption. They shouldn't be screwing around over surface details like sexual preference and religious beliefs (example of what shouldn't happen). We can make better-than-random predictions about whether or not someone is a good parent based off of their skin color too but it would be horribly unfair for us to give priority to white parents over black parents.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Making a general statement about liberals is pretty silly if you don't know about some of the most prominent actual Liberals or what they believe.
Prominent? To whom?
Liberals
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Yeah -- my point was just that Trudeau and Chrétien are only prominent within Canada. Remember Jean Poutine?
Again, obviously my point. I hardly expect Boris to know about them. Hence the weirdness about him singling me out as a liberal and the fact that he's trying to generalize about them when he probably doesn't know a thing about the liberal tradition I am most likely to adhere to.
[ December 31, 2008, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I love my country, but I don't think those names mean much to anyone outside of Canada. I'm sure that most Americans have no idea who they are.
Thats obviously my point. Making a general statement about liberals is pretty silly if you don't know about some of the most prominent actual Liberals or what they believe.
Yeah -- my point was just that Trudeau and Chrétien are only prominent within Canada. Remember Jean Poutine?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I had a whole conversation with some friends where we compared modern religions to the Star Trek incarnations.
I'd post it here, but when one guy started claiming LDS was Christian Fan-fic, I knew it could never see the light of Hatrack. We all know that the End Of Days is the true Bible Fan-Fic.
However, we explained the whole LDS backing of Prop 8 as that group of Star Trek Enterprise lovers camped out at a convention. The rest of the Trekies either ignored them or sought to convert them to the true Trek universe. Some claimed they weren't true Trekies at all.
In order to prove their Trekie-ness, the Enterprise lovers helped push a ban at the convention that would not allow Anime or their supporters at the convention.
"See" they would argue, "We are good Trekkies. We only support live-action Science Fiction in all its Star Trek glory. You perverted animation lovers, with your unnatural juvenile drawings are a blight, and lead directly to pedophilic porn." To prove how Trekie they were, the led the attack on non-Trekie outlets.
Armoth, I understand and appreciate your view on this issue. You are not a homo-phobe. You don't fear gays, nor are you a seething fanatic demanding that we bow down to your beliefs of right and wrong.
You simply believe that a heterosexual family is better than a homosexual one.
You simply believe that we give governmental monetary aid to support families that are of that better type.
You believe that a loving gay couple can visit each other in the hospital. Can I assume that you also believe that if one of the lovers is unconscious, the other should be able to visit, even if the unconscious one's mother orders the hospital to keep them out? After all, the mother is family, while the lover is only a gay lover. Here is where the hospital problem comes in.
All the trappings of couplehood you say. Yet not all the trappings of Marriage short of the financial incentives. Couple-hood has no trappings.
Financial incentives that they shouldn't share. Do those include the right to be on their partner's insurance? Right now I'm covered by insurance provided by the school my wife works for. If we were a gay couple, should I still be allowed?
You claim that homosexual families are less than heterosexual families. Are they less than institutional families? Right now in Arkansas it is illegal for a gay couple to adopt or foster a child. Several couples wish to, but the law says no. So children who could have a home are sitting in institutions, and may be their for the first 18 years of their lives.
How low do homosexual familiar units fall on your list?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm petitioning all Jatraqueros to refrain from using metaphors when discussing this topic on this board.
Save the endangered allegory-- don't abuse metaphor.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
"But I don't feel like im discriminating or that it is a matter of equality - I just think that the most successful familial unit is the heterosexual one. "
You mean, like 50% successful. I don't think a 50% failure rate is anything to brag about, nor is it much of a success.
Also, you are stating a social and moral position, but this is strictly a legal question, and a question of Constitutional Equal Rights. Your moral view doesn't matter in this decision.
Strictly from a legal and Constitutional point of view, is it right to single out an isolated group of otherwise law abiding and productive people, and limit their rights? I don't see how anyone can say, yes, that's right.
Now, you are certainly most welcome to your social and moral opinion, as long as you realize it is an opinion, and as long has you realize your personal views are not the foundation upon which just and fair laws are built.
"I think Gays should be allowed to visit one another in the hospital, and all the trappings of couplehood, but I think that financial incentives which we currently give to married couples-..."
Again, your opinion and you are welcome to it, but, like it or not, random opinions are not the test of fairness in the law or the Constitution.
Married couple don't get legal advantages in order to encourage them to get married. The laws regarding rights and responsibilities exist to ensure that those involved in that marriage are treated fairly.
The tax advantages are because a couple is acting, from a financial perspective, as a single unit. They pool their money as community property, the share access to and ownership of property. They are, for all practical purposes, a single unit. It is purely a rational legal decision. Now certainly, it gives married couples an advantage, but no greater than corporation or those who make money off of capital gains.
So, social, religious, and moral objections aside, what are your legal objections to equal rights?
If a pair of people couple into a single functioning unit, and are willing to accept the responsibilities that accompany that 'unit', why should they be denied the right of that unit, from a PURELY LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL perspective.
When this issue is finally decided, those are the parameters that will drive the decision - purely legal and Constitutional.
Someone social, moral, and religious opinion simply can not be allowed to cloud the fairness of the law, and a fair and just interpretation of the Constitution.
In California, they won the right to modify the State Constitution to ingrain a form of discrimination. To isolate a select group of people and deny them rights. Very like, despite popular vote, that 'ability' is going to be declared unconstitutional in and of itself. The majority, for whatever reason, simply can not force tyranny upon the minority.
But I will add, that in all fairness, the minority (any) should not be able to force tyranny on the majority either.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Darth - Thanks, I appreciate that.
I have not put in the deep thought and sensitivity required to say which incentives I'd be cool with and which not.
The one with the mean mother who doesn't want the boyfriend at the hospital bed, I think gays should be extended this right. Why? Because it seems to me to be a right and not an incentive.
As for insurance? That, to me, seems more of an incentive than a right. It is an expression of society viewing two people as a functional unit, and an incentive for that unit to remain together.
And of course - If children are not being adopted and are being raised in institutions, I think gays should be pushed, if not just permitted, to adopt them.
Blue Wizard:
Moral opinions? Do you mean religious opinions? Because my religious opinion stays out of this one. Morally, do you mean because I think that a heterosexual marriage is more successful especially for children? Well, Yeah. Then i guess it is moral in the sense that I think we should look after the welfare of children.
The U.S. believes in providing incentives. We give incentives based on what we believe will help us function best, will promote the betterment of society in general, etc. The financial benefits extended in marriage, I view as incentives - not as rights. Why should I be allowed to benefit from my spouse's insurance? From my spouse's employer's benefits? I am not their employee. It is an incentive.
As such, as a society, we can come together democratically and decide who we want to extend incentives to and who not. Discrimination in such an area, in my opinion, is no dirty word.
I am not legislating, I am stating my opinion. That is all it is. But if my opinion triumphs in the democratic process - then it is legislating, and in that case, my opinion certainly matters.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: The human race's ability to alienate parts of itself is incredible. The evidence that this alienation is most often unwarranted is overwhelming.
Totally.
For some people to feel good, they have to believe lots of other people are very bad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: What drives me crazy about this thread is that the truth of the situation seems, from a moral and common sense standpoint, quite simple.
The human race's ability to alienate parts of itself is incredible. The evidence that this alienation is most often unwarranted is overwhelming.
That uncertainty you feel is the same fear your ancestors felt with regards to any number of people they weren't quite comfortable with and with whom you now interact without blinking an eye. You do not quail to see a woman casting a vote at a ballot station. One day, your children will not quail to see a homosexual couple exchanging vows.
You might ask, "if I cannot trust my gut, what can I trust?" Don't worry, your gut is a powerful weapon and you will still have it when you need to. Murder, neglect, abuse, war- they will all still look wrong.
Let me tell you what drives me crazy about this issue.
The human race's ability to justify anything purely on the basis of, "It feels good." That the religious look at the areligious and are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live," but when the areligious look at the religious they are permitted to say, "They are all fools who think an imaginary being speaks to them," or, "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free."
Now we can look at the religious and conclude that their opinions, "do not count" at least when we compare them to opinions based solely on science or even opinions based on feelings but to which no reference to God is made.
It astounds me that people can conclude that a system designed to help people get over themselves and serve others is bad for business but a system that says think of oneself first and then the community will be prosperous is the current zeitgeist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That the religious look at the areligious and are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live," but when the areligious look at the religious they are permitted to say, "They are all fools who think an imaginary being speaks to them," or, "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free."
And yet, nevertheless, we permit these aberrations, these kludged-up mockeries of the human mind, to live, and indeed to pollute our public spaces with their falsehoods. Truly our mercy and goodness knows no bounds.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And yet, nevertheless.
Hello Captain Redundant.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:The human race's ability to justify anything purely on the basis of, "It feels good."
We justify things all the time on "it feels bad." In fact, our historical record shows far more evidence of discriminating against things because "they feel bad" rather than embracing things that "feel good". Many of the older and longer lasting moral codes involve fasting and abstention from sex- it was these codes that were to be aspired to, not the other way around.
If God exists, I pray fervently that he shows favour not based upon apparently arbitrary rules that by all Earthly measures amount to a kind of torture, but on the goodness of the person's spirit, should such a thing exist.
quote:are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live,"
If you think this is the message I intended to convey, you are grievously mistaken. The commitment of atheists and the areligious to oppose the suffering of fellow human beings is no less fierce than the religious.
"Live and let live" only applies when it is interfering that is causing the suffering.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The human race's ability to justify anything purely on the basis of, "It feels good." That the religious look at the areligious and are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live," but when the areligious look at the religious they are permitted to say, "They are all fools who think an imaginary being speaks to them," or, "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free."
Wow. The planet you're living on sounds a lot better than the one I'm living on. What's the economy like on Never-Existed-World?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That the religious look at the areligious and are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live," but when the areligious look at the religious they are permitted to say, "They are all fools who think an imaginary being speaks to them," or, "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free."
If that "expectation" actually exists then it is likely perpetuated by religious people. 92% of this country believes in a god and atheists have absolutely no political power.
And can we keep the stereotypes out? It shouldn't need explaining that a statement like "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free" is not an accurate portrayal of atheists.
EDIT: Though I guess it depends on how you interpret "systematically eradicated". If it's through non-violent means and without state oppression then that statement would probably be accurate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And yet, nevertheless.
Hello Captain Redundant.
Hey! What'd'ya mean? I thought that was me! I thought I was Captain Redundant!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The human race's ability to justify anything purely on the basis of, "It feels good." That the religious look at the areligious and are expected to learn the concept of, "Live and let live," but when the areligious look at the religious they are permitted to say, "They are all fools who think an imaginary being speaks to them," or, "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free."
Wow. The planet you're living on sounds a lot better than the one I'm living on. What's the economy like on Never-Existed-World?
Tom you yourself have said that you think the removal of the belief in God is the only way the human race will be saved.
And to clarify I do not mean that currently the religious are held at gun point and forced to just sit there and take it. I am saying I perceive that more and more belief that even in part relies on religion is being seen as invalid. -----
Threads:
quote:If that "expectation" actually exists then it is likely perpetuated by religious people. 92% of this country believes in a god and atheists have absolutely no political power.
That is simply not true. I'm not going to say that the media is controlled by a secret atheist enclave, but even a cursory review of movies, books, television, etc shows that many criticisms of religion exist.
quote:And can we keep the stereotypes out? It shouldn't need explaining that a statement like "When the belief in God is systematically eradicated then the human race will truly be free" is not an accurate portrayal of atheists.
EDIT: Though I guess it depends on how you interpret "systematically eradicated". If it's through non-violent means and without state oppression then that statement would probably be accurate.
Your edit is closer to what I was saying.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:If that "expectation" actually exists then it is likely perpetuated by religious people. 92% of this country believes in a god and atheists have absolutely no political power.
That is simply not true. I'm not going to say that the media is controlled by a secret atheist enclave, but even a cursory review of movies, books, television, etc shows that many criticisms of religion exist.
Fundamentalist religion sure but religion in general? I think maybe you are confusing secularism with atheism. The two are unrelated and while there is certainly a push towards secularism in this country there is still plenty of cut-and-dry discrimination against atheism.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:That is simply not true. I'm not going to say that the media is controlled by a secret atheist enclave, but even a cursory review of movies, books, television, etc shows that many criticisms of religion exist.
Yes. And?
Given the amount of religious literature out there, and religious literature that criticizes other religions, and religious literature that criticizes the unreligious, and literature that criticizes stuff in general, I think that having a few prominent books and authors who have written in opposition to religion is hardly an unfair percentage.
Atheism in America is astonishingly absent from politics, given there are more atheists in the US than there are people in Canada almost twice over. Almost every politician who wishes to get somewhere attends a church. Secularism exists, certainly, but as Threads has just noted, they are different things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:there are more atheists in the US than there are people in Canada almost twice over.
Could you provide a citation for this? It doesn't match up with any of the numbers I've seen, or the number quoted by Threads.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. It's very hard to measure atheists, because there's still a stigma attached to admitting you are one, which comes on top of all the usual problems with surveys. So you get people denying that they believe in any gods, and also denying that they are atheists, in the same survey. So you have to go to sneaky categories like "not members of a church" or "do not attend services more than X/year". There's a lot more of that than "self-identified atheist". Probably Teshi is referring to one of the more loose definitions. 70 million doesn't sound unreasonable for "not strongly affiliated with a church", say.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
KoM, for someone who demands proof of stuff so much, you sure do have a hard time providing evidence for your claims. I seriously doubt that you could even come *close* to proving that the claim you just made is even remotely truthful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom you yourself have said that you think the removal of the belief in God is the only way the human race will be saved.
Sure. And you're pretty sure that it's only through belief in God that the human race will be saved. I permit you to believe that, right? And an easy majority of people in this country believe that, right?
So where's this world in which you're "forced" to "live and let live," while we have the luxury -- not afforded to you, according to your POV -- of thinking you're deluded?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well. The US census for 2001 gives 30 million "no religion specified", of which about 1 million are "atheist". A further 11 million refused to answer the question. That gives 40 million total. Then consider that both these numbers have doubled since the 1990 census (same source) and extrapolate that for another 7 years, and 70 million begins to sound pretty accurate.
Apart from this, though, I would like to draw your attention to my careful use of language. I specified "not strongly affiliated" and "doesn't sound unreasonable", rather than "New Atheist and proud of it, damn you for an irrational theist" and "I will stand by this number through thick and thin". When a number doesn't sound unreasonable, that means I don't instantly see a problem with it, as I would if the population of the Earth were claimed to be in the thousands. It does not mean that I consider it a reliable number; if further investigation revealed that in fact it was wrong, I would retract it without embarrassment.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I pulled the number off an atheist site, and it was 58 million. Whether this is atheist/agnostics, secular people, an estimate or from some survey I have no idea. I rounded a lot.
Either way, there are probably more atheists in America than a single population of Canada at the very least.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Still, fair's fair: There an openly atheist state Congressman, in California, but I doubt there are any openly Canadian politicians at any level. So atheists do have more political influence than Canadians do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... It astounds me that people can conclude that a system designed to help people get over themselves and serve others is bad for business but a system that says think of oneself first and then the community will be prosperous is the current zeitgeist.
I may point out that from the POV of an atheist, it doesn't really matter which system you pick, both are designed anyways. It is also unclear what the motives would be behind the people who designed particular religions, and while we have decent documentary-style evidence for some current religions, they all have been modified through the ages anyways by other people with other motives anyways.
So in the end, the difference from our POV is less than you might think. For some, its just the difference between the current zeitgeist and a zeitgeist that was in effect when the religion was created and updated in a laggy fashion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It astounds me that people can conclude that a system designed to help people get over themselves and serve others is bad for business
Hang on a sec. Is this your admission that religions don't in fact have anything to do with truth, but are deliberately designed for certain purposes? Or to put it differently, suppose I were able to show that Mormonism genuinely was bad for business, whatever that means; would you then abandon it? If not, why are you criticising people for not accepting religion on these grounds?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
From Teshi's Source
quote: 85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002) 7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information) 38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004) 37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004) 11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
The numbers for 2004 add up to 93% specifying a religious belief. Where are you getting 11% from that? Even 93% stating they believe in God in some way or in some faith in no way means that even 7% of those surveyed believe that there is no God, no way no how. It's just as reasonable for me to state that the large majority of the 7% of people left have no religious affiliation but do not discount the possibility that there might be a God. A sample is a really horrible way to figure out how many people really are atheists. And an Online Survey...yeah. Cause those are completely accurate.
And KoM, your suggestion that the numbers are "reliable" is a rash assumption, for the same reasons stated above. Choosing not to answer a specific question about god on a survey does not place a person in the "atheist" column, no matter how much you hope for it to be so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:even 7% of those surveyed believe that there is no God, no way no how
We've covered this before, but I'll say it again: that is a useless, stupid definition of the word "atheist."
quote:A sample is a really horrible way to figure out how many people really are atheists.
Um....What other polling method would you recommend?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, information from the Census Bureau could be useful. But as I've never actually filled out a census for myself, I don't know if they ask the question and how. And isn't the definition of the word atheist "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"? I mean, that's kinda what a dictionary is for. Providing definitions. Do you use one? Or do you think it prudent to create your own definitions to promote your purposes?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And isn't the definition of the word atheist "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?
And you get from that the phrase "no way, no how?"
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The terms deny and disbelieve tend to imply no way, no how, don't they?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, I flubbed there. It was 12%, not 11% in the data I pulled from, so that's probably a source of confusion.
I'm not sure what the number of atheists in America really has to do with anything, unless you believe that no religious people support same-sex marriage, which is not the case. Clearly atheists are not overrepresented in politics and they're certainly not overrepresented in the general image of America. America is a very religious country compared to comparable countries and more people are noisier about it than it countries like the UK and Canada. Go to either of those countries and you will find politicians being quiet about their religion, either because it would alienate secular people or it would alienate people of other religions.
Either way, the same sex marriage issue is not really a religious one. I know many devoted religious people who have no problem with marriage between same sex couples.
The Bible (for example) contains great numbers of rules and regulations, both old and new testament that in this modern age the vast majority of people who use the Bible as their guide to life choose, consciously or out of ignorance, to disregard.
Any rules that are followed, therefore, are not part of a firm unwavering framework but mostly to do with personal choice.
Unless you demonstrate that you follow all practical (I'll make allowances for changes in the era) tenets of your religion- and this usually means you're part of the small part of orthodox or evangelical religions who actually practice exactly what they preach, so I'd say no higher than 5-10% of the US, your religious opposition to same-sex marriage is more of a personal choice than a religious one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And KoM, your suggestion that the numbers are "reliable" is a rash assumption, for the same reasons stated above. Choosing not to answer a specific question about god on a survey does not place a person in the "atheist" column, no matter how much you hope for it to be so.
I suggest that perhaps you need to reread that post. I specifically did not say that the 70-million number was reliable. And self-identifying as no religion is not the same as "no religion given".
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And self-identifying as no religion does not necessarily equal "does not believe in a supreme being"
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
That's correct Boris.
quote:Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur, according to a poll released yesterday that takes an in-depth look at Americans' religious beliefs. This Story
The study detailed Americans' deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit -- including one in five of those who call themselves atheists. More than half of Americans polled pray at least once a day.
The last stat is puzzling but makes a bit more sense when considering that atheism is mostly a response to the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god (or a god with some of those features).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I know people who subscribe to a vague sense of there being something but nothing that can be really described as having the same kind of oomph as God.
This being might simply be a "bigger" reflection of themselves. A sense, perhaps, that ones conscience is bigger than ones self and therefore is a seperate being.
Personally, I wouldn't describe these people as atheists, but I can well believe that they might describe themselves as atheists on paper, as there really is no option that describes them accurately.
Either way, America is tremendously religious. More than fifty percent believe angels and demons guide their lives?
For all intents and purposes, I think that the unreligious count as everyone who doesn't follow the tenets of an impersonal set religion OR they may believe in a supreme being (while not following any religious tenets) but do not consult that supreme being for guidance in matters such as determining the validity of moral choices.
Perhaps that should be a question on the next census.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:More than fifty percent believe angels and demons guide their lives?
I didn't see this cited in the article.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Do you mean you didn't see it at all, or you didn't see that it was cited? Nothing in the article was cited, it was all referencing this same poll. That is only a sample, though, and the angels/demons bit is omitted.
quote:Similar patterns exist with respect to beliefs about the existence of angels and demons. Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (68%) believe that angels and demons are active in the world. Majorities of Jehovah’s Witnesses (78%), members of evangelical (61%) and historically black (59%) Protestant churches, and Mormons (59%) are completely convinced of the existence of angels and demons. In stark contrast, majorities of Jews (73%), Buddhists (56%), Hindus (55%) and the unaffiliated (54%) do not believe that angels and demons are active in the world.
Of course, this is just statistics.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The phrase in question, that I quoted, is "guide their lives."
The article uses the term "active in the world."
Do you see the difference?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a tangent, I'm curious if those numbers from the US) for Buddhists and Hindus are representative of their fellow believers in other countries where they predominate. If anyone happens to have statistics on that, I would definitely be interested.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Ah, I see what you're getting at, it helpeth to specify the problem first time around rather than being vague.
I can edit myself if you want, but there is no hidden meaning to my "reinterpretation" of the quote other than that's the way I read it. I assume that when people say that demons are active in the world, they mean they are interfering in a way that affects people's actions. However, if that's a problem for you, my comment- that this is amazing- stands in the original wording or in my reinterpretation.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The terms deny and disbelieve tend to imply no way, no how, don't they?
No they don't. Some of the definitions I've checked imply a fairly high level of confidence. None have mentioned absolute certainty.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And self-identifying as no religion does not necessarily equal "does not believe in a supreme being"
Fortunately for me, no such strong stance is required by my wording "not strongly affiliated with a church", which indeed is weaker than self-identifying as no religion. Perhaps you should take a minute to reread exactly what I was suggesting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Atheism in America is astonishingly absent from politics, given there are more atheists in the US than there are people in Canada almost twice over.
Old hash, but I just wanted to point out that Canada is rather absent from US politics as well.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
If I am fed up with the social skills of the modern female, can I CHOOSE to be gay?
If yes, how do I get past the NOT being attracted to men in any way shape or form? How do I stop being attracted to women's eyes, smile, small of the back, hair, lips, neck, stomach, boobies and cute butts?
Seriously, I have no attraction to men, and am allergic and scared of another man's penis. How do I solve this problem if I make a choice to be gay?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Tom you yourself have said that you think the removal of the belief in God is the only way the human race will be saved.
Sure. And you're pretty sure that it's only through belief in God that the human race will be saved. I permit you to believe that, right? And an easy majority of people in this country believe that, right?
So where's this world in which you're "forced" to "live and let live," while we have the luxury -- not afforded to you, according to your POV -- of thinking you're deluded?
How about the fact that I believe this world can still thrive and become better through the efforts of the religious and areligious. My worldview does require that I invite those who will, to come and accept Christ. But ultimately it is not my job to root out all those who will not believe. The only time all unbelievers will disappear is when God himself lives on earth and to not believe is to deny everything rational there is to be believed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think you answered the question that Tom asked.
I just thought of a different question, though. You've stated many times that you have 'tested' your faith by entering a meditative-ish state and asking for confirmation that you were doing the right thing. You ignore that others have done the same thing and got back the affirmative for different faiths, but let that pass for now. Why did you not apply this to something more independently verifiable? For example, you might have asked your god to let you know the 900th digit of pi. (No cheating by peeking beforehand, of course.) If you got a strong feeling that it was, let's say, 4, you could then Google it afterwards. Repeat three times for 1-in-1000 confirmation of your god. Wouldn't that be a better test than your feeling of "yes, that's right", which many people of other faiths also report?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But ultimately it is not my job to root out all those who will not believe.
Nor is it mine to root out those who will. Do you assume that I feel that way?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Why did you not apply this to something more independently verifiable? For example, you might have asked your god to let you know the 900th digit of pi. (No cheating by peeking beforehand, of course.) If you got a strong feeling that it was, let's say, 4, you could then Google it afterwards. Repeat three times for 1-in-1000 confirmation of your god. Wouldn't that be a better test than your feeling of "yes, that's right", which many people of other faiths also report?
A common view is that God reveals on a need-to-know basis, and God determines the need (and also the other preconditions of revelation). It's also very common to claim that you need to study out the answer in your mind and ask for confirmation, rather than just ask for a bit of information.
Since God doesn't need or want you to know the 1000th digit of pi, praying about it will have no effect. On the other hand, if God wants you to believe in him, he'll let you know (preconditions having been met) if you're on the right track. Or so the answer would go, I believe. (For myself I don't believe there's anyone there who will give any kind of answer, anymore.)
KoM, you need to realize that the very subjective, personal nature of this kind of revelation is intrinsic to its understood purpose and value: Pulling numbers from the sky has not been described as a necessary function of salvation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But ultimately it is not my job to root out all those who will not believe.
Nor is it mine to root out those who will. Do you assume that I feel that way?
Perhaps. Beyond proselyting, what would you allow organized atheists to do in their efforts to erase religion? Is there more you would allow them to do in order to obtain this greater good?
-----
KOM: Because that is in essence jumping off the pinnacle of the temple to see if God would save me. I could pray to God about the clothing you are wearing right now, but why would the knowledge benefit me in any meaningful way? The fact I can use google to find out pi is already available to me and so it does not behoove God to give me that without me having first exhausted my resources.
There is no way I could independently find out if Joseph Smith actually found some gold plates with writing he actually translated correctly from a people who were actually spoken to by God. Because it is impossible to prove for myself and because knowing that truth is so important God decides to step in and reveal it to people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I wasn't suggesting BlackBlade should use this as a method of calculating pi. Computers are faster. I was suggesting he use it as a means of confirming his testimony, which he has repeatedly stated is an acceptable use of prayer. Perhaps your faith is different - I don't recall your church at the moment - but BlackBlade believes that his god can be actively tested through asking for confirmation in prayer. I want to see if he has the courage of his convictions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM: Because that is in essence jumping off the pinnacle of the temple to see if God would save me. I could pray to God about the clothing you are wearing right now, but why would the knowledge benefit me in any meaningful way? The fact I can use google to find out pi is already available to me and so it does not behoove God to give me that without me having first exhausted my resources.
If your god never gives you any information that can be verified otherwise, then how do you know what you get from it is true? Would not the knowledge that such revelation is really, testably trustworthy be worth a lot to you?
Further, if you managed to pray your way to knowing what I'm wearing, and then posted it here, wouldn't that be a powerful testimony to me? That might not be so useful to you, personally, but probably your god would find it useful. So would I, of course. In fact, although you will not do this thing for yourself, may I ask as a favour that you do it for me? I promise I will convert to your church if your prayers give you accurate knowledge of this. No sarcasm, I genuinely want to see for myself whether your faith works.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm answering the question, you asked, King of Men. In BlackBlade's religion, in which I was raised, God is understood to answer prayers for his own purposes. Those purposes are understood to include confirming the truth of the religion, and of God's existence, when certain preconditions are met. However, there is no indication that God will provide specific answers to arbitrary questions. God's purposes also include submitting to his way of doing things, which again precludes asking for a digit of pi.
I understand you weren't proposing using God as a calculator, but BB's church doesn't promote a God who is there to provide the answer to any question. It's also true that church members are advised to come up with the best answer to any question they want an answer to on their own, and then ask for a confirmation (a "yes" revelation which might not even be verbal). The test you are proposing isn't in line with BB's understanding of God.
(Though I wonder if you already understand this and are merely poking at the fact that the answers that can be had aren't falsifiable.)
Edit: cross posted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Beyond proselyting, what would you allow organized atheists to do in their efforts to erase religion?
I'd permit them to live good lives and advance scientific knowledge. That's all that's necessary; as the gaps shrink and it becomes obvious even to the casual observer that God isn't required for goodness, God will fade away. It might take generations, but the God of the modern world is already unrecognizable as the God of three hundred years ago.
[ January 02, 2009, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:If your god never gives you any information that can be verified otherwise, then how do you know what you get from it is true? Would not the knowledge that such revelation is really, testably trustworthy be worth a lot to you?
Often God reveals the truth of a matter and then the verifiable prove becomes available. I know the Book of Mormon is true, and since learning that I have found things in the book that to me prove Joseph Smith could not have made it all up.
quote:Further, if you managed to pray your way to knowing what I'm wearing, and then posted it here, wouldn't that be a powerful testimony to me? That might not be so useful to you, personally, but probably your god would find it useful. So would I, of course. In fact, although you will not do this thing for yourself, may I ask as a favour that you do it for me? I promise I will convert to your church if your prayers give you accurate knowledge of this. No sarcasm, I genuinely want to see for myself whether your faith works.
In this instance I have no impressions of what you are wearing KOM. But why should I do all the work? You go ask God what He would have you do with real intent to do anything no matter how strange and see what happens. Then live your life as best you know how and I am sure it will be well with you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Beyond proselyting, what would you allow organized atheists to do in their efforts to erase religion?
I'd permit them to live good lives and advance scientific knowledge. That's all that's necessary; as the gaps shrink and it becomes obvious even to the casual observer that God isn't required for goodness, God will fade away. *kiss*
We shall see. I hope that means that if the day comes that when the religious are in the minority and people are trying to pass laws that make it impossible for them to reasonably practice their religion that you will stand in the way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know the Book of Mormon is true, and since learning that I have found things in the book that to me prove Joseph Smith could not have made it all up.
You realize that, by the getting the order of these two things wrong, you invalidate the argument?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
How many tests must I submit your religion to before I am allowed to give up and say "No, it is wrong"? A test which I know can give false answers is of no use to me. This is not me being contrary, it's just a fact of the way my mind works. The answer must be externally verifiable - at least once, just once. To act on anything less is to be no better than a suicide bomber, who kills because of internal states of his brain, unchecked against the outside world. I won't stoop so low. Not for any purpose.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Often God reveals the truth of a matter and then the verifiable prove becomes available. I know the Book of Mormon is true, and since learning that I have found things in the book that to me prove Joseph Smith could not have made it all up.
Would those things have convinced you before you 'knew' that the book was true? If not, then there is no verification, just circular arguing. You must know this; why do you argue things you cannot really believe in?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: The answer must be externally verifiable - at least once, just once. To act on anything less is to be no better than a suicide bomber, who kills because of internal states of his brain, unchecked against the outside world.
Not really. We can bash extreme cases against each other, but the fact remains that the primary value of empiricism as an epistemology is to allow scholars and scientists to communicate with each other. As a description of the way that the vast majority of humanity actually live reasonably happy and valuable lives and make successful and fruitful decisions that don't involve blowing each other up, it's pretty weak.
The interesting thing about BB's statement is what the word 'true' means. It might mean that the events the book describes are empirically verifiable, like you guys are assuming. Or it might mean something else.
quote:the God of the modern world is already unrecognizable as the God of three hundred years ago.
Nope; perhaps this is true for folks who write pop-religious scholarship, but there's more Catholics today who pray to Saint Jude and more Protestants today who believe the earth was created in seven days than there were in 1709.
Tom, you need to stop getting your religious history from Hitchens and Dawkins. You're still going on about 'gaps.' God hasn't been merely an explanatory mechanism for a good 2500 years.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Because it is impossible to prove for myself and because knowing that truth is so important God decides to step in and reveal it to people.
God has revealed to me a whole lot of truth which is impossible to prove, but which I know is True because God told me.
Rule one is that everyone on earth owes me 10% of their yearly income, before expenses and taxes. You get to know the other rules once you pay up.
Don't act like you don't have to pay either - God told me it's the truth, and that's all that matters, right?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: We can bash extreme cases against each other, but the fact remains that the primary value of empiricism as an epistemology is to allow scholars and scientists to communicate with each other.
Oh really?
If your spouse were diagnosed with cancer, you would really tell the doctor to skip all that empirically based medicine stuff, because all it is is epistomology?
Or would you say "I want you to give my spouse the treatment that the evidence says works best"?
Or perhaps you would say "Doc, use the kick-butt cancer-killing, life-saving drug that God revealed to all those praying priets and rabbis and pastors"?
Or maybe not...because God has never once stepped in and actually made a revelation that was physically useful, even when such a revelation could have saved millions of lives?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Perhaps you should try reading Matt's post without your polemical goggles on and see if that really fits with what he said.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think Matt is talking about Truth, as in, with a capital T, as opposed to truth the empirically measurable kind of truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I hope that means that if the day comes that when the religious are in the minority and people are trying to pass laws that make it impossible for them to reasonably practice their religion that you will stand in the way.
Can you give me a hypothetical, here? Are we talking about banning head scarves from public schools, crosses around necks, pro-life protests, the ritual consumption of hallucinogenic drugs, infant sacrifice, or crusades against homosexuality?
quote:God hasn't been merely an explanatory mechanism for a good 2500 years.
I'd disagree. That He's often used as an explanatory mechanism for philosophy as well doesn't mean that He's still being used as anything other than seam sealant. It's just a different sort of seam.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Someone saying they are not religious because the gaps have been filled is like someone saying they don't believe in modern medicine because leeches did nothing for their diabetes.
It says more about the speaker's ignorance of the topic than the actual topic.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I don't think the claim is that the gaps have been filled. The claim is that God does not satisfactorily fill the gaps.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Oh come on, KoM, Tom, just admit it. Even if God were to come down and punch you in the face you wouldn't believe in a supreme being. You believe what you believe because it makes your life easy and comfortable. Even if I were able to reproduce the results of your prime number prayer thing, you'd just simply explain it away. Just quit lying. It's annoying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Someone saying they are not religious because the gaps have been filled is like someone saying they don't believe in modern medicine because leeches did nothing for their diabetes.
Really? But in your example, leeches aren't modern medicine; that's the equivalent of saying you aren't religious because you don't think scientists have fully explained where lightning comes from. It's nonsensical.
A better analogy would be like saying that you don't go to a chiropractor because aspirin and surgery have addressed your spinal problems to your satisfaction.
---------
quote:Even if God were to come down and punch you in the face you wouldn't believe in a supreme being.
I absolutely and resolutely do not admit this. I have said before that I am perfectly willing to believe in any God that has positive evidence for its existence. And, moreover, I have given specific examples of not only the kind of evidence I would be willing to accept, but the kind of evidence I have in the past attempted to obtain towards that end.
The one kind of evidence I will not accept is shiny, happy, fuzzy, "I feel it in my heart" stuff. Because I have absolutely no doubt that, given sufficient time and desire, I can convince myself to feel anything at all that I wish to feel.
[ January 04, 2009, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: You believe what you believe because it makes your life easy and comfortable.
After all this time you still can't take their arguments at face value?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Beyond proselyting, what would you allow organized atheists to do in their efforts to erase religion?
I'd permit them to live good lives and advance scientific knowledge. That's all that's necessary; as the gaps shrink and it becomes obvious even to the casual observer that God isn't required for goodness, God will fade away. It might take generations, but the God of the modern world is already unrecognizable as the God of three hundred years ago.
Keep dreaming. The existentialism of the modernists is already swallowing its own tail. Yet atheists keep insisting that the religious must justify our existence, even though they clearly (empirically, if you prefer) are the aberration.
And as I believe someone already pointed out, it is the conservative forms of religion that are in ascendance, not the "discoveries" of the last 300 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it is the conservative forms of religion that are in ascendance
Unless you start killing people, this will be temporary. And even the "conservative" forms aren't out there insisting -- as they once did -- that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe.
As more and more "religious" principles are disproved or subsumed into secular culture, the only thing left will be the private sense of the numinous. And once that sense becomes fully replicable at will -- which I have no doubt will happen within my lifetime -- I don't see much of a role left for a church, except basic community/tradition maintenance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me explain. I think every successful religious movement is successful in part because it provides answers to questions being asked by the founder's parents' generation for which more empirical evidence has not yet provided answers. I think one reason we're seeing a resurgence in "conservative" religion right now is not because people are believing in old-school gods more, but because a series of questions being asked nowadays is "How should I feel about all these things changing in uncomfortable ways and all the people I see out there who are very unlike me?" Conservative religion provides an answer to that question that satisfies a certain selfish impulse.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, KoM, Tom, just admit it. Even if God were to come down and punch you in the face you wouldn't believe in a supreme being. You believe what you believe because it makes your life easy and comfortable. Even if I were able to reproduce the results of your prime number prayer thing, you'd just simply explain it away. Just quit lying. It's annoying.
You're the liar.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Oh come on, KoM, Tom, just admit it. Even if God were to come down and punch you in the face you wouldn't believe in a supreme being. You believe what you believe because it makes your life easy and comfortable. Even if I were able to reproduce the results of your prime number prayer thing, you'd just simply explain it away. Just quit lying. It's annoying.
You're the liar.
Really? You don't think you'd explain away any evidence I were to give you of God's existence? You have already stated that you will accept the existence of God only upon being given empirical evidence of his existence. Seriously, God coming down and punching you in the face isn't empirical. It's something only you would experience, and I doubt you could repeat the process to make sure it actually happened.
Do you truly demand that a being with the entire universe at his fingertips submit to your demands for proof? Are you really that arrogant and conceited?
Furthermore. You say that people should just be good without worrying about what God thinks. I challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable explanation of what "Good" is without relying on the Judeo-Christian mores that have been built into Western society for hundreds of years.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You're claiming that the cultures of the world that have not been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian religion have no concept of what westerners would call "good"? That seems kind of silly.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:As more and more "religious" principles are disproved or subsumed into secular culture, the only thing left will be the private sense of the numinous.
This is almost exactly what academics like, most famously, Peter Berger were arguing in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1990s and 2000s, nearly all of them, like Berger, David Martin, Charles Taylor, and so forth, have revised themselves. Weirdly, the world seems to be getting more, not less, religious.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Furthermore. You say that people should just be good without worrying about what God thinks.
Ummmm, no. An atheist would say that since the Christian god doesn't actually exist, people cannot worry about what the Christian god thinks just as we both don't really worry about what the Aztec Quetzalcoatl thinks. At most, people can worry about what they *think* either thinks.
quote: I challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable explanation of what "Good" is without relying on the Judeo-Christian mores that have been built into Western society for hundreds of years.
dkw already pointed out that you're ignoring the majority of society by limiting it to Western society. All I would add is that Western society obviously had some concept of "good" before Judeo-Christian mores.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it is the conservative forms of religion that are in ascendance
Unless you start killing people, this will be temporary. And even the "conservative" forms aren't out there insisting -- as they once did -- that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe.
First observation: Unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way for you to know this.
Second: How is it that you blame religion for wrong ideas even when those wrong ideas were the science of the time? P.S. Very few people, religious or not, believed in a flat earth.
quote: As more and more "religious" principles are disproved or subsumed into secular culture, the only thing left will be the private sense of the numinous. And once that sense becomes fully replicable at will -- which I have no doubt will happen within my lifetime -- I don't see much of a role left for a church, except basic community/tradition maintenance.
How exactly do you "disprove" a religious principle? Are you going to discover a scientific test that will prove there is no Trinity? Hear my skepticism. Since you can't ever do that, your religion of science is no threat to mine.
My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science. Never mind that modern science arose out of religion, in particular out of Roman Catholicism, and that the majority of scientists over the brief span of that word's existence have been theists and not thought what they did in the course of their work was incompatible with their faith. That is precisely because science does not have religious significance for them, unlike for a certain brand of atheist. The atheist would like to excise these people as heretics since they don't show the proper reverence, but thanks to postmodernism there are fewer and fewer who find it necessary to be that unbalanced or who are impressed by the modernist holdovers' bluster.
Essentially it seems to me what you are doing is assuming that all of humanity approaches religion and science the way you do, to wit that one drives out the other, and that everyone is always going to play by the rules of a game that's stilted and stacked. Big assumptions.
I won't even go into the fact that this sort of vision of the future rests on Euro-American egocentrism, i.e., the rest of the world is bound to become like us in our latter days rather than we like them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Do you truly demand that a being with the entire universe at his fingertips submit to your demands for proof?
No. I demand that you, an ordinary mortal like myself, show some evidence of your assertions. Until you convince me that your hypothesized supreme being actually exists, I make no demands of it at all, any more than you make demands of Santa Claus.
quote:Furthermore. You say that people should just be good without worrying about what God thinks. I challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable explanation of what "Good" is without relying on the Judeo-Christian mores that have been built into Western society for hundreds of years.
I in turn challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable account of what is good at all, with or without a god. Considering how small the LDS church is at the moment, I would be a bit careful about what I label 'universally acceptable', were I you. I'll even be generous and give you 5%; that is, your theory need only be acceptable to 95% of humanity, to make room for plain contrary people. So what's your theory, then?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you truly demand that a being with the entire universe at his fingertips submit to your demands for proof?
Sure. Why not? Why should the fact that proving His existence should be easier for Him give me less right to demand it? You wouldn't ask that I'd devote my life to some random dude's list of instructions without knowing that he actually existed; why should that be less true of a really powerful dude?
quote:Weirdly, the world seems to be getting more, not less, religious.
I don't think it's all that weird. Pushback is inevitable. You can blame a lot of the current extremism in Iran on prematurely forceful reform attempts in the '30s.
--------
quote:Second: How is it that you blame religion for wrong ideas even when those wrong ideas were the science of the time?
That religion was the science of the time -- and that modern religion, egg on its face, no longer attempts to make claims about the shape of the Earth -- is not lost on me. That we nowadays make the distinction between "knowing" something scientifically (i.e. actually knowing it) and "knowing" religious "Truth" (i.e. not actually knowing anything at all) is one of the great virtues of secular culture.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
IIRC, Gina practices a form of Orthodox Christianity.
EDIT: Just a note to KoM
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Essentially it seems to me what you are doing is assuming that all of humanity approaches religion and science the way you do, to wit that one drives out the other, and that everyone is always going to play by the rules of a game that's stilted and stacked. Big assumptions.
Empirically backed observations. People do get less religious as science becomes more powerful.
quote:My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science.
Then your theory is wrong; I object very much when "the rabble" - your phrase, not mine - are religious, because they elect politicians who enact laws on the basis of that religion. Or more succinctly. As for the "rituals of science", I suggest you read this. I also suggest you meditate on a lightbulb. Those 'rituals' really, truly do work, you know.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Furthermore. You say that people should just be good without worrying about what God thinks. I challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable explanation of what "Good" is without relying on the Judeo-Christian mores that have been built into Western society for hundreds of years.
Christianity doesn't provide a universally acceptable explanation of "Good".
You aren't going to get very far by asking people to derive an entire moral system. Perhaps you could suggest a moral that you think would not be followed if it weren't for Judaism or Christianity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Weirdly, the world seems to be getting more, not less, religious.
I don't think it's all that weird. Pushback is inevitable. You can blame a lot of the current extremism in Iran on prematurely forceful reform attempts in the '30s.
I think its hard to draw a conclusion either way. A quick glance at the governments and politics of the day in the 1960s should demonstrate the inherent impossibility of gathering accurate information on religious affiliation.
Furthermore, the argument seems to be that the Christian god of today is fairly different from the Christian god of yesteryears. It seems to me that a simple poll of religious believers wouldn't measure this aspect (i.e. a poll would find it difficult to measure the differences between, say, relatively religious Latin American Catholics and much more secular Italian and Quebec Catholics).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're claiming that the cultures of the world that have not been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian religion have no concept of what westerners would call "good"? That seems kind of silly.
My selection of Judeo-Christian mores is due to the fact that both Tom and KoM grew up in a Judeo Christian society and that in turn colors their view of what is considered good.
Their assertion is that religion is only a method of control and should be eradicated. Yet they would be *required* to adapt many of the rules and regulations created ages ago through religious leadership in order to have any form of functional society. Unless of course, they believe an Anarchy would be the best possible societal form.
quote: No. I demand that you, an ordinary mortal like myself, show some evidence of your assertions.
I have no need to prove anything to you. The continued existence of my beliefs and way of life have no need of your approval. For you to assume that I require your approval is also arrogant and conceited.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Their assertion is that religion is only a method of control and should be eradicated. Yet they would be *required* to adapt many of the rules and regulations created ages ago through religious leadership in order to have any form of functional society.
That is not my assertion; my assertion is that religion is untrue and should be eradicated. That it is also a method of control is not relevant.
Now, certainly a functioning society requires many regulations. Some of these regulations - the obvious ones - were indeed first imposed by people who then justified them as coming from gods, because the argument from social utility was too hard to make. What of it? A stopped clock is right twice a day; I can believe "Thou shalt not kill", and enforce it effectively, without accepting the baggage of the stone tablets and Mount Sinai. Indeed, many people do. I do not see that this is relevant to the truth of the assertion "God exists"; if you have some such argument to make, you're going to have to do it more explicitly.
quote:I have no need to prove anything to you.
Then I suggest you stop arguing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Their assertion is that religion is only a method of control and should be eradicated.
Where have I asserted this?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Boris, from my brief discussions with KoM elsewhere, he has implied that his morality is something of a live and let live. Is this incorrect?
Regardless - I would put forth that this is a morality that one could arrive at without Judeo-Christian morality. It is simply logical.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Regardless - I would put forth that this is a morality that one could arrive at without Judeo-Christian morality. It is simply logical.
And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*. And not all of those reasons are religiously motivated. There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone. Isn't that interesting?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone.
No I don't. I believe it is wrong to kill me, and since it's unlikely I'll be able to enforce this view by sheer physical strength, I grant reciprocal not-being-killed privileges to other people, and set up enforcement mechanisms. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether your god exists or not.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science.
What counts as "ritual of science" and why have I never been invited to one?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*.
Our society allows killing people in several cases which are not considered murder. The directive not to murder is born out of self-preservation, and any society, no matter what it's predominant religious belief, is happy to lift those restrictions when applied to "enemies."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Boris, from my brief discussions with KoM elsewhere, he has implied that his morality is something of a live and let live. Is this incorrect?
He has stated that if he had the power to do so, he would stick all theists in re-education camps.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Empirically backed observations. People do get less religious as science becomes more powerful.
But we are dealing with some accidents of history which must be taken into account. Specifically, modern science arising on the one hand in concert with anti-Catholicism (the authors of the "conflict thesis" were not really anti-religion but wishing to stress that they were "not that kind of Christian") and that virulent kind of atheism I described, and on the other hand the popularity of more pietist forms of Christian faith tending towards anti-intellectualism. These trends have set the tone for attitudes towards science, but there is nothing inevitable about them.
quote:>>My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science.<<
Then your theory is wrong; I object very much when "the rabble" - your phrase, not mine - are religious, because they elect politicians who enact laws on the basis of that religion.
Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
quote: As for the "rituals of science", I suggest you read this. I also suggest you meditate on a lightbulb. Those 'rituals' really, truly do work, you know.
I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Since the atheists here, as far as I can tell, don't want science to function as a religion, or think it can, just what is the relevance of these hypothetical people?
quote:Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
No, no, you're quite wrong. I object to false beliefs even if they are kept completely private. In any case I don't understand what point you think you are making here. Or perhaps you think you are scoring points?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*.
I would add that we still permit killings that some people would consider murder (ex: death penalty, joe horn).
quote:Originally posted by Boris: There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone. Isn't that interesting?
No. You don't need to divine revelation to see that a society that permits wanton killing is not exactly one that you'd like to live in.
EDIT: It's not like being an atheist has drained me of empathy.
[ January 05, 2009, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: EDIT: It's not like being an atheist has drained me of empathy.
Indeed.
In my case, I have found that since becoming an atheist, I have more empathy, a greater desire for social justice, and a more careful respect for the lives and wellbeing of others.
After all, I no longer have this sense of my group being the only right one through divine fiat, so I must consider the ideas and actions of others on their own merit, rather than through some artificial multi-thousand year old lens of religious morality.
I also don't believe that all will magically be made right after we die, so I have to consider the consequences of actions and choices immediately. The meek don't inherit jack, so if we want to take care of them, we have to do it now, not just assume that God will sort them out later on.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Since the atheists here, as far as I can tell, don't want science to function as a religion, or think it can, just what is the relevance of these hypothetical people?
You, for one, seem to think that science can take the place of religion in society.
quote:Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
quote:No, no, you're quite wrong. I object to false beliefs even if they are kept completely private. In any case I don't understand what point you think you are making here. Or perhaps you think you are scoring points?
My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world. At most you can make tangential inferences. And on that score, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Scientists can, for example, say how something happens, even why in the naturalistic sense, but not in a metaphysical one. On this ground we are even. If you consider that rationalistic atheism is a johnny-come-lately and that its practitioners tend not to be very honest about what they are doing, I actually think the theist holds the higher ground.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The meek don't inherit jack, so if we want to take care of them, we have to do it now, not just assume that God will sort them out later on.
Or: Eat, drink, make merry, and screw the meek, for tomorrow we die. If you insist one ethic is intrinsically preferable to the other, you're living on borrowed virtue.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Borrowed from whom?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world. At most you can make tangential inferences.
There can be natural evidence for or against supernatural propositions (ex: a god who actively interferes in our world).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
That depends on how said supreme being actually interferes with our world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What counts as "ritual of science" and why have I never been invited to one?
I, um, hadn't wanted to mention this to you, dean, but it's something to do with, um, your...you know.
-------
quote:Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
If that's true, of what use is God? If God cannot or does not act in ways which can be observed in the natural world, why bother?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Would those things have convinced you before you 'knew' that the book was true? If not, then there is no verification, just circular arguing. You must know this; why do you argue things you cannot really believe in?
I would not have stuck around long enough to really notice the particulars had I not first found confirmation that the basic premise of the book was true in the first place. As for these particulars, by themselves they do little more than cause me to raise an eyebrow, taken as a whole they convince me that it is more likely that Joseph Smith translated a legitimate artifact that corroborates the greater truths already found in the common Bible.
At this point in my life my belief is not beyond question, but all I've seen since taking the plunge is more and more reason to continue believing as I do. I've had periods of silence that lead me to question the consistency of God and have often felt that I was not getting an appropriate level of attention from Him. In those times I have tried doing what I wanted, and what I was told God wanted. The latter has always brought me lasting happiness the former has always brought me fleeting pleasure followed by misery.
I understand that in your world empirical evidence is the safest basis for a conviction. I admit that it's not difficult for me to see how religion exploits and is exploited by people with devious purposes. I am not your judge KOM, I cannot say how well you run your life based on the knowledge you truly possess. I think that overall you are a good man, even if you can be abrasive. Beyond your work in physics I do not know how much time you devote to extracurricular learning. Read the Book of Mormon if only to see if there is anything of value to be found therein. You may not accept the doctrine but there is so much more in the book than preaching. There's history, political science, philosophy, the art of war, poetry, etc. Even if you can find merely one idea aptly stated that stands up on its' own merits in the book, and live according to it, that is all you are obligated to do. It would certainly make debating with other Mormons in this forum more effective neh? But only you can decide if you have the time to devote to such a book, I can only suggest you give it a shot. ---
Tom:
quote:Can you give me a hypothetical, here? Are we talking about banning head scarves from public schools, crosses around necks, pro-life protests, the ritual consumption of hallucinogenic drugs, infant sacrifice, or crusades against homosexuality?
How about the first three, but not the latter three?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How about the first three, but not the latter three?
Why? What's the dividing line that you're using to make that determination?
quote:In those times I have tried doing what I wanted, and what I was told God wanted.
May I ask, specifically, what sort of things you wanted that God presumably did not want?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
Isn't that true of this whole argument (it's about homosexual marriage, in case you forgot)? People who object to things don't actively picket against them until the people they oppose begin to occupy a position of strength. It's human nature.
Homosexuality has always been feared (where applicable) but it is only when it comes out into the open that it stops being a "dirty" little secret and starts being Public Enemy Number 1.
People don't fear the first few immigrants who arrive in a country. They take on tasks nobody else wants to do, they provide a little interest to a monoculture. It's only when the immigrants begin to take over whole areas of cities and states that people begin to picket.
A few atheists are okay. They're ungodly and to be kept away from children, but they're merely hurting themselves. When the group of atheists grows, they are suddenly a major threat, no longer to be tolerated but to be opposed.
I think, however, that in an America already clearly described as being 80-90 or more percent religious, you would have a tough time defending the assertion that atheists have the solid upper ground from which they can look down their noses.
quote:But only you can decide if you have the time to devote to such a book, I can only suggest you give it a shot.
I've often heard people say this kind of thing. They know God exists because they feel that he does. It is an instinct thing.
It think that this befuddles a lot of atheists because they do not behave in this kind of way. They do not have that weird little thing in their brain that intuitively knows that some form of supernatural being exists. They are scientists at heart and if nobody had told them such a thing as God existed, they never would have imbued anything around them with God-like symptoms.
On the other side, the people with this intuition, this little bit of brain that has them 'feel' God (not God as we know it- if these people weren't told about God they would come up with some supernatural explanation of their own) cannot imagine a world without this supernatural presence outside of themselves. This is the fundamental reason I think people believe in God- because they feel a presence. They know.
Of course, this is just my speculation. Perhaps many atheists will chime in and go, "yes of course I feel that, but I deny it because of lack of evidence."
There are also those people who are psychics and such. They get around belief in a monolithic God by believing they are feeling other supernatural emanations.
But I think that this is the ultimate reason the majority of humans believe in God- because they feel it. It's hard to deny the sense of presence especially in moments where this seems strongest- large spaces, music, collective movement, solitude etc.
I think the first step to seeing the atheist argument is to recognise all the other things you give meaning to outside of the normal pantheon. A place or thing you love. A superstition you hold. A personal ritual you carry out that has no religious meaning, only a personal one, but it helps you (for example, closing the closet door long after monsters under the bed have disappeared.) "Your" song. They have to be things that until now you wouldn't have considered religious and yet you realise now that they are part of a presence.
If someone chopped down your childhood play tree, you would feel a sense of loss greater than, "that was my childhood tree!" You would "see" a gap in your presence. If you returned to that spot you would "feel" the tree where it used to be even if it was not.
If someone plays "your" song, you don't just remember the memories attached to it, you feel them outside of you the same way you might feel absent or deceased friends.
These things are smaller than the God-intuition and feel different, but I think they are part of the same network. If you constructed your entire world out of these little rituals (without God) I think you would attribute this same feeling of presence to the network of little rituals, rather than to one monolithic being.
I think what you have to do to understand how an atheist manages to "ignore" this sense, is to recognize that these non-religious presences feel similar to the God presence. An atheist recognises the God-intuition as a big version (perhaps the natural culmination) of these smaller, non-religious intuition.
An atheist walking into a church (especially one associated with his or her youth) still feels a similar sense of presence. He or she may even consider it something external or supernatural. But, for many reasons, they do not attribute it to God.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
quote:If that's true, of what use is God? If God cannot or does not act in ways which can be observed in the natural world, why bother?
I didn't say could not be observed. For those who have eyes to see, the signs are everywhere. All natural phenomena are, to me, God's works. It seems to me what you're really asking is what good is God unless you see a miracle, i.e. unless He acts in ways contrary to natural laws. I could discuss that, but again, we're in metaphysical territory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems to me what you're really asking is what good is God unless you see a miracle, i.e. unless He acts in ways contrary to natural laws.
If God never acts in ways contrary to natural law, how do you ever become aware of God?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
How can God interfere with the world without violating natural laws?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: You, for one, seem to think that science can take the place of religion in society.
No. I think society and individuals would be better off if they believed only true things. Religion is a false thing, science is a means of learning true things; therefore society is better with more science and less religion. But that does not mean that science takes the place of religion; the two are orthogonal. Ritual and ceremony we will always have with us, and they are not scientific, nor is that a slam on ritual. But we may at some point do without false belief.
Your confusion is caused by your inability to conceive of really rational thought, without the crutch of your beliefs; you think of an atheist as a theist with a hole, and so he must look for something to fill the hole. No. It is the theist who lacks something, which he fills with the first vaguely appealing religion that comes along.
quote:Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
There is no need for disproof. If you assert "There is a dragon in my garage", you would usually be asked to present some sort of evidence. "You can't disprove my dragon" is not generally considered an argument. Beliefs that have no shred of evidence attached need no disproof for a rational human to discard them.
quote:At most you can make tangential inferences. And on that score, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Scientists can, for example, say how something happens, even why in the naturalistic sense, but not in a metaphysical one.
This sentence is meaningless. What does it mean to say "the metaphysical sense of why something happens"? If it is supposed to be the purpose of some intelligent being that caused it to happen, then you are begging the question: It is not clear that such a being exists for a given event. Why assume that there is a 'why'? Stuff just happens, until evidence is shown to the contrary.
And let's note that when a scientist tells you why something happens, the explanation is really convincing and applying the principle really works. When a theist tries to guess why something happens, nobody is convinced unless they were already members of that religion.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
quote:Isn't that true of this whole argument (it's about homosexual marriage, in case you forgot)? People who object to things don't actively picket against them until the people they oppose begin to occupy a position of strength. It's human nature.
Homosexuality has always been feared (where applicable) but it is only when it comes out into the open that it stops being a "dirty" little secret and starts being Public Enemy Number 1.
People don't fear the first few immigrants who arrive in a country. They take on tasks nobody else wants to do, they provide a little interest to a monoculture. It's only when the immigrants begin to take over whole areas of cities and states that people begin to picket.
A few atheists are okay. They're ungodly and to be kept away from children, but they're merely hurting themselves. When the group of atheists grows, they are suddenly a major threat, no longer to be tolerated but to be opposed.
I think, however, that in an America already clearly described as being 80-90 or more percent religious, you would have a tough time defending the assertion that atheists have the solid upper ground from which they can look down their noses.
I don't consider homosexuality Public Enemy #1. The degradation of marriage in general is a bigger problem, of which the recent SSM debates are a symptom, in my view.
But sure, there should be prevailing values that guide our civil lives, and I'm unabashed that I think those should be Judeo-Christian. Nor did I really say that atheists are in a position to be lords of the manor; I said they want to be.
There is a very pernicious anti-Christian streak in academic circles, but that is partly because Christians have let them get away with it and ceded our own credibility in many areas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that is partly because Christians have let them get away with it and ceded our own credibility in many areas.
In what area do you think Christians have retained credibility?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Stuff just happens, until evidence is shown to the contrary.
Wow, and I'm the one who supposedly has difficulty with rational thought.
I can see that you're one of those who's bought into a reflexive disdain of religion and the religious that prevents any rational discourse (ironically). There's not much in postmodernism to be glad of, but that it heralds the relativization of hidebound modernists like yourself is one cause for rejoicing. Your kind represents the most stubborn of fundamentalists (more irony, since you spend so much time and energy railing at them). But never fear, your sort of unthinking is valued in academic circles. If you're employed or seek employment there, you should have no trouble never having your presuppositions ruffled.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, Gina, is it your belief that stuff does not happen?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:that is partly because Christians have let them get away with it and ceded our own credibility in many areas.
In what area do you think Christians have retained credibility?
More practiced disdain. It's dripping in here. It is the internet, I suppose.
Since I spoke to KoM about irony, let me note another one. All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists. Granted that there were a few atheists among the Greek philosophers, but the rest is all carried on the intellectual backs of theism, and largely of Christianity. The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians. It must really disturb you to ponder this? Or are you one of the honest ones, Tom?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Wow, and I'm the one who supposedly has difficulty with rational thought.
I can see you do not intend to actually respond to my points, much less think about them. Sad, but not surprising. Such things happen when brains are warped at an early age. I suggest you run along and play with your dolls now, and come back when you're ready to have an adult discussion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And christianity is carried on the back of judaism, mithraism, zoroastrianism, which were carried on the backs of various other pagan religions, which were carried on the back of animism. Who cares? Better things grow up and take the place of older less capable things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, Gina, is it your belief that stuff does not happen?
*amused*
That's not what she said, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists.
Would you like to discuss this in more depth?
My assertion is as follows: until the late 18th century, there was no model for the universe that made sense without a supernatural Creator; no natural model had previously been posited that answered the most pressing questions. Ergo, practitioners of the scientific method would safely presume the existence of a Creator while still studying the results of that Creator's actions. By the late 1700s, other explanations had come forward to reduce the scope of that action, thus permitting concepts like Deism; God no longer directly acted, and perhaps was a non-sentient "Nature's God." And just a few decades later, enough gaps had been closed that it became feasible to wonder whether a creative force -- sentient or not -- was actually necessary to explain the observable universe.
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
Socrates was a Christian?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
The mushroom grows in a cellar, fed on horseshit; but I do not put the horseshit on my plate, nor live in darkness. If Newton was smart enough to make strides in science in spite of his theist beliefs, then the more glory to him; that does not mean I must burden myself with the same handicap. By standing on the shoulder of a giant, you see further. But the giant did not grow so large because he stands to his knees in a mucky swamp.
And again: What evidence do you propose in favour of your religion? What prediction do you make that is different, because your god exists, from what a scientist would say? If you pray for a sick child, is the probability of its recovery thereby improved? If you perform a certain ritual, will you have luck in other matters?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The evidence is stuff you are unwilling to call evidence, so you don't need to bother asking that question again and again until you are willing to look beyond your assumptions about what can or cannot be considered evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The evidence you propose is stuff that just as cleanly predicts any number of quite different gods. A Muslim who speaks of the miracle of breathing takes it as evidence for Allah; since it is just as useful for this hypothesis, its actual weight as evidence is zero. If you have any evidence that distinguishes between gods, or between gods and no-gods, then present it now. Otherwise be quiet.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't even know why people are debating the "forged by Christians" bit. It's patently false if you know anything about either philosophy or the roots of science. Clearly, GinaG does not, which makes me wonder what the point is in discussing much of this at all with her.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: ... The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians. It must really disturb you to ponder this? Or are you one of the honest ones, Tom?
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat."
(Not that the premise is true, as others have pointed out. But I find the idea that one would be "disturbed" even if it were true a curious one)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't even know why people are debating the "forged by Christians" bit. It's patently false if you know anything about either philosophy or the roots of science.
Yeah, that assertion is definitely a red flag.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A red flag that was waved by Pi-- ... nah, just a red flag, I guess. That other one was kind of little, and really, it was only a red leaf.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And christianity is carried on the back of judaism, mithraism, zoroastrianism, which were carried on the backs of various other pagan religions, which were carried on the back of animism.
Sure, I can admit that, at least in the case of Judaism, and some pagan influence. Cheerfully.
quote: Who cares? Better things grow up and take the place of older less capable things.
I know there are some Jews around here who might take issue with that statement. But basically you are stating a religious idea- "fuller revelation." See, we have so much in common. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But basically you are stating a religious idea- "fuller revelation."
Or a Darwinian one.
(Note: the winkie is there because I don't really think there's such a thing as a "Darwinian idea." But YMMV. *grin*)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT: Some Hatrack meme?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was given unto us by Pierre Trudeau, the first time he met us.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
Yep. Rhetoric without accuracy is just, well, neither useful nor admired.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote: All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: And just a few decades later, enough gaps had been closed that it became feasible to wonder whether a creative force -- sentient or not -- was actually necessary to explain the observable universe.
When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there. If it has taught us anything by now, it's that you can pack a million gaps into the tiniest fraction of space. See, I think I actually have more respect for science than you do, by being willing to put it in its proper perspective.
quote:Socrates was a Christian?
You would not even know who Socrates was but for Christians (and Muslims, who inherited the Greek corpus from Syriac Christians and Jews). Line of inheritance is what I assert here. However, regardless, we can just speak about theists in general if you prefer.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"forged by Christians" doesn't seem to just imply line of inheritance, which is a remarkably meaningless way of claiming descent. Is there a point beyond the obvious fact that most people throughout history have been at least mildly religious?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Are you familiar with Xeno's Paradox? Yes, science comes up with twenty questions for every big one it answers. But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
Compare and contrast "what makes lightning" with "why does an electrified plasma ground itself in this way?" A satisfying answer for the former used to be "Zeus." Zeus as a god in charge of electrifying plasma, however, isn't as satisfying a concept.
quote:Line of inheritance is what I assert here.
Inheritance of what? What, specifically, are you saying that atheists inherited from Socrates by way of Christians -- and, moreover, what debt do atheists owe Christians (and, consequently, Christians owe worshippers of the Greek gods) as a result?
See, I don't see you arguing that we should pay Zeus some respect because his followers came up with some decent philosophy. I don't see you asserting that maybe there's some validity in the whole Hera Hypothesis simply because Aquinas owed a serious debt to Aristotle. Aquinas denied Hera's existence without a moment's afterthought; are you suggesting that he was wrong to do so?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Mucus, I am the gift to TomDavidson that just keeps on giving.
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
Socrates was a Christian?
You would not even know who Socrates was but for Christians (and Muslims, who inherited the Greek corpus from Syriac Christians and Jews). Line of inheritance is what I assert here. However, regardless, we can just speak about theists in general if you prefer.
Ah, then that's the problem. See, I read you as stating "forged by."
When I convey the text of another's ideas, either by giving someone a book or referencing them in a paper I write, I generally consider that a citation, not a forging. I didn't make the ideas myself, as it were -- just conveyed them.
---
Edited to add: And now I am being snarky. My apologies, sincerely. I hold the Euthrypo close to my heart, and not because of who first showed it to me. But you don't deserve snippiness.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
I don't think a bit of levity hurts anything. In any case, I notice you point this towards me- I suppose the disdain on the part of the atheists, delivered stiffly, is better received?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
This isn't true for most modern religious types, and it hasn't been true for centuries.
You are arguing against a view a religion that hasn't been popular for three hundred years. Congratulations on that, but it misses the point of why people are religious now.
It so thoroughly misses the point I wonder that you can't or won't understand that.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
More accurately---"The very sword you hope to slay theism with was brought to your battle by Christians."
Whom do we owe for the Sword? The teamsters or the sword-smiths? Surely it would be folly not to pay the teamsters their due, but it would also be folly to give them credit for the gift.
Christianity--the UPS of philosophy--when it absolutely positively has to be there over millenia.
(Edited to change "in a thousand years" to "over millenia". It sounds better)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This isn't true for most modern religious types, and it hasn't been true for centuries.
I'm not sure this is true. It's true that religion has ceded most of the "Big Questions" to science, but certainly many religious people still believe, for example, in Creationism.
More importantly, questions like "is there life after death" and "what does it mean to be good" and "do I exist if my brain does not" and the like are still big questions, and I suspect they're questions that science will someday answer.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Chistianity--the UPS of philosophy--when it absolutely positively has to be there [over millenia].
Modern analytic philosophy does owe a great deal to those who maintained original texts (or copies thereof), be they Christian, Muslim, or what have you. It's a shame so much was lost, though.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Are you familiar with Xeno's Paradox? Yes, science comes up with twenty questions for every big one it answers. But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
Compare and contrast "what makes lightning" with "why does an electrified plasma ground itself in this way?" A satisfying answer for the former used to be "Zeus." Zeus as a god in charge of electrifying plasma, however, isn't as satisfying a concept.
What does this tell us but that our conception of God is never big enough? If you think it disproves God or should cast a believer into doubt, it seems to me you just don't understand what faith in God is. I already said that every natural mechanism is, to my mind, a work of God.
See, we really do have a lot in common (in earnest). There is no reason to be adversarial. Most of the time I think people are exercising their emotional static from run-ins with fundamentalist parents, pushy evangelists, etc.
quote:Inheritance of what? What, specifically, are you saying that atheists inherited from Socrates by way of Christians -- and, moreover, what debt do atheists owe Christians (and, consequently, Christians owe worshippers of the Greek gods) as a result?
The whole patrimony of western thought was largely created by theists. Christians inherited it, and added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think many of us in this thread appreciate levity. Mocking and the idea that levity alone makes an argument have any force (as seems to be the case with your 'forged by Christians' statement, for instance) are things we do not appreciate.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The evidence you propose is stuff that just as cleanly predicts any number of quite different gods. A Muslim who speaks of the miracle of breathing takes it as evidence for Allah; since it is just as useful for this hypothesis, its actual weight as evidence is zero. If you have any evidence that distinguishes between gods, or between gods and no-gods, then present it now. Otherwise be quiet.
The events documented in the New Testament is one example of such a piece of evidence.
It should be noted, though, that it'd be foolish to place the entire weight of one's religious beliefs on any one piece of evidence. Most people become convinced of religion by looking at the larger picture of ALL evidence taken together, including authorities/experts, texts, personal experiences, observations about the world, scientific models, historical facts, basic assumptions, and almost any other sort of evidence. Asking for a single piece of evidence that by itself proves not only that God exists but that a given religious view of God is true is like asking for one note of a symphony that proves it was composed by Beethoven and not Bach.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: There is no reason to be adversarial. Most of the time I think people are exercising their emotional static from run-ins with fundamentalist parents, pushy evangelists, etc.
I think here the reaction is more plausibly attributable to the like of the following:
quote: ... I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Inaccuracy isn't well-tolerated here. Levity is, but not at the expense of intellectual rigor. Rhetoric in itself isn't a problem; again, it is when inaccuracy grounds it that there is such a reaction.
[ January 05, 2009, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: The whole patrimony of western thought was largely created by theists. Christians inherited it, and added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
You saying this repeatedly doesn't make it true. Take a proper History of Modern Philosophy course - or even Philosophy of Religion, and report back then.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
When I studied (or, later, taught) Greek philosophy, it wasn't through interpretation by [medieval] Aquinas texts or any other Christian writer. It was through the original texts, often using different translations to observe bias.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suggest looking up definitions of irony, ingratitude, and perhaps ignorance. The only irony I see in this thread is not being participated in by the atheists (I should note that I strongly disagree with many of the stronger positions, though I am not in the least theistic). I would also note that gratitude does not imply compromising one's own moral position, and what people arguing against religion is this thread are advocating is certainly a moral position.
Again, that many ideas have been tossed around, preserved, and held by theists is not news to anyone in this thread. Most of us have probably known it since approximately the age of ten, and perhaps before. You should feel no obligation to attempt to enlighten us about it, or anything requiring a similar level of knowledge.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
There used to be a huge pile of physical phenomena which were believed to be explicable only by divine intervention. Diseases, for starter, though there are a whole lot of others.
So, how many of those disease are now still beleved to be caused by divine providence, and how many are now understood totally in terms of natural phenomena?
quote:If it has taught us anything by now, it's that you can pack a million gaps into the tiniest fraction of space. See, I think I actually have more respect for science than you do, by being willing to put it in its proper perspective.
Okay, so how many new anti-malaria drugs have hit the market because researchers put God into the gaps between, say, the transition of the falciparum between its various life stages?
Or, is it that these gaps that science reveals get filled only with...more science? That the number of physical phenomena explicable by totally natural causes grows day by day, year by year, while the number of physical causes shown to be explicable by divine causes remains at the same zero it's always been at?
quote:Line of inheritance is what I assert here.
I don't see how this argument helps you. Science had its babyhood in Greece, and became recognizable only after the Enlightement. The lion's share of Christian history is pre-Enlightenment, and Christians were happily burning witches for most of the time, and only stopped when the lost the secular power to do so. Did those Syriac Christians invent science? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Nope. Only one branch of Christiantiny got around to it, and only after they split the heck out of their "catholic" religion. If the Pope had managed to rule over all of Christendom absolutely, burning whatever books he didn't like, science might not have started in Europe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Leaving aside the issue of correctness, I'm curious what a "grateful" atheist would do differently...?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Bring a bottle of wine, but not expect it to be served at that dinner.
---
Added: Also, bread-n-butter note within 48 hours.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote: .. added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Inaccuracy isn't well-tolerated here. Levity is, but not at the expense of intellectual rigor. Rhetoric in itself isn't a problem; again, it is when inaccuracy grounds it that there is such a reaction.
You yourself are simply asserting inaccuracy and making no effort to support your assertion. Either show what is inaccurate and support your own argument, or you don't have much ground from which to criticize others for lack of rigor.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That would be the "forging" part, for a start.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Western thought was definitely NOT created entirely by theists. However, its survival and progress can be mostly attributed to organized religion - Christianity and Islam. I think its reasonable to speculate that science would not exist as it does today if those organized religions were not around as a foundation for preserving ideas and thinking about important ideas.
I'd think a "grateful" atheist would agree that organized religion has been at least in part a productive force in the world, if for that reason alone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
Not to speak for Gina as I suspect we have little in common, but for myself, there is no separation between natural phenomena and divine phenomena. "That isn't divine; it's natural," would be a nonsense statement to me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The problem is, GinaG, everyone this thread agrees with CT (as they ought to in all circumstances, of course ). It's difficult to convince people of "the truth" when you're the only one seeing the pink elephant in the corner.
The sky is blue when it's a clear day. I don't think I'll make any effort to support my assertion, yet I doubt anyone will disagree, or say I'm "lacking rigor". Anyone who argues it's mauve will be ignored.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd think a "grateful" atheist would agree that organized religion has been at least in part a productive force in the world, if for that reason alone.
Sure. Now can we move on to more productive conversations? Because, let's face it, that's ancient history.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: I believe most who don't think organized religion has been a productive force (which doesn't necessarily include me) would simply question if there would have been much of a problem about them being lost had religion not existed, or some similar tact. That is, judge 'productive force' not vs the absence of anything, but vs the absence of religion. And since that's a counterfactual hypothesis, there isn't a good (if we include 'mutually acceptable', at least ) way to resolve it.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: You saying this repeatedly doesn't make it true. Take a proper History of Modern Philosophy course - or even Philosophy of Religion, and report back then.
Medieval history is my field, history of science is a hobby. Contest the merits if you will- I will happily learn something new- but all I am seeing is a lot of prejudice and the usual bluster. This in a place supposedly known for its rigor?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
But Jhai, you have much better taste in clothes than I. *grin
No, seriously, Christianity (and Islam, and the followers of Buddha, and the various legal traditions, and so many other groups or participants both strictly and not strictly defined) have done much to make the world what it is today. Of that I have no doubt, and I offer no quibble.
What the world is today is both good and ill, same as always -- though the ratio may vary. I'm all in favor of continuing to improve that balance. In the long run, I've never seen that served by rhetoric without a thorough grounding in the facts of the matter, as best we can know them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
Anyone else want to play?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On a completely tangential note, the Chinese called, they want their paper and printing technology back based on the lines of inheritance.
They'll settle for gunpowder though, since thats been a bit of a disappointment. If you all had RTFM as intended, you'd know that you should be pointing gunpowder-based technology into the sky to make pretty colours rather than at each other. Centuries of accidental death could easily have been avoided
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Mucus, I am the gift to TomDavidson that just keeps on giving.
Hmmm, I'll take your word for it. Rather I won't, but I'll assume that TomDavidson appreciates it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'll nominate Holyoake for secularism, which is one of the areas listed above as one of the "contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The events documented in the New Testament is one example of such a piece of evidence.
Like Herod killing all the newborn boys?
Since not another soul recorded such a thing, and the author had obvious reasons for adding that to the story (it draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and it is a plot device to get Jesus in to Egypt, so he can come put again like the prophecies say the Messiah should), we have to conclude that it didn't happen.
Do you really wish to say that it is honest to use the Gospels as evidence for things that didn't happen?
quote:It should be noted, though, that it'd be foolish to place the entire weight of one's religious beliefs on any one piece of evidence.
It's foolish to believe anything based on one piece of evidence. Better to be skeptical, and look for more evidence before drawing a conclusion.
quote:Most people become convinced of religion by looking at the larger picture of ALL evidence taken together, including authorities/experts, texts, personal experiences, observations about the world, scientific models, historical facts, basic assumptions, and almost any other sort of evidence.
Surveys show that a majority of Christians can't name all 4 Evangelists, and you expect anyone to beleive that "most" religious people are looking at texts, and historical facts, and scientific models before coming to their conclusions?
Sorry, but "most" religious people have the same religion as their familes. This does not suggest that people are choosing based on anything objective, like scientific models and historical facts, and texts.
quote:Asking for a single piece of evidence that by itself proves not only that God exists but that a given religious view of God is true is like asking for one note of a symphony that proves it was composed by Beethoven and not Bach.
Okay, how about something at least suggestive.
One physical phenomenon for which it has been shown that a non-natural explanation is required.
You've got a whole universe, and thousands of years of human history. You should be able to find one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: More importantly, questions like "is there life after death" and "what does it mean to be good" and "do I exist if my brain does not" and the like are still big questions, and I suspect they're questions that science will someday answer.
I can certainly conceive of the third being answered by science. I even agree that it is likely to happen in my children's lifetimes (and possibly my own). But the first, assuming such life is completely undetectable by physical means, seems unlikely to be answered by science. And the second is not a scientific question at all.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The sky is blue when it's a clear day. I don't think I'll make any effort to support my assertion, yet I doubt anyone will disagree, or say I'm "lacking rigor". Anyone who argues it's mauve will be ignored.
Or have their rose-colored glassed absconded with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the second is not a scientific question at all
I believe it can be, once the semantic question itself is resolved. Until that point, of course, we're firmly in the realm of philosophy. But at no point is it an exclusively religious question.
My argument is that those things which were exclusively answered by religion are becoming fewer and fewer on the ground.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Guess who was known for wearing rose-colored glasses (or, at least, a rose boutonničre)?
It all comes together.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since I've said a few things that might be interpreted as taking a side I don't agree with very much (I'm not a theist, but I don't particularly think of myself as an atheist), I thought I'd add a few things.
swbarnes: many theists believe that everything (at least nowadays, and some would extend that to all human history) can be explained by natural explanations, and yet that without god, nothing would ever have existed, much less any natural explanation have happened. The lack of unexplainable phenomena is not a problem, there.
rivka: I think I agree with every bit of your post.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: "what does it mean to be good" is the semantic question. Of course given a quantifiable definition of good one could make a science of discovering such quantities. However, the evaluation of that definition itself is the problem.
I suspect you reject that there's anything to 'good' other than humans picking a definition, but I encourage you to offer a proof Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
There used to be a huge pile of physical phenomena which were believed to be explicable only by divine intervention. Diseases, for starter, though there are a whole lot of others.
So, how many of those disease are now still beleved to be caused by divine providence, and how many are now understood totally in terms of natural phenomena?
quote:Okay, so how many new anti-malaria drugs have hit the market because researchers put God into the gaps between, say, the transition of the falciparum between its various life stages?
Or, is it that these gaps that science reveals get filled only with...more science? That the number of physical phenomena explicable by totally natural causes grows day by day, year by year, while the number of physical causes shown to be explicable by divine causes remains at the same zero it's always been at?
I'm trying to think how to convey how meaningless these questions are. I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach, whereas I don't find it especially useful. It's true that later rationalists decided they would go Aquinas etc. one better and reason their way out of God (which is what you seem to be trying to do), but I don't think that works any better than the original notion.
Again: To me, it's all God. I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me. The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me. I recognize that many people, even Christians, live there, but I can only visit.
quote:I don't see how this argument helps you. Science had its babyhood in Greece, and became recognizable only after the Enlightement. The lion's share of Christian history is pre-Enlightenment, and Christians were happily burning witches for most of the time, and only stopped when the lost the secular power to do so. Did those Syriac Christians invent science? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Nope. Only one branch of Christiantiny got around to it, and only after they split the heck out of their "catholic" religion. If the Pope had managed to rule over all of Christendom absolutely, burning whatever books he didn't like, science might not have started in Europe.
You're obviously laboring under the tired old cliche's promulgated by 19th century historiography. I don't even know what to do with this portion of your reply except again to speed the humbling that the so-called Enlightenment desperately deserves.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'll nominate Holyoake for secularism, which is one of the areas listed above as one of the "contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands."
You think secularism was invented in the 19th century? Go back a bit further. The medievals were separating out church and state, and natural vs. supernatural phenomena, with gusto.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Interestingly, I'm reading a book on precisely this topic at the moment. Gina, have you read much Taylor?
quote:The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me.
Okay. Now explain to me why, in your worldview, God is necessary. If the physical world is evidence of God, how do you distinguish evidence of God from the physical world? And if you can't, how is that observably different from having no evidence of God?
--------
quote:I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach...
In all honesty, it has never occurred to me that all Christians might have reasoned their way to God.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
So you want to claim people who "sort of believe" as atheists? I think you're stretching.
I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Gina, I didn't say secularism was invented in the 19th century. The idea of secularism wasn't -- and that claim would be rather silly. Arguing against a silly claim I didn't make would be arguing against a strawman, or at least a rhetorical flourish not grounded in accuracy. [Added: I'm happy to assume that is not what you are doing, but then I would not know what you are doing. Which would be okay, just adding to a general confusion.]
The term "secularism" was coined by Holyoake, and my response was to Jhai's call for valuable contributors to atheism. Holyoake certainly advanced that cause by defining the concept of secularism and arguing for it pretty vehemently.
On the other hand, I am unclear on whether (and why) you attributed the founding of secularism to theists. What did you mean by this? *interested
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
For clarification, I believe she said "comes to us via," not "invented." This may be another case of conflating "forging" with "conveyance." [but the other way around]
---
Also added: It occurs to me that there seems to be recurrent confusion between inventing something and passing something along. It might be a distinction worth noting explicitly.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Interestingly, I'm reading a book on precisely this topic at the moment. Gina, have you read much Taylor?
Which topic and which Taylor?
quote:The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me.
quote:Okay. Now explain to me why, in your worldview, God is necessary. If the physical world is evidence of God, how do you distinguish evidence of God from the physical world? And if you can't, how is that observably different from having no evidence of God?
I can explain, but it is a religious discussion. Do you want to have that?
Edit: Re-reading, it still seems to me that what you are asking above is precisely what you say below that you never thought of, i.e. that I should need to search out "evidence" in nature either for God or against Him.
quote:I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach...
quote:In all honesty, it has never occurred to me that all Christians might have reasoned their way to God.
OK. Some of the commenters seem to think I care to "prove God's existence" or somehow use science as an evangelistic tool. That would be a Scholastic aim, and perhaps an approach that some Intelligent Design people take, but as I've said, I don't find it very useful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not going to bother with the whole line of inheritance thing, it's irrelevant to the interesting question of what is actually true.
quote:Again: To me, it's all God. I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me.
In that case I do not understand what you mean by belief. When I say "I believe X", I mean that there is some prediction I make which I would not make, if I didn't think X was true. This does not appear to be the meaning you attach to the word. What would happen differently if your god did not exist? What would you do differently? And what convinced you in the first place that your god existed? I am not interested in what you take as supporting evidence later on, that's down to confirmation bias in a well-known and boring way; I want to know why you started looking for confirmation to start with.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
So you want to claim people who "sort of believe" as atheists? I think you're stretching.
I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
I didn't say that they were atheists, merely that they had made valuable contributions to atheistic thought. I also never said that the Hindus were the only one to invent a number system - just that they are directly responsible for the invention of zero, which is a key (indeed, the key) component of the number system - aka the one that is in use round the world now.
CT, I meant invent, as in "they invented the number system we now use." My words may not have been the clearest, and I apologize for that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Edit: Re-reading, it still seems to me that what you are asking above is precisely what you say below that you never thought of, i.e. that I should need to search out "evidence" in nature either for God or against Him.
Specifically, what I am saying is that if you have not done this, your belief in God is completely irrational, although perhaps personally useful. If a world without God looks exactly the same as a world with God, the conclusion that there IS a God is one that seems unnecessary.
KoM's questions are in this vein: what would you do differently if there were no God, living as you do in a universe where you admit no visible evidence of God?
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
I wonder if they're going to count my vote for Al Franken.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: CT, I meant invent, as in "they invented the number system we now use." My words may not have been the clearest, and I apologize for that.
*nods
On rereading, I thought that may be the case (i.e., that when you said "number sytem," you did actually mean this particular system), but my post was already so riddled with brackets of change that I feared to add more. Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for adding to any confusion.
It's a complicated topic, and comments are flying back and forth quickly. I'm happy to see charitable interpretations of one another's claims whenever they crop up.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not really sure what difference it makes that modern science has its roots among the religious. Everything arguably has a majority of its roots among the religious.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I'm not really sure what difference it makes that modern science has its roots among the religious. Everything arguably has a majority of its roots among the religious.
Including secularism, at least for a certain definition of "roots."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My point is that the past was a highly religious time. Anything that has roots stemmed from a lot of religious people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is only my enormous self-restraint that has prevented me from observing that it was very likely an atheist who invented religion. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: My point is that the past was a highly religious time. Anything that has roots stemmed from a lot of religious people.
Agreed. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that any given thing would not have arisen without religion being present. Given the times, we're unlikely to know.
It's rather like the mind-body division. For a good bit of time, it was taken for granted that the mind was essentially independent of the body. Much good science came from people who believed this, but it may well have in other circumstances too, and [that juxtaposition] is not in itself a reason to disbelieve in the effectiveness of psychotropic medications when indicated.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Much good science came from people who believed this
Really? Science of the body, perhaps - although even then, most of our drugs are less than 50 years old - but I am entirely unconvinced that any scientific account of the mind, or parts of it, predates the knowledge that the mind and the brain are inseparable. Can you show some examples?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Much good science came from people who believed this
Really? Science of the body, perhaps - although even then, most of our drugs are less than 50 years old - but I am entirely unconvinced that any scientific account of the mind, or parts of it, predates the knowledge that the mind and the brain are inseparable. Can you show some examples?
*grin
I am becoming used to being misread. Alas.
I did not say "any scientific account of the mind," I said "much good science" (unqualified as to subcategory, you will note). I had in mind physics, but that just because I am currently doing a review of physics in the history of science. Should you prefer, you are welcome to focus on something else in the broad field of "science."
Whatever you chose to focus on, though, is not a constraint on what I claimed. Which, as noted above, was unqualified as to type. Hope this helps.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Mind you, depending on what you mean by predating "the knowledge that the mind and the brain are inseparable," there may well be much good science of the brain and/or mind before then, as well.
What general date were you thinking of as a marker for this claim? [i.e., as not being predated by any scientific account of the mind, or parts of it?]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Again: To me, it's all God.
I just don't see how this is different from saying "It's all peanut butter". It's just leads you into equivocation.
quote:I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me.
So, say, a parasite that ate the eyes of children, that would be food for faith? What kind of God does that lead one to believe in? What kind of lifestyle changes does belief in such a God suggest?
If all you are saying is "I believe that everything that exists, exists, and that there's a lot of stuff that exists", then that's not much of an argument, but you are making it more confusing by describing it with a word that is pretty universally used to mean a divine ego.
If you are saying that you believe in a divine ego that does nothing detectable, then I guess I just don't see the point.
quote:You're obviously laboring under the tired old cliche's promulgated by 19th century historiography. I don't even know what to do with this portion of your reply except again to speed the humbling that the so-called Enlightenment desperately deserves.
The essence of the Enlightment is humility. It's the sober realization that humans make mistakes, and that the ONLY reliable way of detecting them is to constantly reality test. Otherwise, we end up repeating the mistakes made by authorities a thousand years ago. That's the break that happened in the Enlightenment, people made a conscious effort to reject authority's teaching where authorities were shown to be wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Mind you, depending on what you mean by predating "the knowledge that the mind and the brain are inseparable," there may well be much good science of the brain and/or mind before then, as well.
What general date were you thinking of as a marker for this claim? [i.e., as not being predated by any scientific account of the mind, or parts of it?]
Ok, I see what you mean, so this is not so relevant anymore. But I was thinking of ~1960, 1970 as the date before which no real science of the mind was done, just various guesses.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It is only my enormous self-restraint that has prevented me from observing that it was very likely an atheist who invented religion.
It's okay, because you'd probably be wrong.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think the joke is that before belief in God, people were atheists.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ok, I see what you mean, so this is not so relevant anymore. But I was thinking of ~1960, 1970 as the date before which no real science of the mind was done, just various guesses.
No worries.
As for examples, it all depends on your definitions, but these may be of interest:
1) Galen (2nd century) dissected out the laryngeal nerve and attributed the power of speech to the functions of it. Granted, he was an anatomist and not a psychotherapist, but much of our current understanding of the body traces back to him, including something so basic as the circulation of the blood. But how he proceded (at least at times) was recognizable as a version of the scientific method, complete with null hypothesis. He also (if I remember correctly) first identified the blood-brain barrier, although he thought it separated some of the humours in the blood.
2) At least as far back as the 10th century, there was clinical study of mental disorders in the Islamic world, as well as the establishment of the first mental hospitals (with a general rejection of demonic possession as the cause of mental disorders). Avicenna (~11th century) wrote a treatise on optics, distinguished the five senses of the human body, experimented on pain relief, and developed a theory of mind that held that we learn by empirical observation (he believed in the tabula rasa) through sensation, hypothesis, syllogism, and then the development of abstract concepts. A near-contemporary in the same area noted the distinction between motor and sensory nerves.
Some of this is anatomy, and some is theory of cognition. But when I read about the history of medicine, I was really quite astonished at some of the sophistication of the ideas and methods used way far back in some areas. It may or may not be applicable to what you asked, but I find it notable and absolutely fascinating. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think any of that is science of the mind in the sense I intended, which is to say, explaining how the mind does what it does and how its disorders may be repaired, with perhaps the exception of the clinical study of mental disorders - it depends a bit on how they did the studies. For example, the tabula rasa hypothesis is just a guess, in the same sense that Democritus's atoms were just a guess. Either there is a smallest particle, or not; either we are blank slates, or not. Unless you do an experiment to find out, it's guesswork, not science.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think any of that is science of the mind in the sense I intended, which is to say, explaining how the mind does what it does and how its disorders may be repaired...
Not even the mechanics of sensory perception and processing?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Possibly, but I don't see that in your descriptions. Are you referring to the optics bit? A description of the eye does not have anything to do with how the brain processes visual input.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: ... distinguished the five senses of the human body, experimented on pain relief .. A near-contemporary in the same area noted the distinction between motor and sensory nerves.
This was via hypothesis testing and clinical experimentation.
Added: To be more clear: these were scientists who identified pain as a sensation transmitted by nerves, quantitatively but not qualitively different from normal sensation. And that the brain accepts input from certain nerves (and always the same set of nerves), whereas it conveys motor commands via a different set. And that there are 5 distinct types of sensory perception with specialized receptors and nerve bundles (taste, hearing, touch, sight, smell) for each.
That is indeed the basic mechanics of sensory perception, no?
---
Also added: And if we cannot agree on that, I'm afraid we might have different concepts of what sensory perception is, or its fundamental relevance to understanding how the mind does what it does, as well as some of the main disorders involving the mind and how to address them. *spreads hands
Which is okay, just that we'd be coming from such different places that I fear further discussion would be moot.
[ January 05, 2009, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
By the way, and just for completeness' sake, this is just the science of the mind/brain way early on that comes to my mind (heh) immediately.
I'd hate any readers think that such examples prior to 1970 are limited to this small set. For anyone interested, it's a fascinating area of medical history.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, fair enough, that's a bit more advanced than what I visualised from your first description. If I wanted to quibble I'd say that this is research on the mind-body interface rather than the mind, but pff. Quibbles.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes, it would depend on definitions and so forth. But fascinating nonetheless.
Avicenna (or Ibn Sina) is one of my heroes. Amazing in his thoroughness and rigour, and in the 11th century! Incredible.
quote:Ibn Sīnā is regarded as a father of early modern medicine,[16][17] and clinical pharmacology[18] particularly for his introduction of systematic experimentation and quantification into the study of physiology,[19] his discovery of the contagious nature of infectious diseases,[20] the introduction of quarantine to limit the spread of contagious diseases, the introduction of experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials,[21] randomized controlled trials,[22][23] efficacy tests,[24][25] clinical pharmacology,[24] neuropsychiatry,[26] risk factor analysis, and the idea of a syndrome,[27] ... -- from Wikipedia with listed references
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: On the other hand, I am unclear on whether (and why) you attributed the founding of secularism to theists. What did you mean by this? *interested
It was theists who first felt it necessary to distinguish between the sacred and secular, for their various reasons.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A further clarification, if I may (and you needn't answer if you'd rather not, but it isn't a trap): do you see a difference between "secularism" as a movement or philosophy and assigning the characteristic of "secular" as a singular attribute?
Added for clarification: I do, and I was reading you as [initially] using the former denotation. It may have been a point of confusion.
---
Also added: And how broad is your category of "theists" (i.e., are you including pagans, animists, Shintoists, and the like as theists)?
[ January 05, 2009, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:Why? What's the dividing line that you're using to make that determination?
You asked what sorts of things I was talking about and posited a few. Rather then trying to come up with every expression of religion that may be stifled one day I decided to limit our conversation to those three. If you have some more gray ones I'd be happy to do those instead.
quote: May I ask, specifically, what sort of things you wanted that God presumably did not want?
You may ask, and I must regretfully decline to go into details. It's not a topic I am entirely comfortable discussing in a public forum. One example I suppose I could submit for consideration is prayer, scripture reading, and church attendance. For a period of several months I did none of those things as I could not be bothered. Besides those things I was completely happy with my life, I went to work, hung out with friends, and still believed in my religion. I was just lazy. Eventually I just stopped wanting to do any of those things. During that period of time I felt God fade out of my life and I was definitely less happy.
Teshi:
quote:I've often heard people say this kind of thing. They know God exists because they feel that he does. It is an instinct thing.
It think that this befuddles a lot of atheists because they do not behave in this kind of way. They do not have that weird little thing in their brain that intuitively knows that some form of supernatural being exists. They are scientists at heart and if nobody had told them such a thing as God existed, they never would have imbued anything around them with God-like symptoms.
On the other side, the people with this intuition, this little bit of brain that has them 'feel' God (not God as we know it- if these people weren't told about God they would come up with some supernatural explanation of their own) cannot imagine a world without this supernatural presence outside of themselves. This is the fundamental reason I think people believe in God- because they feel a presence. They know.
Of course, this is just my speculation. Perhaps many atheists will chime in and go, "yes of course I feel that, but I deny it because of lack of evidence."
There are also those people who are psychics and such. They get around belief in a monolithic God by believing they are feeling other supernatural emanations.
But I think that this is the ultimate reason the majority of humans believe in God- because they feel it. It's hard to deny the sense of presence especially in moments where this seems strongest- large spaces, music, collective movement, solitude etc.
I think the first step to seeing the atheist argument is to recognise all the other things you give meaning to outside of the normal pantheon. A place or thing you love. A superstition you hold. A personal ritual you carry out that has no religious meaning, only a personal one, but it helps you (for example, closing the closet door long after monsters under the bed have disappeared.) "Your" song. They have to be things that until now you wouldn't have considered religious and yet you realise now that they are part of a presence.
If someone chopped down your childhood play tree, you would feel a sense of loss greater than, "that was my childhood tree!" You would "see" a gap in your presence. If you returned to that spot you would "feel" the tree where it used to be even if it was not.
If someone plays "your" song, you don't just remember the memories attached to it, you feel them outside of you the same way you might feel absent or deceased friends.
These things are smaller than the God-intuition and feel different, but I think they are part of the same network. If you constructed your entire world out of these little rituals (without God) I think you would attribute this same feeling of presence to the network of little rituals, rather than to one monolithic being.
I think what you have to do to understand how an atheist manages to "ignore" this sense, is to recognize that these non-religious presences feel similar to the God presence. An atheist recognises the God-intuition as a big version (perhaps the natural culmination) of these smaller, non-religious intuition.
An atheist walking into a church (especially one associated with his or her youth) still feels a similar sense of presence. He or she may even consider it something external or supernatural. But, for many reasons, they do not attribute it to God.
That is an intriguing hypothesis. My only contention would be then incidents where a person feels strongly impressed that a force outside themselves wants them to commit act X, an act they were not consciously considering nor had they done it before. Or when a person who does not believe in a religion and hears a believer testify of their belief and feels a strong unfamiliar feeling tell them to trust in what they are hearing.
From a neurological standpoint why would either example happen? I have seen both.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(BlackBlade, we are often standing on different roads, but you should know I've always enjoyed reading your posts on these matters. Thanks. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You asked what sorts of things I was talking about and posited a few. Rather then trying to come up with every expression of religion that may be stifled one day I decided to limit our conversation to those three.
Right. And I couldn't help noticing that you picked superficial, symbolic religious gestures -- although I don't necessarily agree that headscarves really fit in that category -- instead of the more serious issues I put forward. This could have been arbitrary, but I'm actually really interested in hearing if it was, or if those three struck you as somehow qualitatively different from the other three.
quote:From a neurological standpoint why would either example happen?
For the first, the obvious answer is subconscious self-selection. For the second, the obvious answer is charismatic priming. I'm not saying those are going to always be the reasons, but I'm sure they account for a fair number of those experiences.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: (BlackBlade, we are often standing on different roads, but you should know I've always enjoyed reading your posts on these matters. Thanks. )
And I wish out of the women who disagreed with me that more were like you, it's like to make me content even in defeat. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: During that period of time I felt God fade out of my life and I was definitely less happy.
It does not occur to you that this effect needs to be disentangled from the effects of not participating in your community to the same extent? You go to church, you meet people; primates like meeting people, we're a social species. God needn't enter into it. You're the one who spoke of confounding factors. Have you tried
a) A different ward of the same religion? b) A different religion? c) A board-games club?
Until you know that these do not give you the same happy buzz, you have not even begun to test your god's dicta.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom:
quote:Right. And I couldn't help noticing that you picked superficial, symbolic religious gestures -- although I don't necessarily agree that headscarves really fit in that category -- instead of the more serious issues I put forward. This could have been arbitrary, but I'm actually really interested in hearing if it was, or if those three struck you as somehow qualitatively different from the other three.
The first three are easier to discuss. But out of curiosity do you favor the banning of headscarves in schools? If not say somebody manage to pass such a ban in one of the fifty states. If the ban was (hypothetically) shown to strongly decrease religious sentiment in youngsters, and the long term prediction was that it significantly increase the number of atheists in the community, would you still oppose such a ban knowing that if such a ban could be applied nationally it would greatly facilitate the removal of religion from the public consciousness?
quote:For the first, the obvious answer is subconscious self-selection. For the second, the obvious answer is charismatic priming. I'm not saying those are going to always be the reasons, but I'm sure they account for a fair number of those experiences.
Could you explain "subconcious self-selection?" I did not necessarily mean that a man say sees a child drowning in the lake and feels impressed to go save them. I mean somebody is walking down the street and they feel compelled to stop and knock on a door and ask a complete stranger if everything is alright.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Edit: Re-reading, it still seems to me that what you are asking above is precisely what you say below that you never thought of, i.e. that I should need to search out "evidence" in nature either for God or against Him.
Specifically, what I am saying is that if you have not done this, your belief in God is completely irrational, although perhaps personally useful. If a world without God looks exactly the same as a world with God, the conclusion that there IS a God is one that seems unnecessary.
KoM's questions are in this vein: what would you do differently if there were no God, living as you do in a universe where you admit no visible evidence of God?
This is difficult. First of all, though I'm sure the questions must seem obvious to you, I could as easily turn them around and ask you and KoM the same ones. I suppose it matters what your default position is. To me it is obvious, on every level, that belief in a deity is the default, and atheism seems the most useless project I can conceive of.
I was born to parents who are not any type of believer, yet I don't remember a day when I was not as sure of there being a God as I was of the ground beneath my feet. Christianity came later, but that was simply like discovering His name. So when you ask if my faith is rational, absolutely, but it is also mystical. I consider reason a rather limited instrument when it comes to God. It is not that I think religion is opposed to reason, however reason is but a tool. As necessary as the tool is, it has limits and can certainly be fooled. Humans are not computers. We have other ways of knowing than rationalism, and other ways of reasoning than the very restricted sense that that point of view requires.
As I've already said, it is certainly NOT the case that I don't see any visible sign of God- quite the opposite. I am willing to accept that for atheists the opposite is true, i.e., everything that cannot be explained any other way "might" be admitted as evidence for God but if it has a natural explanation, that's all you require. I have a theory that I've thought about for a while, that for some people belief is more or less innate, and others just don't get the god gene. If they come to belief, it is by a more rigid and intellectual process (and earn my admiration for that fact). This is the only way that unbelief makes sense to me.
It seems that at least some here, including yourself, are willing to admit that the default position for humanity is in fact religious belief of some kind. I was wondering if you feel at all insecure about that fact. The question did not seem to go over too well in the forum as a whole. I suppose one difference is, as you explained, that you see humanity evolving ever upward and onward, whereas I tend to take a more cyclic view of history. In my view, nothing much ever really changes. There is such a thing as progress, but it is more like a slow spiral, and frequently it actually spirals down.
As for what I would do if there were no God: Not worship God. Is that too obvious?
I hope this answers your questions in some respect. It's been a long day and dinner is ready. If I have neglected anyone else's question, observation or hector, I apologize- I've somewhat lost the overview and the thread is advancing quickly. I'll try to go back and clean up.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:During that period of time I felt God fade out of my life and I was definitely less happy.
There's also the fact that a lot of people have a sense of what they should or shouldn't be doing. When I don't do the things that I feel I should be doing (tasks at work, projects around the house, playing with my kids) there is a distinct affect on my mood, while engaging in these tasks can sometimes be downright energizing.
It could very well be that you are interpreting these different states of mind as being the absence or presence of God when the "should be doing" tasks are related to your religious obligations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: During that period of time I felt God fade out of my life and I was definitely less happy.
It does not occur to you that this effect needs to be disentangled from the effects of not participating in your community to the same extent? You go to church, you meet people; primates like meeting people, we're a social species. God needn't enter into it. You're the one who spoke of confounding factors. Have you tried
a) A different ward of the same religion? b) A different religion? c) A board-games club?
Until you know that these do not give you the same happy buzz, you have not even begun to test your god's dicta.
Yes I considered all these things KOM. I did not withdraw from the human race in any sense. I just decided to fill my time with alternate pursuits that I thought were important at the time. I didn't want to pose those three activities precisely because of confounding factors. But I have lived long enough and experienced enough things to recognize that Mormonism produce unique dynamics in my life that I have not seen elsewhere nor heard others describe them as arising from a different source.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:During that period of time I felt God fade out of my life and I was definitely less happy.
There's also the fact that a lot of people have a sense of what they should or shouldn't be doing. When I don't do the things that I feel I should be doing (tasks at work, projects around the house, playing with my kids) there is a distinct affect on my mood, while engaging in these tasks can sometimes be downright energizing.
It could very well be that you are interpreting these different states of mind as being the absence or presence of God when the "should be doing" tasks are related to your religious obligations.
I considered that as well, but it still does not account for the fact that previously I had alot of inspiration guiding me, whereas during my period of inactivity that all but disappeared. Even when I began doing those things again it was a long time before it returned.
edit: And yes while initially when I ceased praying, attending church, etc I felt guilty and therefore unhappy, even when I just stopped thinking about doing those things and replaced them with other pursuits that also made me happy, I could still feel an overall pall in my life.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If the ban was (hypothetically) shown to strongly decrease religious sentiment in youngsters, and the long term prediction was that it significantly increase the number of atheists in the community, would you still oppose such a ban knowing that if such a ban could be applied nationally it would greatly facilitate the removal of religion from the public consciousness?
Would you support such a ban if the reverse were true? To bring this thread back around, that is one of the stated motivations for opposing SSM - society will become more/less accepting of ideas I oppose/support if I don't ban this.
Most atheists I know demand secular interest be demonstrated (secular <> pro-atheist) to support a restriction of rights. Banning headscarves merely to decrease religiosity would be as offensive as banning SSM to decrease societal acceptance of homosexuality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is difficult. First of all, though I'm sure the questions must seem obvious to you, I could as easily turn them around and ask you and KoM the same ones.
What would I do if I thought a god existed? Whatever I thought would keep me out of Hell! Duh[/]i. This is not a hard question if you think gods have empirical consequences. It is only hard if you subscribe to wishy-washy gods which don't make a difference. [i]That why you shouldn't do that.
quote:Yes I considered all these things KOM.
Never mind what you considered, your mind is not powerful enough to pick out the right answers that way. Did you do the experiment?
quote:nor heard others describe them as arising from a different source.
You must not have been paying much attention, then. Church-goers are happier on average than non-church-goers. The church does not matter. Belief in the god is not required.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I considered that as well, but it still does not account for the fact that previously I had alot of inspiration guiding me, whereas during my period of inactivity that all but disappeared. Even when I began doing those things again it was a long time before it returned.
Well, if you believe that such inspiration can only come when you are right with God, and if such inspiration is internally generated, then it may very well be that you simply don't generate it when you don't feel that you are right with God.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I considered that as well, but it still does not account for the fact that previously I had alot of inspiration guiding me, whereas during my period of inactivity that all but disappeared. Even when I began doing those things again it was a long time before it returned.
Well, if you believe that such inspiration can only come when you are right with God, and if such inspiration is internally generated, then it may very well be that you simply don't generate it when you don't feel that you are right with God.
Yes but even when I repented and felt I was right with God it was still a long time before it returned. In fact it took so long I began to despair of ever getting it back.
KOM:
quote:Never mind what you considered, your mind is not powerful enough to pick out the right answers that way. Did you do the experiment?
by that logic I should have just stayed away from my church and kept trying out new things until I found a suitable substitute or barring that, until I died.
I filled those holes with other activities many of which I still enjoy today. None of them provided me with the same things Mormonism does.
quote:You must not have been paying much attention, then. Church-goers are happier on average than non-church-goers. The church does not matter. Belief in the god is not required.
I said "certain dynamics" I did not necessarily mean that phrase to mean "happiness."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:would you still oppose such a ban knowing that if such a ban could be applied nationally it would greatly facilitate the removal of religion from the public consciousness?
No. I don't think religion does enough harm to justify depriving people of their liberty, and believe that the risk of enflaming sentiment might awaken religious fervor in people who otherwise just give it lip service.
quote:I mean somebody is walking down the street and they feel compelled to stop and knock on a door and ask a complete stranger if everything is alright.
I'm always deeply skeptical of these anecdotes. And as someone who has once gotten a horrible feeling about an aunt and been right, but who also recalls two horrible feelings about his mother that turned out to be wrong, I worry about selection bias.
-----
quote:It seems that at least some here, including yourself, are willing to admit that the default position for humanity is in fact religious belief of some kind.
No. I think humans have been conditioned into religious belief, but that the "default" state for most people is atheism. I do think that some people are neurologically predisposed to feel a "presence" that they seek to explain through narrative, and I further think that early man had little recourse but religious explanations for the observable world. Left to their own devices, though, I think the vast majority of people would be without religion and would notice very little difference in their lives. I suspect, however, that the ones with the "presence" sense would go around creating new religions all the time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes but even when I repented and felt I was right with God it was still a long time before it returned. In fact it took so long I began to despair of ever getting it back.
We could probably go back and forth for quite some time, but I'd just say that it doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with plausible non-God explanations for the gamut of feelings, inspirations, etc. that you describe. Weighed against everything else that must be true for it to actually be God generating these sensations, it seem much more likely, to me, that these are merely physiological experiences which drive (and are driven by) more mundane interactions between your mind and itself.
We are capable of writing narratives of these experiences, including periods of tension like you describe where the expected response is delayed substantially. If we can write such a narrative then why is it so unlikely that we can create and live that narrative using the same mind?
This is why we go on and on about external corroberation and concrete, repeatable, predictive, evidence. There is no way to distinguish between the mind that has actually been influenced by God and the mind that merely thinks it has been influenced by God.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I'm always deeply skeptical of these anecdotes. And as someone who has once gotten a horrible feeling about an aunt and been right, but who also recalls two horrible feelings about his mother that turned out to be wrong, I worry about selection bias.
I understand your worries regarding selection bias.
quote:We could probably go back and forth for quite some time, but I'd just say that it doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with plausible non-God explanations for the gamut of feelings, inspirations, etc. that you describe. Weighed against everything else that must be true for it to actually be God generating these sensations, it seem much more likely, to me, that these are merely physiological experiences which drive (and are driven by) more mundane interactions between your mind and itself.
We are capable of writing narratives of these experiences, including periods of tension like you describe where the expected response is delayed substantially. If we can write such a narrative then why is it so unlikely that we can create and live that narrative using the same mind?
This is why we go on and on about external corroberation and concrete, repeatable, predictive, evidence. There is no way to distinguish between the mind that has actually been influenced by God and the mind that merely thinks it as been influenced by God.
I didn't say it could not be explained away. I think a direct visitation from God can be explained away. But as the only witness to what BlackBlade has experienced in his life, there is a certain force that sanctifies and directs my life which I have found in nothing else but in keeping specific commandments.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think a direct visitation from God can be explained away.
That would sort of be up to God. Again, without exercising too much imagination, I can conceive of a visitation scenario that would very difficult to explain away regardless of how skeptical the visitee was. Of course the more difficult an event would be to explain away, the less likely it seems that such an event actually occurs. How many people claim to have had a visitation from God vs how many people claim that a prayer helped them find their car keys or cured their illness.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote: Again: To me, it's all God.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:I just don't see how this is different from saying "It's all peanut butter". It's just leads you into equivocation.
I suppose if you start with peanut butter as a premise for the universe... the primordial goo? Otherwise I don't understand your comparison.
quote:I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me.
quote:So, say, a parasite that ate the eyes of children, that would be food for faith?
You turned my words around. I said "scientific marvel," you said eye-eating parasite. But is suffering the stuff of faith too? Absolutely. No matter what philosophy you adopt, you have to deal with it somehow. I think the problem of evil is much easier to deal with as a theist.
quote: If all you are saying is "I believe that everything that exists, exists, and that there's a lot of stuff that exists", then that's not much of an argument, but you are making it more confusing by describing it with a word that is pretty universally used to mean a divine ego.
If you are saying that you believe in a divine ego that does nothing detectable, then I guess I just don't see the point.
Not what I'm saying, on either score.
quote:The essence of the Enlightment is humility.
Perhaps it should have been, but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the problem of evil is much easier to deal with as a theist.
Gina, can you explain this? This particular statement is one I can't get my head around; I've looked at it from a variety of perspectives, and I have no idea what you might mean.
In what way is the classical Problem of Evil -- which is what I assume you meant -- easier for theists? I can't think of any possible interpretation for which this would be true.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I thought that the problem of evil only exists for theists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes but even when I repented and felt I was right with God it was still a long time before it returned. In fact it took so long I began to despair of ever getting it back.
Which might lead you to believe that it was not actually the renewed faith and going back to church which lead to the good feelings. If there is no close correlation, you have little evidence that your religious actions are actually responsible for the renewed good feelings.
From an outsider's standpoint, were I conducting such an experiment and didn't see results for such a long time, I would begin to look for another cause or correlation.
Perhaps your church serves fantastic spaghetti, which you didn't get a chance to eat until some time after you started going back, and it is actually the spaghetti which gives you these wonderful feelings of fulfillment. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yes but even when I repented and felt I was right with God it was still a long time before it returned. In fact it took so long I began to despair of ever getting it back.
Which might lead you to believe that it was not actually the renewed faith and going back to church which lead to the good feelings. If there is no close correlation, you have little evidence that your religious actions are actually responsible for the renewed good feelings.
From an outsider's standpoint, were I conducting such an experiment and didn't see results for such a long time, I would begin to look for another cause or correlation.
Perhaps your church serves fantastic spaghetti, which you didn't get a chance to eat until some time after you started going back, and it is actually the spaghetti which gives you these wonderful feelings of fulfillment.
Well there's that and the possibility that when God grants us knowledge or insight and we go against it our state of being is worse than if we had always been ignorant.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No. I think humans have been conditioned into religious belief, but that the "default" state for most people is atheism.
You certainly can have no empirical basis for that belief. I mean, the odds are overwhelmingly against you. Take what culture you will, and what time period, and unbelief is a blip compared to at least the inclination to believe.
I absolutely find the opposite to be true. It seems to me that people have to work so hard to not believe, I really wonder why they bother. You needn't choose a creed to just acknowledge some sort of ineffability. I've seen too many atheists who go on and on about the dangers of religion, but lapse into their own sort of religious jargon, either talking about "the universe giving them a gift" or commenting on some marvel of the natural world and how amazing it is. Certain sciences like astronomy strike me as more mysticism than anything else.
This business about religions being created by people and thrust on others is nonsense, too. At the very least atheism must be put right on the shelf with the others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
[quoe]You turned my words around. I said "scientific marvel," you said eye-eating parasite.[/quote]
Darwin explains the parasite as much as the butterfly. If the one is a marvel of science, so is the other.
quote:Not what I'm saying, on either score.
Then clearly you need to explain better. "Vague speech denotes vague thought."
quote:We have other ways of knowing than rationalism, and other ways of reasoning than the very restricted sense that that point of view requires.
This is not true. Or, to be more accurate, those 'other ways' give answers that are demonstrably false. No two people get the same answer using other methods, unless carefully coached beforehand. A method which gies contradictor answers cannot be trusted.
quote:By that logic I should have just stayed away from my church and kept trying out new things until I found a suitable substitute or barring that, until I died.
That is, indeed, what you should do; stopping at the first answer is a deadly pitfall. But I give you leave to search for only, say, five years; provided that you do genuinely search. And there is another experiment you have not done: Suppose you do all the scripture reading and whatnot, but cease to believe in the god? Jut how does "God exists" follow from "BlackBlade is happy", anyway? It is not as though Joseph Smith had amazing new insights into living the good life; his precepts have been propounded many times, before and since. This is not a hard problem! It does not require that you postulate a whole universe-creator to explain these insights, you just need to postulate that Smith knew something about what makes humans tick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Gina, before I reply to your latest, would you answer my earlier question?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I've seen too many atheists who go on and on about the dangers of religion, but lapse into their own sort of religious jargon, either talking about "the universe giving them a gift" or commenting on some marvel of the natural world and how amazing it is. Certain sciences like astronomy strike me as more mysticism than anything else.
It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. Mystical beliefs are different from mystical feelings.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well there's that and the possibility that when God grants us knowledge or insight and we go against it our state of being is worse than if we had always been ignorant.
My point is that your experiment is not very scientific. If your feeling of badness wasn't directly caused by the cessation of prayer and church services, and the good feelings also occurred much later than when you resumed these activities, it's kind of a stretch to say that there is a clear, causal relationship.
It makes sense because you want it to make sense, but it doesn't actually carry much weight as a logical conclusion. It's simply too broad and imprecise a result to be able to say with any certainty that the general bad feelings had a single cause, or that the good feelings were a direct result of activities when they didn't really come back until so much time had passed that even YOU didn't think your prayer and churchgoing would bring them back.
I went to a New Year's Eve party a week ago, and today I got a stomach ache after eating a large, spicy lunch... I think it's pretty clear that going to a New Year's party gives me stomach aches. After all, I didn't have one before the party, and I did this afternoon. I vaguely remember having one some time after New Year's last year. That's kind of scientific.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It seems that at least some here, including yourself, are willing to admit that the default position for humanity is in fact religious belief of some kind.
I disagree with Tom here, so I guess I'm one of those people who believes that the default for the majority (not all) of the human race is belief in the supernatural (rather than religious suggesting organized).
I believe that something about the human brain inherently makes connections and invents explanations beyond those that prove to be true when tested empirically. I think that this tendency is stronger in some than others and barely exists in a certain percentage of the population.
This does necessarily not mean religion or God and I do not think it makes atheism impossible or even difficult. Someone bought up to be an atheist simply recognises facts from fiction even as his or her brain invents new connections.
Going to church may be the thing that made BlackBlade feel better, but God's part in going to church could be quite minor. For example, I feel sad, lethargic, uninspired sometimes because I'm not at University, but that's not because I'm lacking God or some supernatural connection with the place, it's because I'm lacking my friends, surroundings that I loved etc.
Church aside from God provides good things to many people as a social group, as psychiatry, as a way of making peace with the things we dislike about ourselves. Leaving a church- or a university-, with all this support in many areas of our lives, is traumatic in itself because we will not have built up a support strategy outside of the church. This is tripled with the sense of guilt that is inherent in God.
When we return, there may even be a period of adjustment where the strategies we have learned outside of church or university struggle to fit in with the ones now restored.
But this is not to do with God unless you chose to make it so, it is to do with human nature and the very empirical supports a church often provides.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It seems like trying to justify religion to someone who insists that only scientific evidence is important is a lot like trying to explain colors to someone who keeps their eyes closed 24 hours a day. If you don't use your sight, a world without colors is no different than a world with colors.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you arguing that there is a special sense, which cannot be detected or measured by any scientific equipment, which is necessary to use to sense God?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Assuming metaphor is a replacement for logic* and so completing the metaphor... if you think that atheists are blind, then imagine them listening harder, and acutely using their senses of touch, taste and smell to construct a world around them rather than simply accepting what they see and paying little attention to the rest.
If sight is the dominant human sense in your metaphor, then perhaps this metaphor is apt. Perhaps it is only by closing our eyes to what we think we see that we can really get a sense of what the universe is like.
*It's not. Metaphor is a good tool, but should never be considered as equal to the truth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No - I'm arguing that science, though highly effective for studying a subset of life, by definition can't measure or directly study much of what is important in the world. The most important questions of religion generally fall in the realm of things it can't study - meaning that demanding a proof of religion entirely though the lens of science is probably going to be futile.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Examples?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And by the "lens of science," here you mean "observable reality?"
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No - I'm arguing that science, though highly effective for studying a subset of life, by definition can't measure or directly study much of what is important in the world"
By definition, science can't study things that have no influence on the world. Is this what you mean by "much of what is important in the world?"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Because of the rules by which it is defined, the scientific method cannot directly study things that aren't physical, things that can't accurately be replicated (including historical events), things that rely on too many variables to be experimented upon, questions that we lack the time/resources to properly investigate, etc.
Examples include:
Happiness. Meaningfulness. Morality. Love. The internal nature of one's mind. The origin of the universe. Most of the unique but complicated judgement calls people must make in their everyday lives - like should Joe divorce his wife, or should Bob give to charity A vs. charity B, or is it wise for Amy to let her friend borrow a large sum of money, or most other significant decisions you or anyone else will be making today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And you think religion CAN study those things? In what way?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Prayer, meditation, interpretation of texts, divine inspiration, introspection, logical deduction, consulting authorities, etc. - the methods depend on which religion it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And how would that study differ from science?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It doesn't follow the scientific method.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And how do you know that the results are useful?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, sheesh, then what's the use of saying that religion can study this? Any idiot can come up with advice which may or may not be useful! Your average Python script can do that much! To claim "science can't help with problem X" - which incidentally is not true, anyway - is not very interesting if religion can't, either.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I didn't say the results aren't useful. I said I have no way of knowing the results are useful.
I also have no way of knowing that the results of science are useful. But they still seem to be useful, so I use them!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, right, I forgot about the special Tres-meaning of the word 'to know', where it requires absolute, total, 100% certainty, now and forever, praise the Lawd, amen. Beg pardon. I rephrase. Why do you think the results are useful?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: You turned my words around. I said "scientific marvel," you said eye-eating parasite.
So everything is divine, but not everything is "marvelous"?
quote:But is suffering the stuff of faith too? Absolutely. No matter what philosophy you adopt, you have to deal with it somehow.
But you said that such a phenomenon would be "food for your faith". I ask again...what kind of faith exactly grows on terrible pain inflicted on children?
quote:I think the problem of evil is much easier to deal with as a theist.
I doubt you are going to get much agreement there.
How does one reconcile a good God with such a phenomenon? You can say "This world doesn't matter one teeny tiny bit, so it's irrelevent", or "Everything is divine, and divine is good, therefore, everything that happens, no matter how pointlessly hurtful, is by definition good", or "this is the best of all possible worlds", but I think the weaknesses in those are pretty apparent.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote:And how do you know that the results are useful?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [I don't.
See, here's the thing. The one thing that history has shown us about human nature is that humans get things wrong a lot.
If you don't know whether or not your idea is wrong, it's probably wrong.
That's the virtue of reality testing...you get to the point of knowing you are wrong very quickly, and by throwing out wrong ideas, you get to the right ones faster.
So when you say "I want to just trust my gut", the upshot is that you are openly declaring "I want to be wrong most of the time".
Can you see why sensible people don't think that's a good idea, and why they wonder at your consistant defending of this way of thinking as a good and worthy one?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why do you think the results are useful?
Ultimately, it all comes down to a personal judgement call. I think logic works because it seemed to work in previous instances and make sense to me. I think science works because it seemed to work in previous instances and makes sense to me. I think consulting authorities works because it seemed to work in previous instances and makes sense to me. And so on.
It is true that humans get things wrong a lot, but every method of gaining knowledge begins fundamentally with a personal human judgement to trust that method. I don't see any way around that. (And I actually think it would be immoral to try and give up your own judgement as the final arbiter of decisions and beliefs.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think consulting authorities works because it seemed to work in previous instances and makes sense to me.
Well, there's your problem right there. You've cherry-picked your previous instances.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Gina, before I reply to your latest, would you answer my earlier question?
I apologize that I have little time today to read or answer forum replies. I will try to get back to you later.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
quote:Why do you think the results are useful?
Ultimately, it all comes down to a personal judgement call.
And here is the unbridgable gap between Tresopax and sensible people.
Sensible people think that there is a difference between ways of thinking that look for wrong ideas and throw them out, and ways of thinking that don't do this, that are in fact overly prone to retaining wrong ideas. Sensible people think that the former ways are better.
Tresopax claims he does not. Apparently, given a choice between trying to a child of cancer with prayer, and trying to cure a child with cancer with drugs that hav been demonstrated to be effecacious, there's no way of figuring out which way is better, so if people decide to skip the medicine, Troseopax thinks that's a perfectly good "personal judgement call".
quote:I think logic works because it seemed to work in previous instances and make sense to me. I think science works because it seemed to work in previous instances and makes sense to me.
But there is a reason those work, and it's not hard to figure out.
Reason and evidence work because they are reality tested, and wrong ideas are identified and thrown out.
If you don't understand the virtue of reality testing, I can't explain it better than that.
quote:I think consulting authorities works because it seemed to work in previous instances and makes sense to me.
Yes, by all means. Consult Galen when your child develops cancer. Tell us how that works out for you. Or consult the guy who wrote "Why the stock market will hit 30k in 2010" for your investment ideas. He's a great authority. How could that possibly turn out badly for you?
quote:It is true that humans get things wrong a lot, but every method of gaining knowledge begins fundamentally with a personal human judgement to trust that method.
Yes, but more reality testing is better. Much better.
Ah, but now I see the problem for you.
The statement "reality testing works well" only works if you accept that reality matters. And that's where the "personal judgement" comes in.
Well, try ignoring reality for a while, and get back to us on how that works out.
quote:I don't see any way around that. (And I actually think it would be immoral to try and give up your own judgement as the final arbiter of decisions and beliefs.)
Well, by all means. And when some crazy decides that his 'personal judgment' is that you should be tortured into accepting his religious beliefs, because being tortured to death by the faithful is better for you than living in sin, you can write a nice letter to your widow/er telling them that it is more moral for you to die horribly than for this stranger to not impose his personal judgment.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Why are we talking about science this or science that? There's no reason to exclude philosophy from this discussion. The problem (as I see it of course) with many religious beliefs is not that they are unscientific but that they can't be established with sound arguments.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And I actually think it would be immoral to try and give up your own judgement as the final arbiter of decisions and beliefs.
To drag this back to the orignal topic, what you are saying is that if someone conceeds that there is no logical or reasonable evidence based arguement against, say, same-sex marriage, but that person has strong and open biases against gay people, that it's okay for them to say "Well, you made the reasonable case for your side prefectly well, but my 'personal judgment' is that you shouldn't be married anyway, so I'm going to act to screw over you and your family", your argument is that this is perfectly fair and good and the right thing to do, and that it is in fact, immoral of this person to refrain from hurting innocent gay people if it his "personal judgement" that hurting them pointlessly is the thing to do?
So if it's immoral of a person not to act on their "personal judgment" when that "personal judgement" is to hurt other people, then is it also wrong for people to complain about being treated unfairly? Or is there just an unsolvable impasse, where you insist on the right to hurt innocent people for no good reason if your "personal judgment is to do so, and everyone else insists on the right to have their "personal judgment" that they not be hurt respected, and the two sides fight with legislation and crowbars to see which will prevail?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I disagree with Tom here, so I guess I'm one of those people who believes that the default for the majority (not all) of the human race is belief in the supernatural (rather than religious suggesting organized).
I believe that the default is to assume intentionality, but that doesn't necessary mean God. When I do things it's because I want to do them so when other things happen, it must be because someone wanted those to happen. If, upon investigation, I can't find who did it then obviously it's somone/something invisible with unconventional powers.
Given that so little was understood about what constituted natural vs supernatural causality, I'm not sure an early human could really make a distinction there. I don't know that the tendency is towards supernatural so much as towards being unwilling to leave questions open. If we don't know the answer, we create one, being more concerned about answering the question than about having a correct answer to the question.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the problem of evil is much easier to deal with as a theist.
Gina, can you explain this? This particular statement is one I can't get my head around; I've looked at it from a variety of perspectives, and I have no idea what you might mean.
In what way is the classical Problem of Evil -- which is what I assume you meant -- easier for theists? I can't think of any possible interpretation for which this would be true.
Have you ever heard a well-versed Christian, such as Greg Ganssle, discuss the "classical" problem of evil? Here is a transcript of a talk he gave on it.
I was actually using the phrase sloppily, meaning suffering in general, but I do think the theist has an easier time dealing with it both philosophically and practically. In many religions, suffering actually has meaning, and there is a promise of a final justice and redemption.
People are asking what good religion is for if it doesn't "work." However, it does in fact work, and indeed I even see Orthodox Christianity as a kind of science. One must, however, think of it as a people science, like psychology or sociology. The ascetic disciplines, for instance, have endured precisely because they have been tested and found to work.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I grant Ganssle's objections but I don't think they gain much ground. For God to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent this universe would have to be perfect (in terms of maximizing good). That is a breathtakingly huge claim and really makes no sense at all given what we know about the universe. I don't even think you can sensibly make that claim without just assuming that God has the "three O's" and working backwards. When it comes to explaining why God made the world the way it is I have never seen anything but shoulder-shrugging and hand-waving. Honestly, I think any argument that tried to establish a God with the "three O's" by examining the universe and concluding that it was perfect would be a total trainwreck. That's why we have stuff like ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments instead of any direct approach to explaining whats so damn perfect about our world that it's creation (or an equivalent perfectly good action) was necessitated by an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent being.
EDIT: Ack, that sounded ranty. I just wanted to convey how incredible some of these claims sound to me. I don't mean to mock anyone's beliefs so I hope it isn't interpreted that way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Work In Progress.
What makes you think we're done? Creation isn't something that happened and is over with; creation is now.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: People are asking what good religion is for if it doesn't "work." However, it does in fact work, and indeed I even see Orthodox Christianity as a kind of science. One must, however, think of it as a people science, like psychology or sociology. The ascetic disciplines, for instance, have endured precisely because they have been tested and found to work.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The most basic rule of science is that when something is shown to be wrong, we throw it out and only stick with the right things. Science is constantly changing and improving.
Show me where Christianity has thrown out the bad ideas and added lots of new, better, more correct ideas in the last 1000 year. Even the "people sciences" are always updating their ideas and are willing to change in the face of evidence.
Christianity is not science. You cannot twist it in any way so that it even resembles science, because it refuses to change and it refuses to accept any sort of testing for truth, logic, or even utility.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:because it refuses to change and it refuses to accept any sort of testing for truth, logic, or even utility.
That's not exactly true, albeit not in a way which gives any major religion any credit. Religions, being social structures governed by people, often change when they are forced to out of social necessity, or they go obsolete and fade away. They often spontaneously generate new Truths when it comes down to alteration vs. extinction.
Sometimes it is a simplification and/or spontaneous change ('whoops, I had a revelation that black guys aren't lower beings. god says that now') and sometimes it is a complication wherein new dogma is piled on levels of older dogma creating all the appearances of a byzantine, nigh-incomprehensible divine bureaucracy governed by very selective interpretation of 'primary sources.'
edit: then they schism into a billion pieces
[ January 07, 2009, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In many religions, suffering actually has meaning, and there is a promise of a final justice and redemption.
Ah. And what if there isn't final justice, and no "redemption?" What if there is no meaning to your suffering? Is it really better to wrongly believe there is?
And that doesn't resolve the classic Problem of Evil, of course: that a God which is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent doesn't need to allow pain, but does anyway.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the problem of evil is much easier to deal with as a theist.
Gina, can you explain this? This particular statement is one I can't get my head around; I've looked at it from a variety of perspectives, and I have no idea what you might mean.
In what way is the classical Problem of Evil -- which is what I assume you meant -- easier for theists? I can't think of any possible interpretation for which this would be true.
Have you ever heard a well-versed Christian, such as Greg Ganssle, discuss the "classical" problem of evil? Here is a transcript of a talk he gave on it.
I read it, but there was nothing I haven't seen here and elsewhere before. "God has reasons for allowing evil" is just "the ends justify the means." The analogies to children and relationships as a way of showing this draws a chilling moral equivalency between an upset child and the hundred million (or more) human lives that were ended by war in the 20th century. The parent might not buy the child the coveted ball, but I certainly hope that the parent would stop the child from cutting himself.
It's true that these atrocities were perpetrated by human beings, not by gods. This is exactly why the "problem of evil" is nothing of the sort for the atheist; the atheist already knows that some people are megalomaniacal sociopaths. When such people do such things it's hardly surprising. What is surprising is that these things occur in a world that is supposedly being watched over by a deity that is ostensibly just, kind, and loving.
I realize that you weren't talking about the classical problem of evil in your original post, though, and I agree that the notion of a just afterlife could certainly make personal encounters with evil easier to cope with. However, I don't see that as a selling point for religion, since I'm more interested in whether or not it's true than whether or not it's nice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ... When such people do such things it's hardly surprising. What is surprising is that these things occur in a world that is supposedly being watched over by a deity that is ostensibly just, kind, and loving.
In other words, "You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Show me where Christianity has thrown out the bad ideas and added lots of new, better, more correct ideas in the last 1000 year. Even the "people sciences" are always updating their ideas and are willing to change in the face of evidence.
Christianity is not science. You cannot twist it in any way so that it even resembles science, because it refuses to change and it refuses to accept any sort of testing for truth, logic, or even utility.
Sorry, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
I would really be interested in a thoughtful atheist commentary from someone who really understood, and had empathy for, religions and the religious. Is there such a person? Dawkins certainly isn't the one, nor any of the other current crop of nattering "new atheists." Bart Ehrmann, maybe? Though his work is rather narrow in focus.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would really be interested in a thoughtful atheist commentary from someone who really understood, and had empathy for, religions and the religious.
How are you defining "understand" and "empathize with?" I would wager that both of these descriptors apply to Dawkins.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would really be interested in a thoughtful atheist commentary from someone who really understood, and had empathy for, religions and the religious.
How are you defining "understand" and "empathize with?" I would wager that both of these descriptors apply to Dawkins.
You're kidding, right? I've only seen and read interviews and perused his website, but he oozes hatred for the religious and that I can see shows no understanding at all. Patronization, yes, understanding, no.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What do you think would be required of someone who "understood" the religious?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would really be interested in a thoughtful atheist commentary from someone who really understood, and had empathy for, religions and the religious.
What sort of thoughtful commentary are you looking for? A criticism of religion? I think Sam Harris expresses himself pretty thoughtfully in the dialog/debate that he had with a Catholic, Andrew Sullivan, a couple years ago:
quote:In many religions, suffering actually has meaning, and there is a promise of a final justice and redemption.
Ah. And what if there isn't final justice, and no "redemption?" What if there is no meaning to your suffering? Is it really better to wrongly believe there is?
And that doesn't resolve the classic Problem of Evil, of course: that a God which is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent doesn't need to allow pain, but does anyway.
You know, I've increasingly been thinking that, even for the Biblical interpretation of God, there's a fair amount of suggestion that He is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. And I'm not certain that I understand the insistence of many religions that He must be so. Surely a being capable of creating a universe could be more powerful than we could possibly comprehend without being all-powerful.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I would really be interested in a thoughtful atheist commentary from someone who really understood, and had empathy for, religions and the religious.
What sort of thoughtful commentary are you looking for? A criticism of religion? I think Sam Harris expresses himself pretty thoughtfully in the dialog/debate that he had with a Catholic, Andrew Sullivan, a couple years ago:
Excuse the title - I don't think either Andrew or Sam were responsible for it.
I'm sorry, I don't think I could read with a straight face a debate where Andrew Sullivan was meant to represent the religious point of view. Edit: In fact, after his election antics, I don't think I could ever read anything from Andrew Sullivan with a straight face ever.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
You know, I've increasingly been thinking that, even for the Biblical interpretation of God, there's a fair amount of suggestion that He is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. And I'm not certain that I understand the insistence of many religions that He must be so. Surely a being capable of creating a universe could be more powerful than we could possibly comprehend without being all-powerful.
My take on this is if your goal is that people practice religion you need two things: 1)belief in the being to be worshiped 2)a reason to worship said being
Having the being be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good (oopg) provides a pretty good reason. Going out on a limb, prior to the rise of science, perhaps 2) was more of an impediment than 1)?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm sorry, I don't think I could read with a straight face a debate where Andrew Sullivan was meant to represent the religious point of view. Edit: In fact, after his election antics, I don't think I could ever read anything from Andrew Sullivan with a straight face ever.
*shrug* He's an earnest religious person, one that has kept his faith despite some pretty enourmous challenges (a gay Catholic? hello?). The fact that his political activities disagree with you really shouldn't disuade you from reading the discussion.
You can always just read Sam Harris' side - it's the thoughtful atheist commentary you're looking for, right?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Deep breath. Back to basics. The point of interest is whether there is a reason to believe in a god. BlackBlade has offered some evidence; there are flaws in his experimental procedure, as has been pointed out, but evidence is evidence. GinaG has stated that
a) She has always believed in a god and that therefore, b) Everything (or possibly "every scientific wonder", I am not really clear on this) is evidence for her god.
Now, if something is evidence for X, it is evidence against not-X; this follows from probabilities adding to one. Further, if a data point is equally likely under every known theory, then it is not evidence in favour of any particular theory. GinaG, do you agree with these statements? If not, there is no point in further discussion.
Assuming for the moment that this is agreed, I will ask these questions:
i) What would be evidence against your god? ii) Why do you believe that the evidence you see is not equally compatible with atheism?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I'm sorry, I don't think I could read with a straight face a debate where Andrew Sullivan was meant to represent the religious point of view. Edit: In fact, after his election antics, I don't think I could ever read anything from Andrew Sullivan with a straight face ever. [/QB]
Can you laugh and read at the same time?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: i) What would be evidence against your god? ii) Why do you believe that the evidence you see is not equally compatible with atheism?
If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
But no scientific evidence can ever ascertain whether or not there is a God. As I already said, it's the wrong instrument.
One can philosophize his way out of belief. I simply see no reason to do so. Nothing about atheism is compelling nor does it seem at all logical to me. The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence I need that there is a creator, and a benevolent one; reasoning that He would not create and then not try to communicate is also illogical.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
But no scientific evidence can ever ascertain whether or not there is a God. As I already said, it's the wrong instrument.
[\QUOTE]
Can you give an example of what might constitute "reasonable evidence"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence I need that there is a creator...
I have to admit, this absolutely boggles my mind. It's like saying "Someone must have MADE this beach! And he wants me to not eat pork!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
Hmmm...I think that I still would.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
Well, that's not actually very hard: We know that Mohammed explicitly denied this.
quote:But no scientific evidence can ever ascertain whether or not there is a God. As I already said, it's the wrong instrument.
I do not agree, but I want to try to keep the eyes on the ball. Right now the ball is, "Why is phenomenon X not compatible with atheism, but it is compatible with theism?" For X, pick anything you like which you believe is support for your god. Also, if you would, I'd like you to make explicit your agreement or disagreement with the proposition "Events equally likely under two hypotheses are not evidence in favour of either one."
quote:The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence I need that there is a creator,
Then why is the fact of the existence of this creator, not evidence that there is a creator of the creator?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Sorry, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot actually show me how Christianity has anything but the most superficial resemblance to science. Not a very artful dodge.
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
How ironic. If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ DID resurrect from the dead, I might well be a Christian.
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
MightyCow, Not a dodge, but feel free to persist in your ignorance (or prejudice). I've tired of the conversation to be honest.
KoM, Same. I don't care to engage in the game. As I said somewhere along the line, I don't have any interest in "proving" God's existence or God's anything, and since I know you can't either, there's really no point, is there?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um...How is that not a dodge? It resembles a dodge in every way.
Perhaps the religious answer is that we can't prove it ISN'T a dodge. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hardly unexpected, it's rare for a theist to be brave. In that case, would you please go away and let those of us who find the discussion interesting continue?
Posted by GinaG (Member # 11862) on :
And rare for an atheist not to posture and jeer.
I'm just not the sort who gets such jollies out of such debates that I want to spend a great deal of time on them. But "going away" was just what I was doing. I suppose I could have simply ignored you- as I intend now to do- I didn't consider it polite.
Tom, thanks for some decent exchange.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If reasonable evidence could be provided that Jesus Christ never resurrected from the dead, I would not be a Christian.
The religious texts/doctrine of any contradictory religion provide proof against the resurrection to the same degree that the Bible proves it.
Do you apply the same standard to other gods? Do you intend to worship Ganesh until someone can provide reasonable proof that he did not in fact recieve an elephant head from Shiva?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Teshi:
quote:Going to church may be the thing that made BlackBlade feel better, but God's part in going to church could be quite minor. For example, I feel sad, lethargic, uninspired sometimes because I'm not at University, but that's not because I'm lacking God or some supernatural connection with the place, it's because I'm lacking my friends, surroundings that I loved etc.
That is a good observation, however I feel distinctly different when I am out of my element, schedule, community, etc, than I do when I disobey tenets of my religion.
KOM:
quote:That is, indeed, what you should do; stopping at the first answer is a deadly pitfall. But I give you leave to search for only, say, five years; provided that you do genuinely search. And there is another experiment you have not done: Suppose you do all the scripture reading and whatnot, but cease to believe in the god? Jut how does "God exists" follow from "BlackBlade is happy", anyway? It is not as though Joseph Smith had amazing new insights into living the good life; his precepts have been propounded many times, before and since. This is not a hard problem! It does not require that you postulate a whole universe-creator to explain these insights, you just need to postulate that Smith knew something about what makes humans tick.
God existing because BB feels happy does not follow, but when did I say this? A more accurate description would be, "BlackBlade was happy, and then he was instructed to do X, Y, and Z in order to discover God and be more happy." After doing X, Y, and Z he was indeed happier and experienced exactly what he was promised he would experience. After a period of time he grew lazy and ceased doing X, Y, and Z and his happiness decreased and this unique dynamic that He felt was God also disappeared.
As for quitting Mormonism for five years and trying out other religions I don't see that as being a very effective or even feasible experiment. For one thing, I have already covenanted to keep the tenets of God as far as they are revealed to me. Until Mormonism ceases to be true or God relieves me of those oaths I cannot simply relinquish them. Beyond that, shouldn't I be able to remain a Mormon and find identical results by trying out other religions at the same time? I also don't buy that I am subconsciously making myself unhappy when I do certain things as I was raised to think a certain way. By that logic the fact I disagree with my parents on certain tenets of Mormonism must also mean that I should lose my feelings of closeness with God when I don't don't adhere to their interpretations.
Proposition 8 is a very good example of this, (imagine that, I'm getting back to the original topic at hand.) My church declared that it supported it, and after doing alot of thinking and considering for myself I felt that I have certain points of opposition to it, and yet I do not suddenly feel unhappy and distant from God. Very specific things cause me the same effects as, not praying, not reading my scriptures, not attending church. I already know what many of these things are, I don't need to commit sin and find ways to get my conscience to stop screaming to me about them. Were I to do that then I would truly be guilty of what you already say I am doing, programing my mind to subconsciously make me feel a certain way.
As I experience things, I judge what the appropriate response should be. That's no difference than how you run your life. There isn't anything in my religious philosophy that forbids me from enjoying the same happiness you enjoy. It doesn't ask me to ignore science, in fact it encourages me to explore it. I can certainly agree that from your perspective there is a very low chance that the religion I was raised in just happens to be the right one, but that is what I have concluded based on my own experiences, and will live that way unless persuaded by a suitable event. It would be interesting to reset my entire life and see what would happen with 5 years of research and then compare that state with what I have now. But it takes more then a few warm fuzzy feelings to produce strong conviction, at least for me. The difference between you and me is that I am not asking you to discard anything in order to find true happiness, except maybe the sins you already know you commit. In order for me to see if maybe you are right I must first become a liar, and forfeit the welfare of my soul. If I am right KOM you and I both win, if you are wrong we both lose. At best you can only prove to me that the happiness I find in Mormonism can be replicated, at worst I endure misery. If you listen to my advice at best you find something wonderful, at worst you waste a little effort and some time. You do that every time you go to a crappy movie, or read a stupid book.
PS: Until you are familiar with what Joseph Smith said, you can't really make many statements regarding the quality of his teachings. As somebody who has read quite a bit about him I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:PS: Until you are familiar with what Joseph Smith said, you can't really make many statements regarding the quality of his teachings. As somebody who has read quite a bit about him I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Interesting they may be, but were they
a) Original? b) True? c) Difficult to articulate? d) Unique?
quote:God existing because BB feels happy does not follow, but when did I say this? A more accurate description would be, "BlackBlade was happy, and then he was instructed to do X, Y, and Z in order to discover God and be more happy." After doing X, Y, and Z he was indeed happier and experienced exactly what he was promised he would experience. After a period of time he grew lazy and ceased doing X, Y, and Z and his happiness decreased and this unique dynamic that he felt was God also disappeared.
I must say I do not see the distinction you are drawing. I will repeat the questions I asked GinaG: First, do you agree that an event equally likely under two hypotheses does not provide evidence in favour of either? Second, why do you think the events you describe are more likely under theism than atheism?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Interesting they may be, but were they
a) Original? b) True? c) Difficult to articulate? d) Unique?
A and D seem to be very similar but yes to all four. I think it is also important to note that restoring knowledge that was lost accomplishes virtually identical results to being the originator of an idea.
quote:I must say I do not see the distinction you are drawing. I will repeat the questions I asked GinaG: First, do you agree that an event equally likely under two hypotheses does not provide evidence in favour of either?
No. It provides evidence in favor of either hypothesis, it just does not bring us any closer to a conclusion or course of action.
quote:Second, why do you think the events you describe are more likely under theism than atheism?
Because I have not observed the same things in an atheists life as I have in my own. Either I have not met the right atheists, or else there is an alternate means of invoking a force identical to the inspiration I claim to feel from God and we have yet to discover how to do it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No. It provides evidence in favor of either hypothesis, it just does not bring us any closer to a conclusion or course of action.
Perhaps I did not define my terms sufficiently. First, 'evidence' means 'increasing the probability that this hypothesis is true'. Second, the hypotheses are assumed to exhaust the space of option, which I think is true for theism and atheism; there are no third alternatives, 'theism' being understood broadly. With these clarifications, do you agree?
quote:Because I have not observed the same things in an atheists life as I have in my own. Either I have not met the right atheists, or else there is an alternate means of invoking a force identical to the inspiration I claim to feel from God and we have yet to discover how to do it.
I think this is, if not orthogonal, at least diagonal to the question I was asking. Let me try to rephrase for clarity. The observed effect is "BlackBlade goes to church and finds happiness in this." Call this 'BCH', for BlackBlade-Church-Happy. The question is this: What is the probability of BCH, given that a god exists? (In formal notation, P(BCH | GOD)). And then given that no god exists? Is the first larger than the second, and if so why?
Please notice that I specify "A god exists", not "LDS theology is correct", so the first probability must also take into account cases like "God exists, but doesn't give a damn about humans."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: My take on this is if your goal is that people practice religion you need two things: 1)belief in the being to be worshiped 2)a reason to worship said being
Having the being be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good (oopg) provides a pretty good reason. Going out on a limb, prior to the rise of science, perhaps 2) was more of an impediment than 1)?
Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Hardly unexpected, it's rare for a theist to be brave. In that case, would you please go away and let those of us who find the discussion interesting continue?
What reason do you have to say that theists are rarely brave? Most of our soldiers our theists. For that matter, most people in the world are theists. Perhaps you just mean that bravery is rare in the world in general, but it is not more common among atheists.
...
But more to the point, if your goal in this discussion is either to understand religion better or to convince others to change their opinion about religion or to pursuade people that religion shouldn't intervene in politics, none of these are going to be achieved by the way you are demanding proof. Nobody here can prove God exists to you, especially if you don't want to believe it, and similarly nobody here can prove God doesn't exist. Beyond that, while you are talking about which belief is more "likely", it is also true that nobody here can calculate the probability that God exists or doesn't exist. Science also can't calculate the probability that any of its models are accurate. Probability doesn't work that way.
Religion is very much about evidence, but it isn't about using evidence to prove its validity or using evidence to calculate probability of beliefs. Rather it is about combining evidence, personal judgement, and faith into a belief system that a person can trust and use in their daily lives. For a given person, the evidence might be the Bible combined with personal experiences of God. The personal judgement might be that such evidence seems best explained by God. And then faith comes into play as the person trusts that conclusion, even despite the fact that they can't prove it or calculate that it is the most probable answer.
It may be that you don't agree with that method. It may be that you think people should automatically assume religion is false until there is hard, undeniable, and/or scientific proof that it is true. But that is a fudnamental assumption you are making that you can't prove. And the vast majority of the world does not appear to agree with that assumption.
It's a bit like the philosopher who claims everyone should accept sophism because we can't really prove anything exists. Under his assumptions and the way he thinks he should decide what to believe, that might be reasonable. But under most people's assumptions, it isn't. He could demand proof of the existence of things all day long, but it wouldn't convince anyone.
So, it's not cowardly for Gina to refuse to accept your demands for proof of God. She's suggesting that by approaching the discussion in this way, we'd inevitably miss the point and reasoning behind religion.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps. I love my parents, but when I think they are wrong I have few qualms about acting in accordance with my own (differing) beliefs. Religions generally don't want their adherents to take such liberties. If god is infallible, and you disagree with one of god's commandments, then you must be wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Well, the thing is- I don't really see that omnipotence, omniscience, or all-goodness is really necessary for either. Our love for our parents changes as we realize their fallibility, but it doesn't (usually) cease. What about gratitude for creation, or for the ability to live on past the physical span of mortal life? Or the possibility of help beyond our means? The willingness and ability to help doesn't necessarily imply a level of goodness or love beyond any on Earth, but that doesn't necessarily make it less worthy of adoration.
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps. I love my parents, but when I think they are wrong I have few qualms about acting in accordance with my own (differing) beliefs. Religions generally don't want their adherents to take such liberties. If god is infallible, and you disagree with one of god's commandments, then you must be wrong.
One can disagree with a particular religion's (even one's own religion's) interpretation of what God commands without necessarily disagreeing with God.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: One can disagree with a particular religion's (even one's own religion's) interpretation of what God commands without necessarily disagreeing with God.
I was speculating about why the decision was made to have god be oopg instead of merely very powerful - and that decision was made a long time ago.
As I understand it, part of the impetus behind the Reformation was that the Catholic Church held to the primacy of the Pope's interpretation of doctrine, while Calvin etc. believed they had the right interpretation. Point being, in the past it was a big deal to differ from orthodoxy, and, at that time, if you differed from the Pope's interpretation you would be regarded as disagreeing with god, given the Pope's official status.
Disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer, not a historian, so apologies in advance for inaccuracies in the above.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... Most of our soldiers our theists. For that matter, most people in the world are theists. Perhaps you just mean that bravery is rare in the world in general, but it is not more common among atheists.
Well, I generally don't accept the proposition that military service is a particularly great way to measure bravery. However, I would note that theists are slightly underrepresented in military service.
quote: There have been indications of increasing religious diversity in the armed forces, including growing numbers of Muslims. However, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are underrepresented in the military relative to their share of the civilian population. The number of American military personnel who claimed to be atheists or to have no religion was slightly higher than the GSS estimate for civilians ages 20 to 39, the age range for about 80 percent of military personnel.
Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your POV.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would like to point out that a theist is only risking his body and earthly life when he joins the military. An atheist is risking the only life he's got.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think he did say many interesting things concerning the universe and human nature. Those things are simply virtually unimportant if his statements regarding God and the Book of Mormon are not also true.
Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
I don't know about you, but I worship Emerson, even though worship of an individual, or the personification of an individual is totally anathema to his philosophical and moral views... oh well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Perhaps I did not define my terms sufficiently. First, 'evidence' means 'increasing the probability that this hypothesis is true'. Second, the hypotheses are assumed to exhaust the space of option, which I think is true for theism and atheism; there are no third alternatives, 'theism' being understood broadly. With these clarifications, do you agree?
I think I can work with those definitions yes.
quote:I think this is, if not orthogonal, at least diagonal to the question I was asking. Let me try to rephrase for clarity. The observed effect is "BlackBlade goes to church and finds happiness in this." Call this 'BCH', for BlackBlade-Church-Happy. The question is this: What is the probability of BCH, given that a god exists? (In formal notation, P(BCH | GOD)). And then given that no god exists? Is the first larger than the second, and if so why?
You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
----
Tom:
quote:Why? Lots of people have said interesting things about human nature that remain important even though they lied about other stuff, or didn't claim to speak for God.
I meant more the things he said about God, not that he was incapable of saying interesting things if he was in fact wrong about his most important statements. The fact that he is, if wrong, either grossly mistaken, or intentionally deceitful makes studying his words less likely to be worthwhile in comparison to many other individuals.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You will have to bear with me as I am not well versed in discussing concepts in this way. If we simply add or remove a God from the equation I don't think BCH changes much. There should be a percentage change based on the fact that if there is a God, my chances of him rewarding me for seeking him out (can I just say him?) are greater than if he did not exist. Since churches exist to find God, therefore the probability of BCH increases if God in fact exists.
But you have neglected the possibility that a god exists but punishes people for joining churches, or for joining the wrong church. That will exactly cancel out the chances of reward, since you know nothing of the nature of the god.
You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
He might do so based on empirical observation - perhaps he noticed that organized religion is too frequently used to mobilize congregations for/against innocuous measures that have no mal-effect on any of the members of the congregation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He'd be wrong if he did.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do? Maybe god doesn't actually want you any closer to him, smelly little human that you are. Or joining a church is completely the wrong way of going about it. Or joining a church is really, really bad for your soul for other reasons, not to be revealed to humans. (Just like Teh Dreaded Gay.) And of course no reason is required to punish you for joining the wrong church; that's just common sense.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do?
Because I operate under the assumption that we are patterned after God in both form and personality.
If we simply add God to the equation without any discussion of whether he or the universe are connected than no the probability of BCH does not increase with the existence of God.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You are right. Could you provide some basis for why he would do either of those things logically?
He set this world up as a test. He provided a capable brain and complex environment and He wants us to exercise the intelligence and curiosity which He provided to us to develop our full intellectual potential. Those who succeed in doing so, who continue to question assumptions and discard flawed reasoning, will have a special place in His kingdom. Aside from setting up the universe in way in which we would eventually evolve, He has no direct contact with the world. Those who believe that He exists are therefore coming to unjustified conclusions based on poor evidence and with such people He is not pleased. Those who worship Him are committing an even greater sin in that they not only believe in Him on insufficent evidence, but they believe they know Him based on insufficent evidence and they are doing things in His name which He objects to.
Piece of cake.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I quite agree. This being so, why do you advance BCH as evidence in favour of a god?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I know you came up with that fairly quickly and it's an impressive attempt. I'd point out the holes, but I imagine to you there seem to be fairly obvious holes in my religion as well.
KOM:
quote:I quite agree. This being so, why do you advance BCH as evidence in favour of a god?
Because based on my experiences, the complex system my church says it has received from God matches reality. My existence is better having adopted that philosophy, and until it disappoints I will continue to learn of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting but this edit was getting too long.
KOM: How about this. Lets say that once a week you have an impulse that was unique from all your other motivations. It told you to do things like bath regularly, be nice to people, find time to improve your mind. On rare occasions it would tell you to do specific things that are out of the ordinary, like call a friend and make sure he/she was doing alright, or to pay off a loan immediately. When you have done those specific things on those rare occasions the result has been better than if you had ignored it. And you find that impulse increases in frequency as it is adhered to. When you stop doing the common things the impulse disappears along with the positive benefits it used to bring.
If somebody said, "there is no scientific proof that your impulse is anything special or even that it won't lead you to do something terrible one day," what would your response be?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I know you came up with that fairly quickly and it's an impressive attempt. I'd point out the holes, but I imagine to you there seem to be fairly obvious holes in my religion as well.
Of course there are holes. The 30-second version of any religion is going to, by necessity, contain holes. But since it's a religion I can patch the holes pretty easily. The great thing about such a wholy(holy?) contrived story with no supporting evidence is that I can easily write more story to patch the holes. (see: The Demon Theory of Friction )
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would say he was quite right, but in any case that's not the point I am making. I am saying "There is no necessary connection between this phenomenon and the explanation you are giving for it". In particular:
quote:Because based on my experiences, the complex system my church says it has received from God matches reality.
No, stop! When I put the question "Why do you believe BCH is evidence for your church's theology", you cannot say, "because of BCH, I think church's theology is sound".
Edit: Wups, I see MattP's post got in before mine again. I trust it's clear that both this and the last one were responses to the BB posts directly preceding them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Why do you believe BCH is evidence for your church's theology
I'm not looking at it as, well BCH exists therefore God is for realz! When I do things that create good results I feel happy. In my life a certain force early on began prodding me in certain directions, obeying it has brought me happiness. One of the things this force has lead me to do is to follow the tenets of Mormonism. On the strength of that and after doing alot of research on my own I have remained in that faith. Unless that force leads me elsewhere, or else God gives me further instructions, or I cease to exist, or my perception of reality starts consistently contradicting what that force has lead me to believe and do, I will continue to be a Mormon.
quote:I would say he was quite right
So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
I just wouldn't draw conclusions not supported by the evidence.
For instance, Moroni's challenge - pray about the truth of the book of Mormon and you'll get an answer to that prayer indicating the truth of it. Suppose I pray about the Book of Mormon's thruthfullness and I get an overwhelming sensation that I am wholly unfamiliar with. A burning in the bosom, as it were.
What conclusion can I draw from this? The Book of Mormon is true? Joseph Smith was a prophet? The Church is true? None of these things are indicated by this experience. The only indication is that when performing that act I experience that sensation. There is nothing about the experience which indicates that God is responsible for it, that God is good, that anything written in the book comes from God, etc.
Why couldn't the experiences that you describe just be part of the human condition. A series of natural events and intuitive responses, some coincidental, filtered through your the theology of your upbringing?
[ January 08, 2009, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
I just wouldn't draw conclusions not supported by the evidence.
For instance, Moroni's challenge - pray about the truth of the book of Mormon and you'll get an answer to that prayer indicating the truth of ok. Suppose I pray about the book of Mormon's thruthfullness and I get an overwhelming sensation that I am wholly unfamiliar with. A burning in the bosom, as it were.
What conclusion can I draw from this? The Book of Mormon is true? Joseph Smith was a profit? The Church is true? None of these things are indicated by this experience. The only indication is that when performing that act I experience that sensation. There is nothing about the experience which indicates that God is responsible for it, that God is good, that anything written in the book comes from God, etc.
Why couldn't the experiences that you describe just be part of the human condition. A series of natural events and intuitive responses, some coincidental, filtered through your the theology of your upbringing?
That would make sense if the experience was a one time phenomenon.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That would make sense if the experience was a one time phenomenon.
Why is that? I'm not saying the experiences aren't repeatable or real, just that they don't justify the conclusions being drawn.
[ January 08, 2009, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If somebody said, "there is no scientific proof that your impulse is anything special or even that it won't lead you to do something terrible one day," what would your response be?
More interestingly: if there is a group of people hearing these beneficial voices, would you expect this group to be superior to the general population in a variety of statistically measurable ways?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I would say he was quite right
So you would simply discard all that experience at the drop of a hat, the moment you cannot scientifically prove the motives behind an impulse that has always served you well in the past?
That is not what I said. I said I would concede that there was no evidence in favour of any particular cause for my 'impulses', and consequently I would keep an open mind on what was causing them. In particular, I would not instantly conclude that <theology of my choice> was responsible.
The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinction - which in spite of your protestations you do not seem to be drawing - between "The Mormon rituals make BlackBlade happy" and "The Mormon theology is correct". It is quite possible that your church has hit upon some ways of organising humans that fit well with our brains, or the brains of some humns at least. It does not follow that these ways were given it by a god, or even a particularly talented individual; after all the church has changed a lot since Smith's day.
Returning to probabilities, why do you assign a higher probability to church rituals fitting the human brain well when they were designed by a god, rather than a human? Bear in mind that divine purposes are not human; consider, for example, what your church's stance on homosexuality is likely to do to gays. Clearly here is a large subset of humanity which would find it very ifficult to follow these teachings, whether or not they are true. Also recall Lisa's complaints about the inconvenience of following her faith's rituals. You cannot conclude, from "These activities are a good fit to my brain", that "these activities were ordained by a god".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Why shouldn't I be able to postulate god-behaviours as much as you do?
Because I operate under the assumption that we are patterned after God in both form and personality.
I'm not sure that there is any logical basis for the idea that we are or should be patterned after God in form and personality any more than Windows XP is very similar to Bill Gates or the Model T is a close analog for Henry Ford.
Be that as it may, if we accept for the moment that we can and should derive our notions of God as some sort of perfected or amplified versions of ourselves, then it stands to reason that God would be VERY likely to punish us for joining the wrong church.
If you consider that basic human nature seems to have a strong element of pack mentality, where OUR group is the right one, and we are free to hate/fear/oppress etc. other groups because they're wrong and different, then I would say that there is a very good chance that picking the wrong church is actually WORSE than picking no church.
That rather turns Pascal's wager on its ear. If picking the right church is very good, but picking the wrong church is very bad, and picking no church is somewhat bad, considering the vast number of churches out there, the odds seem to be in favor of not choosing.
Especially if you believe that once dead, we may be given the chance to pick the Right Team with the appropriate knowledge, and it's better to be a later joiner than a converted enemy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You cannot conclude, from "These activities are a good fit to my brain", that "these activities were ordained by a god".
Some of us can. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes. I hope your children will do better. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP:
quote:Why is that? I'm not saying the experiences aren't repeatable or real, just that they don't justify the conclusions being drawn.
Eating a cheesburger makes me feel good, therefore I can conclude that eating one makes me feel good. Keeping the commandments also makes me feel good and it has the added bonus of making my community overall a happier place for others, (yes this is interpretive but it is how I see things). As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life. Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good. Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
Tom:
quote:More interestingly: if there is a group of people hearing these beneficial voices, would you expect this group to be superior to the general population in a variety of statistically measurable ways?
Yes, but I have little confidence that we could scientifically group these people together and devise a correct way to measure whether or not they are better people.
KOM:
quote:That is not what I said. I said I would concede that there was no evidence in favour of any particular cause for my 'impulses', and consequently I would keep an open mind on what was causing them. In particular, I would not instantly conclude that <theology of my choice> was responsible.
When did I say I immediately concluded such a thing? My beliefs on these things are tested constantly, as there are so many things that could happen that would completely invalidate my trust in God.
quote:The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinction - which in spite of your protestations you do not seem to be drawing - between "The Mormon rituals make BlackBlade happy" and "The Mormon theology is correct".
Protestations? I try to agree with you when I can. I understand that I am making a logical leap from the first statement to the second because of an assumption. I'm trying to argue that, "an assumption that states that a source of inspiration that betters the world around it and so far has not been shown to be conclusively wrong is a good thing to listen to."
I understand this is a value judgment, it's not something I can scientifically prove, but just because I cannot fully explain it does not mean I am ready to discard it.
quote:Returning to probabilities, why do you assign a higher probability to church rituals fitting the human brain well when they were designed by a god, rather than a human? Bear in mind that divine purposes are not human; consider,
When did I say church rituals fit the human brain well? edit: (In many instances the logic behind a doctrine in Mormonism is not apparent from the beginning). I think the doctrines of the church require alot of exertion to keep. They go against much that is in our natures. But even you must believe that there is much in human nature that must be controlled and reshaped in order for civilization to exist. Again the assumption being that civilization is better than a feral human existence. The doctrines of Mormonism when continually followed, make people better and ultimately happier. But with that capability of bringing happiness, comes the capability of creating misery.
quote:for example, what your church's stance on homosexuality is likely to do to gays. Clearly here is a large subset of humanity which would find it very difficult to follow these teachings, whether or not they are true.
I wouldn't say homosexuals comprise a "large subset" of humanity, especially when compared to subsets like gender, race, age group, eye color, etc. But I also understand that homosexuality is probably one of the most under reported groups of people when any study concerning them is attempted. As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort. I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:When did I say church rituals fit the human brain well?
This is my reformulation of such statements as this one:
quote:As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life.
quote:As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort.
In particular, a large number of people report that they tried very hard and got absolutely none of the effects you mention in the quote above. Their natures were not improved, the little voice did not appear.
quote:When did I say I immediately concluded such a thing? My beliefs on these things are tested constantly, as there are so many things that could happen that would completely invalidate my trust in God.
Feel free to strike out 'immediately'; nevertheless, this is in fact your conclusion, no? It is no more valid for having been arrived at over time.
quote: Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good. Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
No; try to really look at what we are saying, not what you think an atheist ought to say. Nobody is saying "Give up following your conscience/intuition/wisdom". We are saying "Your conscience is not evidence for LDS theology being correct".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:n particular, a large number of people report that they tried very hard and got absolutely none of the effects you mention in the quote above. Their natures were not improved, the little voice did not appear.
Which is why I have said again and again that my personal experiences are not reason enough for anyone else to believe. I leave it to God to explain to each individual why He has dealt with them thus.
quote:Feel free to strike out 'immediately'; nevertheless, this is in fact your conclusion, no? It is no more valid for having been arrived at over time.
Valid? I can agree that there is no direct logical connection, but I do not agree that my belief in these things, when based on years of experience is not any more "valid" than a person who says they see a vision of the blessed virgin and decide then and there to always be a catholic no matter what.
quote:No; try to really look at what we are saying, not what you think an atheist ought to say. Nobody is saying "Give up following your conscience/intuition/wisdom". We are saying "Your conscience is not evidence for LDS theology being correct".
And I'll say again that yes I can see how my experiences do not logically lead to the conclusion that LDS theology is correct. But I have inserted an assumption that I think is a good one and it unifies what logic I do have.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah. There we go. You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Eating a cheesburger makes me feel good, therefore I can conclude that eating one makes me feel good.
Correct. But what conclusions have you reached about *why* it makes you feel good? Because there is a hamburger spirit working within you? If I were to prepare a food you'd never tasted before and said "Eat this. If it tastes good, that means anything else I tell is true." and you did indeed enjoy it, would you believe me?
quote:Keeping the commandments also makes me feel good and it has the added bonus of making my community overall a happier place for others, (yes this is interpretive but it is how I see things). As I keep obeying these commandments, my nature changes into something I think is better than what I already am, and for some reason what used to be just a feeling, becomes a voice that becomes more involved in my life. Ideas it tells me are wrong end up being bad, ideas it tells me are right end up being good.
I have very similar experiences, except not with anything I'd characterize as a "voice." I've determined, based on reading the philosophy of others and examining the world on my own, what behaviors I think are "good" and which I think are "bad." Having done so, I attempt to practive the good behaviors and avoid the bad ones. Over time it becomes easier to intuit the good behaviors and I also feel better when I am consistently exercising them.
quote:Yes in a sense I am surrendering some of my will to this source. Is what I have described really something to which you would stop listening and allow to just disappear?
I'm not saying to ignore it, I'm just stating that what you describe has several explanations other than the one you've settled on. What if that voice is Satan, telling you just enough truth that you'll believe the important lies? How would you ever know?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. There we go. You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
Oh and I suppose you have evidence that shows my assumption is not justified? Your wording seems to indicate that assumptions are to be avoided or are bad. I'd waged you have plenty assumptions of your own that are justified in your own mind.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Your wording seems to indicate that assumptions are to be avoided or are bad.
That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
The best thing is to hold assumptions as lightly as possible, so that one is open to the evidence that will prove them wrong.
Holding close as dearly beloved religion is the opposite of this stance.
And you already proved right here that that's how you are behaving. You've got your scripture telling you everying can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
There are explanations that take all of this evidence into account, but your beloved assumption won't allow you to accept them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2:
quote:That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
Without assumption, no real exchange of ideas could take place. I do understand that an assumption doggedly held to can create alot of misery and unhappiness.
quote:Holding close as dearly beloved religion is the opposite of this stance.
No it isn't, you seem to be confusing the fear one who lacks understanding in their religion feels when challenged by things they cannot refute, with the unwillingness of another believer to easily forfeit what he feels is right.
quote:And you already proved right here that that's how you are behaving.
Exactly how am I behaving? I was under the impression that I was attempting to have a civil discussion on this topic, the fact I haven't changed my mind is not indicative of any inability to do so. I might just as easily say the fact that many of my opponents fail to yield anything in these conversations shows how inflexible they are.
quote:You've got your scripture telling you everyone can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
I've seen that evidence yes, but I have also seen people who insist that they "need" to experience multiple partners, and that they can't limit their sexual forays to one person. Or that they are bisexual and need people from both sexes to feel complete. There are those who are bi-polar and before medication existed for it, they lived out their lives not knowing how to control their emotions and thoughts, and yet they were expected to learn how to do just that as best they could. But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
quote:But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
Dismiss is hardly the term I would use, I'm still listening. Apparently you have dismissed my entire belief system and for what reason? Because your assumptions do not match mine?
quote:There are explanations that take all of this evidence into account, but your beloved assumption won't allow you to accept them.
My explanation takes all this evidence into account. Please don't patronize me, I respect your ability to think for yourself, I don't appreciate you stating that I am incapable of it. What in my words has lead you to believe that I am beyond reasoning with?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Oh and I suppose you have evidence that shows my assumption is not justified?
In fact I do, but let's not go there quite yet. Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would like to point out that a theist is only risking his body and earthly life when he joins the military. An atheist is risking the only life he's got.
Only if you admit that the theist is correct. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was talking about what people believe when they make the decision to join up. If you really believe that you will have an eternal life, then you're not risking (in your internal calculation) anywhere near so much as an atheist, or rather a-soul-ist. (Is there a nice Greek/Latin term for someone who doesn't believe in a soul? Adaimonist, perhaps?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
If a treatment was devised that turned a black man into a white man, do you think people would be wrong to scream about it?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Michael Jackson.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or to use examples that I know are controversial among Mormons: if a mother could take a pill that'd change the sex of her fetus, or if a full-grown man could someday opt for a surgery and chemical treatment that make him fully and indistinguishably a functional female, would people be justified in objecting to it?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes2:
quote:That's where 99% of human error comes in. People assume that the world is the way they wish it were, and then they bend all the evidence to fit their favorite wishful model.
Without assumption, no real exchange of ideas could take place.
This isn't about communication. It's about the fact that "I really like this idea, it makes me feel good" is a lousy way of figuring out what is true.
quote:I do understand that an assumption doggedly held to can create alot of misery and unhappiness.
I don't see that you do, since you quite openly admitted that you currently hold to an assumption that causes a lot of misery and unhappiness, and you don't seem to mind that.
quote:No it isn't, you seem to be confusing the fear one who lacks understanding in their religion feels when challenged by things they cannot refute, with the unwillingness of another believer to easily forfeit what he feels is right.
Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
quote:
quote:You've got your scripture telling you everyone can be straight, and the evidence of real people saying "No, we can't be. We can act straight, but we've tried, and tried, and had every incentive in the world to be straight, and with every evil consequence imaginable if we aren't, and we can't do it". (Plus the evidence of straight people saying "We couldn't be gay if we tried".)
I've seen that evidence yes,
But you haven't allowed it to invalidate your assumptions, have you?
quote:but I have also seen people who insist that they "need" to experience multiple partners, and that they can't limit their sexual forays to one person. Or that they are bisexual and need people from both sexes to feel complete.
Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
quote:There are those who are bi-polar and before medication existed for it, they lived out their lives not knowing how to control their emotions and thoughts, and yet they were expected to learn how to do just that as best they could.
Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
Gay people who aren't trying to destroy themselves according to your wishes are prefectly mentally healthy. They have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. People with severe mental issues can't do that, that's why they need treatment, so that with better brain chemitry, they can do all those things.
quote:But I am certain that if some sort of medication was devised that would suppress homosexuality, people would be screaming that if anyone took it, they'd be denying their very humanity.
Well, yes. And if there were a drug that took straight people and ripped away their sexuality, it would be denying their humanity.
quote:
quote:But this evidence violates your assumption, so rather than dismiss the assumption, you dismiss the evidence, and the reality and experiences of real people.
Dismiss is hardly the term I would use, I'm still listening.
What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
Do you want links to those, because I'm sure people can find some for you.
Heck, just ask straight people if they chose to be straight. No one is going to tell you that it was a hard choice, that they had to fight to be interested in the opposite sex.
quote:Apparently you have dismissed my entire belief system and for what reason? Because your assumptions do not match mine?
Because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. You've got some "feelings" which are perfectly explicable by the fact that you are a social organism, some events which are going to be explicable by chance, and you've grown this into a belief that one particular guy who founded one particular church was right, and everyone else is wrong, and that since he says everyone really, is straight, that gay people can be straight if only they try hard enough.
I've got an aquaintance who's got cancer. God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
quote:Please don't patronize me, I respect your ability to think for yourself, I don't appreciate you stating that I am incapable of it. What in my words has lead you to believe that I am beyond reasoning with?
I read what you wrote. Gay people have literally killed themselves trying to be what you want them to be, and you still think that they just aren't trying hard enough. It's not like more examples is going to change that fact. So clearly, you aren't capable of accepting the conclusion that the reason they are failing is because what they are being asked to do is impossible. Because you can't bear the implications of that conclusion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I was talking about what people believe when they make the decision to join up. If you really believe that you will have an eternal life, then you're not risking (in your internal calculation) anywhere near so much as an atheist, or rather a-soul-ist. (Is there a nice Greek/Latin term for someone who doesn't believe in a soul? Adaimonist, perhaps?)
Nope, you are risking exactly as much as they are....they just aren't aware of the fact.
Death is death for all of us, and this world is gone one way or another (more seriously), Pain is the same, dismemberment is the same. I'd say trying to qualify one person "more brave" than another in that case is pointless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, I disagree. If you sincerely believe that, after dying, you have a pleasant afterlife to look forward to, the prospect of death is less terrible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's not about what's really going to happen; bravery depends on overcoming your fear, and fear depends on belief. The man who really, genuinely believes that he is immune to fire is not brave when he walks into a burning building.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In fact I do, but let's not go there quite yet. Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
I think its pretty clear that the reason BlackBlade was defending assumptions was because you were insinuating that his religion was less justified simply because it was based on some assumptions. That logic doesn't follow though, because major assumptions are ALWAYS necessary for any evidence to be useful in any way. Science is based on assumption too.
Assumptions are a place where errors can be made, but nevertheless without assumptions there can be no reasoning whatsoever.
quote:It's not about what's really going to happen; bravery depends on overcoming your fear, and fear depends on belief. The man who really, genuinely believes that he is immune to fire is not brave when he walks into a burning building.
Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs. It could even be argued that bravery is following one's beliefs when fear contradicts one's beliefs - like when your rational mind says going to war is the right thing to do, but your emotions make you terribly afraid of getting killed.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs.
I would suggest that if you are sincerely afraid of riding it, you don't actually believe 100% that it is safe. You may be telling yourself that you do, but perhaps you only believe 99% that it's safe, and that 1% is enough to scare you into not riding it, no matter that you prefer to deny the 1% (or .001%, or 13%).
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think its pretty clear that the reason BlackBlade was defending assumptions was because you were insinuating that his religion was less justified simply because it was based on some assumptions. That logic doesn't follow though, because major assumptions are ALWAYS necessary for any evidence to be useful in any way. Science is based on assumption too.
Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Fear often exists in spite of beliefs. For instance, I may believe 100% that a rollercoaster is safe, yet still be afraid of riding it, because emotions sometimes act out of line with beliefs.
I would suggest that if you are sincerely afraid of riding it, you don't actually believe 100% that it is safe. You may be telling yourself that you do, but perhaps you only believe 99% that it's safe, and that 1% is enough to scare you into not riding it, no matter that you prefer to deny the 1% (or .001%, or 13%).
I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there may well be a different KIND of nervousness experienced before getting on a coaster you're confident is safe but which may well startle, alarm or sicken you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Yes, plenty of them - the atheist position on religion is built on assumptions, some of which are not shared by most theists. First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Science is based on assumption too.
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't disagree, but I question the validity of comparing the assumptions utilized in science versus, say, assuming the truth of a particular religion. They differ in type, scope and/or falsifiability.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Are there assumptions that an atheist might make that a theist would not?
Yes, plenty of them - the atheist position on religion is built on assumptions, some of which are not shared by most theists. First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Ah, but you're talking about nervousness. Tresopax said "fear", which I consider a different animal. Being nervous about riding a rollercoaster is a response to the anticipated excitement, speed, acceleration, and so on.
Being genuinely afraid of riding the rollercoaster, I argue, must come from a belief that the coaster is somehow unsafe, even if one is unwilling to admit the basis of the fear.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:First and foremost for this topic, atheists often make the assumption that if there's no logically compelling evidence of God then we should conclude God doesn't exist.
I'd reword that to "If there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a thing, then it's appropriate to behave as if the thing does not exist."
"God is an exception to the above rule." is added by theists.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Science is based on assumption too.
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't disagree, but I question the validity of comparing the assumptions utilized in science versus, say, assuming the truth of a particular religion. They differ in type, scope and/or falsifiability.
Drawing any conclusions from the scientific method requires a set of assumptions. One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow. Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it. And then there are many other assumptions that relate to any given scientific model - for instance, most scientific models assume that matter exists, or that certain basic forces exist, etc. And since most scientists build upon the work done by others (rather than going back and redoing every experiment ever done to support every theory their model relies upon), science often entails assuming that previous studies and/or evidence are generally accurate and not fictitious.
quote:I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Fair enough - it's still a major assumption that many atheists would make that many theists would not.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote: One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow.
Sure, induction. Notice though that there are very few sane people who don't make this assumption in order not to get through everyday life.
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
quote: And then there are many other assumptions that relate to any given scientific model - for instance, most scientific models assume that matter exists, or that certain basic forces exist, etc.
a)The underlying assumptions of models are often themselves empirically justified. b)There is a well-defined method for falsifying models - and when the happens the assumptions themselves are again called into question.
quote:And since most scientists build upon the work done by others (rather than going back and redoing every experiment ever done to support every theory their model relies upon), science often entails assuming that previous studies and/or evidence are generally accurate and not fictitious.
Previous scientific results are always implicitly under scrutiny whenever a model relies on them. This assumption is never formally made.
quote:
quote:I think an atheist would state it differently: ''I have no more reason to believe in God than to believe that there are invisible flying elephants in the parking lot. To be consistent with the absence of equivocation on the non-existence of invisible flying elephants and other such entities, I will not equivocate on the non-existence of God."
Fair enough - it's still a major assumption that many atheists would make that many theists would not.
See Matt's response. The onus is on you to show why belief in god is different from belief in these other entities. Theists add an assumption to explain this exception.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I disagree. If I really thought a coaster were unsafe, I would be at least as nervous about my kids riding it. And I'm not.
Ah, but you're talking about nervousness. Tresopax said "fear", which I consider a different animal. Being nervous about riding a rollercoaster is a response to the anticipated excitement, speed, acceleration, and so on.
Being genuinely afraid of riding the rollercoaster, I argue, must come from a belief that the coaster is somehow unsafe, even if one is unwilling to admit the basis of the fear.
I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters. At the very notion of riding one, my palms get damp. Watching other people riding and picturing myself with them causes my breathing and heart rate to increase markedly. If pressured to ride by someone, I have been known to have a panic attack.
None of these symptoms occur when my daughter rides one and I watch (again, unless I picture myself riding or am pressured to also ride).
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Drawing any conclusions from the scientific method requires a set of assumptions.
Yes, but there is a huge, huge, gigantic difference beween assumptions that you have to draw in order to function in this world, like that physical reality stays fundamentally the same all the time, and assumptions that you can do without and still function fine, like the idea that there is a big ego in the sky and that everything written in this book about him is absolutely true, and should be followed.
That's the heart of the conversation here...does it make sense to hold those extra assumptions in the absense of real tangible proof that they are true, and in the absence of hard reality testing that would detect if they were false?
quote:One major assumption is that the same laws that hold true today will continue to hold true tommorrow.
It stops being merely an assumption when it's verified day after day after day, and resists every effort to falsify it.
There are differences between belief that science works, and makes true statements and predictions, and belief that faith works and makes true predictions. It's painfully obvious that you have staked your whole argument on denying this, but it's profoundly unpersuasive.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
It is formally true in a certain sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers . Note, though, that there is an underlying assumption that the mathematics accurately describes reality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters.
So what is it that you are afraid of?
I ask because when someone who believes he is immune to fire walks into a burning building, he does so without fear because he is not afraid of fire. If you are not afraid that a roller coaster will kill you, but you are still terrified of roller coasters, the question becomes: what about the roller coaster experience is what you fear?
The fear you experience is not the same kind of fear experienced by someone who believes a roller coaster might kill her.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:See Matt's response. The onus is on you to show why belief in god is different from belief in these other entities. Theists add an assumption to explain this exception.
quote:I'd reword that to "If there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a thing, then it's appropriate to behave as if the thing does not exist."
"God is an exception to the above rule." is added by theists.
It isn't a matter of exceptions. I think many theists (myself included) would say that its often appropriate to believe in something even if you don't have evidence that "compels" belief in it. (I believe in my cousin that I've never met, for instance, and the only evidence I have of her is hearing a few stories from relatives - less evidence than I have of God, actually.)
quote:Yes, but there is a huge, huge, gigantic difference beween assumptions that you have to draw in order to function in this world, like that physical reality stays fundamentally the same all the time, and assumptions that you can do without and still function fine, like the idea that there is a big ego in the sky and that everything written in this book about him is absolutely true, and should be followed.
You are correct that there is a difference between assumptions that are practically necessary in life vs. assumptions that are not. But many theists would say the assumptions underlying their faith in God are necessary in a practical sense to live life rightly.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote: Another major assumption is that the more you test a hypothesis with successful results, the more you can trust it.
I don't think this is formally true. There is no reason to ever state that a given model actually describes the world. I agree this distinction is not made in a scientist's everyday work.
It is formally true in a certain sense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers . Note, though, that there is an underlying assumption that the mathematics accurately describes reality.
I assume you're a Bayesian?
I would say, in situations in which the conditions required by the LLN are met, then the increase in trust is not by assumption, but as a corollary to a theorem.
Also, it doesn't require that mathematics accurately describe reality, only that the data points really be samples of an r.v. with certain properties. The 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is an a posteriori observation. Formally, the only reason to think that using mathematical models is a good idea is the obvious utility gained by using them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2:
quote:This isn't about communication. It's about the fact that "I really like this idea, it makes me feel good" is a lousy way of figuring out what is true.
By itself I can agree with you that that is true.
quote:I don't see that you do, since you quite openly admitted that you currently hold to an assumption that causes a lot of misery and unhappiness, and you don't seem to mind that.
I said in this very thread in regards to keeping the tenets of Mormonism, "As for difficulty, yes it is difficult, and again a person might try very hard to obey and ultimately give up, becoming a shell of who they used to be in the effort."
I embarked on a two year mission and it was the possibly the hardest thing I have ever endured, rivaled only by marriage. I often felt that nobody wanted me there. I saw fellow missionaries struggle to keep up, and after failing once too many times they went home ashamed and disgraced. I myself reached the brink of sending myself home, and barely found it within myself to keep going.
quote:Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
My only rebuttal is not "well it feels right." I don't pretend that my feelings are more valid than theirs. When I used feel in that statement I meant it more like Obi Wan Kenobi saying to Luke about whether to run back and save his parents, "You must do what you feel is right of course." Feeling meaning you take all your knowledge, thoughts and impressions and make a calculation, a calculation that you feel you can live with.
And furthermore *I* am not requiring that they live that way, I do not run my church much less Christianity, much less the universe. Quit trying to frame argument as I am forcing homosexuals to conform to my beliefs in order for them to live in society. If a homosexual does not wish to live as a Mormon lives that is their prerogative. There is room in my life for homosexuals, don't confuse the opposition to homosexuality in principle as tacit approval of emotional or physical assault on homosexuality.
quote:But you haven't allowed it to invalidate your assumptions, have you?
It has invalidated some of my assumptions absolutely. I used to be afraid of gay people through no fault of my parents or church. I just assumed that because homosexuality was supposedly a sin that people practicing it must be evil people. It was an incorrect assumption, one that I have discarded in the face of new evidence. I never felt a strong feeling from God that homosexuals are evil people, it was purely a construct of my own mind.
quote:Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
Is there any real difference between those three groups of people other than orientation?
quote:Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
When we are talking about an idea being insulting then we really are feeling rather than thinking.
quote:Gay people who aren't trying to destroy themselves according to your wishes are prefectly mentally healthy. They have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. People with severe mental issues can't do that, that's why they need treatment, so that with better brain chemitry, they can do all those things.
Again they are not my wishes. People with Bi-polar disorder have friends, hold jobs, find love, raise families. There are gay people who find ways to accomplish all that without acting on that impulse. Some decide for themselves that they can't. I'm not in a position to say they are right or wrong. Again I am content to let God tell each individual why He has dealt with them thus.
quote:Well, yes. And if there were a drug that took straight people and ripped away their sexuality, it would be denying their humanity.
Not necessarily, if a pedophile elected to take such a medication because they couldn't ordinarily resist that impulse I don't think you would stand in their way. If a Catholic priest or nun opted for that medication would you be opposed? Buddhist monks? Mormon missionaries? What if a Christian gay man concluded they'd rather be celibate then continue trying to be straight and opted to take such medication?
quote:What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
No, such stories only tend to invoke emotions rather than a serious discussion on the matter. At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic.
quote:Because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. You've got some "feelings" which are perfectly explicable by the fact that you are a social organism, some events which are going to be explicable by chance, and you've grown this into a belief that one particular guy who founded one particular church was right, and everyone else is wrong, and that since he says everyone really, is straight, that gay people can be straight if only they try hard enough.
You say they are explicable, but you yourself have not actually experienced them. You can suppose that you understand but you have no business saying you know they are in fact explicable. Just as a side note Joseph Smith as far as I know made no comments on homosexuality or gender identity. Those tenets come from the Bible and statements made by prophets who succeeded Joseph Smith.
quote:I've got an aquaintance who's got cancer. God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
So now because God does not do good where you think it could be done that therefore He isn't doing anything? Or that because God does not actively inform you what He is doing, he must therefore be doing nothing?
Just because you don't understand God, does not mean he cannot be understood or that he must not exist, that is an assumption I do not think can be justified. I of all people would expect to be rendered unable to think for a long time if all there was to be understood about God was suddenly revealed to me in full.
quote:I read what you wrote. Gay people have literally killed themselves trying to be what you want them to be, and you still think that they just aren't trying hard enough. It's not like more examples is going to change that fact. So clearly, you aren't capable of accepting the conclusion that the reason they are failing is because what they are being asked to do is impossible. Because you can't bear the implications of that conclusion.
Again with the you. Why have I become the avatar of the idea you hate? I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves, just as I have accepted that those who are born autistic will likely not get better, or that person with paralysis would most likely do better to learn to live with the condition rather than pray it away. I am not them, I cannot fully empathize, I have my own challenges and obstacles to overcome. The only beings that I believe fully understands the challenges all men face are Jesus and God the Father, and so I leave it to them to justify how they treat each of us their creations. Perhaps I will find out that men can only be created in the manner God has done it, and that process necessitates that some people will come out homosexual and heterosexual. Even if all the evilness that exists in humanity is a necessity of creation I think it is worth creating.
-----
KOM:
quote:Why this sudden passionate defense of assumptions? Why is this particular assumption so important to you that when it is pointed out that it is an assumption, you become belligerent, not merely on its behalf, but on behalf of all assumptions? If you had evidence, would you not rather try to convert your assumption into a well-supported proposition, instead of this tu quoque stuff?
Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The law of large numbers is perfectly compatible with frequentist statistics. One could even say it is the foundation of frequentist statistics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
I did not know anything of the kind. I remind you of my exact words:
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
I had the impression that we had just agreed that this is true, and restated it explicitly to check that we did in fact agree. Apparently I overestimated something you said. Are you now saying that your evidence does justify your assumption?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote: Originally posted by Tresopax: It isn't a matter of exceptions. I think many theists (myself included) would say that its often appropriate to believe in something even if you don't have evidence that "compels" belief in it. (I believe in my cousin that I've never met, for instance, and the only evidence I have of her is hearing a few stories from relatives - less evidence than I have of God, actually.)
'Compelling belief' is a pretty tough burden. Atheists would probably be satisfied with evidence that makes the belief reasonable to those who don't already share that belief (e.g., beautiful sunrises don't count).
quote: You are correct that there is a difference between assumptions that are practically necessary in life vs. assumptions that are not. But many theists would say the assumptions underlying their faith in God are necessary in a practical sense to live life rightly.
How would the theists argue their case here?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: We may have to backtrack then. Based on your statement,
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think what Blackblade meant was his belief is based partially on assumptions - but is not solely an assumption.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The law of large numbers is perfectly compatible with frequentist statistics. One could even say it is the foundation of frequentist statistics.
That wasn't my point. Many, many, many physical laws are deterministic in nature i.e. the LLN is not applicable. My comment was meant as a joke reflecting the frequentist view that Bayesians are willing to assign a probability to almost anything.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How would the theists argue their case here?
Many different ways, depending on what their specific religious beliefs were. Some would talk about the afterlife to make the case. Some would says morality comes from an understanding of God. Some would point to personal experiences. Etc.
I personally am not sure whether a belief in God is absolutely necessary to live life rightly. I certainly think one can be moral without believing in God.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As far as I know, we have found no physical laws that are completely deterministic in nature. We have found some that, due to the short span of the universe, will almost certainly always appear so, though.
And of course Bayesians are willing to assign probabilities to almost anything. Most things are uncertain Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As far as I know, we have found no physical laws that are completely deterministic in nature. We have found some that, due to the short span of the universe, will almost certainly always appear so, though.
And of course Bayesians are willing to assign probabilities to almost anything. Most things are uncertain
Fair enough. I should probably have said deterministic models.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:How would the theists argue their case here?
Many different ways, depending on what their specific religious beliefs were. Some would talk about the afterlife to make the case. Some would says morality comes from an understanding of God. Some would point to personal experiences. Etc.
I personally am not sure whether a belief in God is absolutely necessary to live life rightly. I certainly think one can be moral without believing in God.
I missed the 'right' part of the original post. I think the 'morality in the absence of religion' discussion is a fun and interesting one to have, but I don't think the motivations some have for making choices in the moral sphere relevant to the question of whether or not the assumptions leading to belief in god are reasonable.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Right. It all comes down to you "feeling right". It doesn't matter how many gay people destroy themselves trying to become what your "right feelings" say they should become. Because you "feel right" about the necessity of them doing so, you will keep advocating that they destroy themselves, keep blaming them for not trying hard enough, not "using all the tools they could be using" trying to live up to what your "feelings" say they should be doing.
People "feel right" all the time about factually wrong things. All the time. And your only rebuttal to that is "But I feel really right", which is less than persuasive.
My only rebuttal is not "well it feels right." I don't pretend that my feelings are more valid than theirs.
When gay people say "It's impossible for us to be straight", and you say "Nothing in the scriptures is impossible", then you are saying that their feelings are wrong.
quote:Feeling meaning you take all your knowledge, thoughts and impressions and make a calculation, a calculation that you feel you can live with.
Now you've substituted "good feelings" with "can live with". This is not an improvement in the logical support of any argument you are making.
quote:Quit trying to frame argument as I am forcing homosexuals to conform to my beliefs in order for them to live in society.
This isn't about living in society at all. This is about there being tons of evidence that gay people can't 'convert' to being straight, and you ignoring that evidence, and refusing to accept the obvious conclusion from that evidence, because of your prior belief that the scripture can't be wrong.
quote:don't confuse the opposition to homosexuality in principle as tacit approval of emotional or physical assault on homosexuality.
You say that gay people who try and fail to become straight are failing to use all the tools at their disposal. How is telling people "If you tried harder, you'd be straight", not an emotional attack?
quote:It has invalidated some of my assumptions absolutely. I used to be afraid of gay people through no fault of my parents or church. I just assumed that because homosexuality was supposedly a sin that people practicing it must be evil people. It was an incorrect assumption, one that I have discarded in the face of new evidence. I never felt a strong feeling from God that homosexuals are evil people, it was purely a construct of my own mind.
But you still cling to the idea that gay people aren't using all the tools available to them if they try and fail to become straight, as your favorite scripture says is possible.
Telling a heartwarming story about how you decided that innocent people weren't evil doesn't change that. Especially when you use "but I didn't have 'good feelings' about that idea, so I was okay rejecting it". That sheds no light whatsoever on whether all the "good feelings" you have on other topics are well-placed.
quote:
quote:Okay...why does this evidence preclude the gay people from being right about their situation?
Is there any real difference between those three groups of people other than orientation?
Yes. There's no such thing as an orientation to being promiscuous. There are just people of whatever orientation who are promiscuous.
quote:
quote:Ah. So you think that homosexual people are by defnition as disordered as untreated bipolar sufferers.
That's an insult to real people who suffer from real brain chemical issues.
When we are talking about an idea being insulting then we really are feeling rather than thinking.
No, it's an insult to tell a perfectly healthy gay person with a partner, a job, a circle of friends that he is as disordered as a bi-polar person who has run off all his friends, lost his job, divorced his spouse, and can't even keep his thoughts coherent.
It's another example of you ignoring all the evidence to keep the conclusion that your favorite scriptures makes for you. Your scripture says that gay people are disordered, so you ignore all the evidence that gay people are fine (when people aren't telling them that it's their fault for not using all the available tools to become straight), and keep concluding that they are as badly off as people with real mental health issues, because your scriptures says so, and you won't face the fact that your scripture is wrong here.
quote:There are gay people who find ways to accomplish all that without acting on that impulse.
Well, of course, being gay doesn't prevent you from having any of those things. Neither does expressing one's sexuality in physically and emotionally healthy and safe ways.
It will keep you from having an honest marriage with a person of the opposite sex, but that's it. Why are so many religous people keen on people having dishonest marraiges?
quote:Some decide for themselves that they can't. I'm not in a position to say they are right or wrong.
But you already did. You already concluded that because the scripture says they can change, that they can.
But this isn't about them. This is about whether or not you are letting your "good feelings" about scripture keep you from drawing conclusions from evidence.
quote:Not necessarily, if a pedophile elected to take such a medication because they couldn't ordinarily resist that impulse I don't think you would stand in their way.
Probably not but I wouldn't do so lightly. And I would do so only when the evidence showed that less drastic measure wouldn't be enough to safeguard the rights of innocents to be safe, because altering a person's brain is about as invasive as it can be, and people have a right to their own brains that can only be overriden in the most serious of situations.
quote:What, you want more stories of gay people trying and failing to become straight?
No, such stories only tend to invoke emotions rather than a serious discussion on the matter.[/quote] At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic.[/quote]
Are you of the opinion that your beliefs about the facts of homosexuality and gay people are supported by the scientific consensus?
quote:You say they are explicable, but you yourself have not actually experienced them.
No. I've never experienced God stepping down to tell me the structure of the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug. Have you?
For all you know, I have experienced the same "good feeling" about something. Then the batter struck out, and I realized that my "good feeling" didn't amount to much.
We know that with chemicals, we affect people's brains, and make them feel all kinds of things. And we know the kind of tricks that the brain plays on itself with regard to drawing unsound conclusions. The reasonable answer is not that "good feelings" come from some undetectable ego in the sky, who happened to inspire this one guy to write scriptures which are therefore, 100% true, but that the "good feelings" are just that.
quote:Just as a side note Joseph Smith as far as I know made no comments on homosexuality or gender identity.
You wrote of your church's stance towards gay people:
"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
That's what I'm addressing. The authorship isn't the issue.
quote:God could give you the structure of the next blockbuster anti-melanoma drug. Or the structure of a good malaria vaccine. Did God help any charity beat the stock market this year?
No. God's never done any of that stuff. That's why I reject your premise. Because when put to make-or-break test, the results look like ordinary chance, not divine anything. And no amount of "good feelings" can make up for that.
quote:So now because God does not do good where you think it could be done that therefore He isn't doing anything?
I think my "wheres" are pretty reasonable. Sick children and the like.
You think that the Steelers are a more worthy target of God's intervention?
quote:Just because you don't understand God, does not mean he cannot be understood or that he must not exist,
But that's not the sticking point, really. The sticking point is the whole lack of evidence thing. The whole letting poor children die is merely an extra point against the existance of a nice omnipotent God.
quote:Again with the you.Why have I become the avatar of the idea you hate?
You wrote:
"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
Why shouldn't I hate a mindset that has led to the misery and yes, death, of innocent people?
Why don't you?
quote:I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves, just as I have accepted that those who are born autistic will likely not get better, or that person with paralysis would most likely do better to learn to live with the condition rather than pray it away.
That's brilliant. Gay people are like the physically paralyzed. Yes, the empathy is really showing.
quote:The only beings that I believe fully understands the challenges all men face are Jesus and God the Father, and so I leave it to them to justify how they treat each of us their creations.
So what this means is that there is no evidence that would force you to change your mind about anything that you have "good feelings" about, because you will just say "I don't have to understand how to reconcile my beliefs with the evidence, oh well."
Well, history shows that this is a stance that leads to being very very wrong. That's why everyone arguing against you thinks it's a bad one.
quote:Perhaps I will find out that men can only be created in the manner God has done it, and that process necessitates that some people will come out homosexual and heterosexual.
So you won't change your mind until someone proves the negative. Brilliant. Way to show your open-mindedness.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
You seem very focused on this statement, and it seems to be at the core of what you disagree with me on. Again I thought I addressed this by saying, "I can abide the idea that there are homosexuals who in this life will not be able to shrug off that part of themselves."
I don't believe that all homosexuals who cannot manage to live a heterosexual lifestyle aren't "trying hard enough." I do believe that ultimately a way is opened to them, but again it may not be in this life. I know that does not provide much comfort but it's as far as I can say with any confidence.
quote:Now you've substituted "good feelings" with "can live with". This is not an improvement in the logical support of any argument you are making.
I am not sure what you are saying here. I was only trying to reinforce the idea that I don't believe you can feel your way through life. The inspiration I feel from God while often a feeling or impression is not the same as an emotion.
quote:This isn't about living in society at all. This is about there being tons of evidence that gay people can't 'convert' to being straight, and you ignoring that evidence, and refusing to accept the obvious conclusion from that evidence, because of your prior belief that the scripture can't be wrong.
So are you saying then that you believe all people who feel same gender attraction are ultimately confined to seeking out a partner of the same gender? That they have no choice in the matter whatsoever. I do not think the scientific evidence or even common sense is in favor of such a statement. I doubt this is what you are trying to say, but it keeps coming across that way to me.
quote:I think my "wheres" are pretty reasonable. Sick children and the like.
I think they are pretty reasonable too, but I can see reasons for adversity such as cancer to exist without God simply removing everything that might hurt us. I do not fully understand why every particular evil that exists in the world does, but I can allow that a good reason is plausible and in fact exists.
quote:For all you know, I have experienced the same "good feeling" about something. Then the batter struck out, and I realized that my "good feeling" didn't amount to much.
You are right, but I don't deign to pretend to know whether your experiences rightly affirm the conclusion you have made on this matter.
quote:We know that with chemicals, we affect people's brains, and make them feel all kinds of things. And we know the kind of tricks that the brain plays on itself with regard to drawing unsound conclusions. The reasonable answer is not that "good feelings" come from some undetectable ego in the sky, who happened to inspire this one guy to write scriptures which are therefore, 100% true, but that the "good feelings" are just that.
And yet when somebody like me says they know what good feelings are and that they are not exactly the same thing as inspiration you think you know better than we do about how they are feeling. Sorta like how you condemn me for believing things about homosexuality that they themselves don't necessarily believe.
quote:Why shouldn't I hate a mindset that has led to the misery and yes, death, of innocent people?
There are millions of good ideas that lead to the death of the innocent. I'm sure the revolutionary war lead to the needless death of innocents. Civil Rights has lead to riots and counter riots. Joseph Smith was abused and murdered for an idea. I still fail to see what about my mindset makes it impossible for homosexuals to live near me without hating themselves and dying.
quote:That's brilliant. Gay people are like the physically paralyzed. Yes, the empathy is really showing.
I do not consider homosexuality to be a good thing, how then can I lie and say it's different than a disorder? If people are born with an inclination that is not optimal it's not an intended insult to say something is wrong. You have no problem believing that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are all fools or worse dysfunctional.
quote:So what this means is that there is no evidence that would force you to change your mind about anything that you have "good feelings" about, because you will just say "I don't have to understand how to reconcile my beliefs with the evidence, oh well."
That is simply untrue, I already said in the same post, "At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic." Which leads to your statement,
quote:Are you of the opinion that your beliefs about the facts of homosexuality and gay people are supported by the scientific consensus?
I don't think there is much consensus on homosexuality in the scientific community. We aren't even sure what causes it. With such a hole apparent we can't say much affirmatively about it.
quote:It will keep you from having an honest marriage with a person of the opposite sex, but that's it. Why are so many religous people keen on people having dishonest marraiges?
You know this is not what I believe is acceptable. I've never so much as hinted at the idea that homosexuals should be ashamed or afraid to admit to themselves and other they have that trait. I've never suggested that they hide, or that they should pretend it does not exist and just try to get married anyway and hope all goes right.
I don't believe you are interested in really having this conversation with me. It seems to me that you wish to simply posture and seek to humiliate me. I understand that this topic is important to you and you feel that I cause harm to people you empathize with. I'm honestly trying to find the best way in this predicament, but if you feel I am a threat to the peace of society and that nothing will change that except abandonment of my religion, I'm afraid I cannot satisfy that requirement.
I don't feel inclined to continue discussing this topic with you now or in the future if you are so completely convinced that I am at best incapable of seeing the truth, or at worst evil. I have always believed that if mutual respect does not exist between parties meaningful discussion cannot take place.
If you can find it in you to at least try to disagree without being disagreeable I will do my best to make our conversation productive. If not I bear you no ill will I'd just rather not talk about this particular topic with you. I hope there are no hard feelings.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am quite literally terrified of roller coasters.
So what is it that you are afraid of?
I ask because when someone who believes he is immune to fire walks into a burning building, he does so without fear because he is not afraid of fire. If you are not afraid that a roller coaster will kill you, but you are still terrified of roller coasters, the question becomes: what about the roller coaster experience is what you fear?
The fear you experience is not the same kind of fear experienced by someone who believes a roller coaster might kill her.
It is a completely irrational fear. If there is a specific root to it, I am not consciously aware of it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It is a completely irrational fear. If there is a specific root to it, I am not consciously aware of it.
It makes sense to be afraid of riding a rollercoaster, even irrationally. There must be some root to the fear, even if you're not consciously aware of it. For the sake of argument, I am assuming that you aren't irrationally afraid of cotton shirts, goldfish, the moon, state lines, or other innocuous things.
If you're not afraid of the moon falling on your house, or wearing a cotton shirt, it's because you know, at every level both conscious and unconscious, intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally, that there is nothing to fear from these things.
Some things, like rollercoasters, there is some level of fear, which has a justification, and which you may or may not be able to easily overcome. At some level, you believe that the experience of riding the rollercoaster is something to be afraid of.
That said, I would argue that if a person claims to know with 100% certainty that he will go on to another life which will be better in every way than the current life, he has no basis for fearing death.
If one does then fear death, it stands to reason that there is a cognitive disconnect between that claim of certainty and the actual fact of doubt.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leaving the question of certainty aside, I believe there are a number of significant ways in which mortal life is superior to the next world. Among others, the ability to act and choose to do good things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Sure, but even if the value of this life is x and the value of the next one were x - y, a person who believes death brings them x - y perceives less personal risk than the person who believes death brings 0.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I disagree that life can be broken down to an algebraic equation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My point is that you are comparing the value of mortal life and an afterlife. That comparison is not really germane. In comparing the perceived risk when risking one's mortal life from the perspective of a theist vs an atheist, what matters is whether an afterlife has a greater percieved value than death with no afterlife. Caveats about hell notwithstanding, most people would agree that it is better to experience an afterlife than to not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Caveats about hell notwithstanding, most people would agree that it is better to experience an afterlife than to not.
The jump from that to the notion that the atheist risks more is where you lose me.
Would you similarly say that a parent of three children risks less when a son is a soldier than the parent of one child?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's not that the atheist risks more, it's that the atheist percieves greater risk. From his perspective, death brings oblivion. From the theist perspective, death brings continued existence in some form. Of course the actual risk may not reflect the percieved risk, but bravery tends to be determined by what the percieved risks are, not the actual risks.
Aside: I'm not any more a fan of the "atheists risk more" argument than the "no atheists in fox holes" argument. I'm just persuing this to see where it goes.
[ January 13, 2009, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think there's too many confounding variables in the parenting example. How the death of one child affects the rest of the family will vary tremendously from family to family; in some cases the family with one child (who dies) will have less problems than the family with three children (one of which who dies). There's a lot of possible outcomes.
Death, though, has two possible states: A)non-existence, or B)some sort of existence. If you believe that B is better than A, then, all things being equal, when it comes to death it's better to live in the world where, given the fact that you're increasing your chances of death via army enrollment, B is true than A is true.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I suppose it depends on the parent. Enough is made about sending one's only child to war, or losing one's only child in a tragic accident, that we do seem to apply some emotional premium to the "onlyness" of the only child.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
If the parent fears losing ANY child as much as he or she fears losing EVERY child -- which is, after all, quite likely -- there's no distinction to be made at all.
I don't understand why you think the situations are remotely analogous. Can you explain?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Not every theist is absolutely certain they're headed for a pleasant afterlife, you know. I think trying to calculate the result of the equation
fear of death = (1 - P-afterlife)(badness of oblivion) + (P-afterlife)(1 - P-heaven)(badness of hell) - (P-afterlife)(P-heaven)(goodness of heaven)
for atheists in general and theists in general is counterproductive. Particularly since this doesn't take into account a whole variety of beliefs about the afterlife. If I understand Mormon belief correctly, I'd have to add several more terms for probability of getting into the various heavens, and if I understand Jewish belief correctly, there really isn't a hell. And come to think of it, there should be a goodness of life term in there somewhere, I think.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
Yes, in fact I would, based on the way people actually act rather than the moral theory which says that all children ought to be equivalent. (With which I agree. I just don't think people actually act that way.) But that apart, I don't see the analogy.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]
quote:"I don't believe anything required in the gospel is impossible. The question is whether we use all the tools available to us, or not. Inspiration, like a rational mind, to me is one of those tools."
You seem very focused on this statement, and it seems to be at the core of what you disagree with me on.
It's just so convenient. It touches on the the original topic of the board, it touches on the later tangent.
That it's smug and condescending and pointlessly cruel and religiously motivatied just ties it into one neat package to argue against.
quote:I don't believe that all homosexuals who cannot manage to live a heterosexual lifestyle aren't "trying hard enough."
You said that they aren't choosing to use all the tools available to them. Why does that not count as trying enough?
quote:I do believe that ultimately a way is opened to them, but again it may not be in this life.
You said that the tools were available. How is anything in the afterlife available to us now?
quote:I do not think the scientific evidence or even common sense is in favor of such a statement.
When I offered to give you examples of gay people who tried and failed to "unconfine" themselves, you positively refused to hear them, and said there was no point. So if you aren't going to hear the evidence, you of course aren't going to think there is any.
Of course, the professionals in the medical and psycological communities long ago came to the consensus that you are wrong. 30 years ago at least. There will never be enough evidecne to convince you that your relgious beliefs are wrong on this or any other point, but that's kind of the gist of the whole conversation.
quote:You have no problem believing that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are all fools or worse dysfunctional.
I have no problem beliving that people who deliberately ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs are not going to be able to draw sound conclusions. And doing so is foolish, and can lead to some very dysfunctional results.
quote:That is simply untrue, I already said in the same post, "At this conjunction, only science and God can seriously alter my opinion on this topic." Which leads to your statement,
quote:Are you of the opinion that your beliefs about the facts of homosexuality and gay people are supported by the scientific consensus?
I don't think there is much consensus on homosexuality in the scientific community.
It's been 30 years since psychologists took homosexuality off the list of disorders. I refuse to believe that you didn't know that.
Here's a quote.
I eagerly await you finding a quote from a scientific source as authoritative which supports your opinion:
"The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are: The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."
So, are you going to acecpt what the scientific consensus is?
quote:I don't believe you are interested in really having this conversation with me.
If you simply want to expound on that quote of yours from the top, that would be most enlightening.
What exactly is it that the scriptures "require" of gay people? And what exactly are the tools that are "available" to them that would allow them to do what you claim they are required to do?
If you follow up with evidence showing that indeed, lots of people have been able to sucessfully use those tools to do as the scripture requires, that's be great too.
And if you don't post the evidence showing this, we'll understand why. But you'll have to give up the conceit of beig gpersuaded by the scientific evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In general, the bludgeon of consensus ought not to come out until the sword of appeal to specific studies has been well wielded and shown inadequate.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In general, the bludgeon of consensus ought not to come out until the sword of appeal to specific studies has been well wielded and shown inadequate.
The quote for the consensus is easier to find than the specific studies, and probably easier to link to.
The APA changed their mind in 1973. I'm probably not going to be able to link to the studies extant at that time.
But I'm not quite sure that citing individaul studies is better than the consensus here.
If you were interested in what the scientific evidence supported, wouldn't it be better to know the opinion of what all the experts, who are familiar with all the relevent studies and how to interpret them think, as opposed to looking at one or two individual studies, without the professional experience and expertise to interpret them well? If someone says that the consensus is flat out crazy, then you can start digging into the indivudual studies, but why start with the hard way without seeing if the simple way works first?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because, although the True Way is not hard for one dedicated to Truth, the Way that is easy is not the True Way. Or less poetically, a direct appeal to the data is the correct way to settle a scientific dispute.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2:
quote:You said that they aren't choosing to use all the tools available to them. Why does that not count as trying enough?
Well for one thing in regards to experience all men are not created equal. They could be completely ignorant of facts or methods they would need to make such a change.
quote:You said that the tools were available. How is anything in the afterlife available to us now?
I am not sure what you mean. I believe that people can ultimately be happy in this life, even if some things go unresolved. I also believe that the life to come will have many differences from this current mortality.
quote:When I offered to give you examples of gay people who tried and failed to "unconfine" themselves, you positively refused to hear them, and said there was no point. So if you aren't going to hear the evidence, you of course aren't going to think there is any.
I was not refusing to hear your evidence, I have already conceded that such a thing does in fact take place. No further evidence is necessary.
quote:I have no problem beliving that people who deliberately ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs are not going to be able to draw sound conclusions. And doing so is foolish, and can lead to some very dysfunctional results.
Are you saying I am guilty of all those things, it seems that you are. I'm not sure why you waste your time discussing anything with me if that is what you really think.
quote:It's been 30 years since psychologists took homosexuality off the list of disorders. I refuse to believe that you didn't know that.
You are right, I already knew that. I do have alot of respect for the discipline of psychology, but I also believe it's a very difficult field to work within. People are difficult to study.
quote:What exactly is it that the scriptures "require" of gay people? And what exactly are the tools that are "available" to them that would allow them to do what you claim they are required to do?
Broadly stated, it is required that they live according to the truth that is meted out to them. That they like any other truth seeker are willing to live by that truth no matter how difficult it might be to accept.
quote: If you follow up with evidence showing that indeed, lots of people have been able to successfully use those tools to do as the scripture requires, that's be great too.
I will look into programs designed to rehabilitate homosexuals. In the past I have read of some that I found reprehensible. But it should be noted that it could also very well be that we do not yet know psychologically how to assist homosexuals in this manner.
There are many maladies that do not have a cure, and while cures for some will eventually be found, others continue to remain a mystery. It does not follow that if there is not some mass means to help homosexuals as a group, that therefore the real problem is that we continue to view homosexuality as wrong. I can submit that they may very well be the correct answer, but it is not the only possibility.
I would appreciate it if you can link to any individual studies that you are already aware of as that will give me a good place to start.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If nothing in the scriptures is impossible, then how can there not be a tool to 'help' the homosexuals? If that were true, then the prohibition ought to be relaxed until such a tool is found, or else the hypothesis of no impossibilities abandoned.
Edit: Also, you did not respond to my last post; perhaps it got lost in the masses of text? I reproduce it for your convenience:
quote:Belligerent? I am surprised you would use that adjective to describe me. Maybe it's the fact that emotions are difficult to convey in this medium but I assure you I am not angry. I was alittle annoyed that you phrased my position in terms you knew I would strongly disagree with.
I did not know anything of the kind. I remind you of my exact words:
quote:You now agree that your belief in the theology is an assumption, which your evidence does not justify.
I had the impression that we had just agreed that this is true, and restated it explicitly to check that we did in fact agree. Apparently I overestimated something you said. Are you now saying that your evidence does justify your assumption?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I believe I responded to that statement with, "In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
quote: If nothing in the scriptures is impossible, then how can there not be a tool to 'help' the homosexuals? If that were true, then the prohibition ought to be relaxed until such a tool is found, or else the hypothesis of no impossibilities abandoned.
There might very well be a tool that we have not uncovered yet. It's not as if we tell cancer patients that they are allowed to be angry at God until a cure is found.
There may be a highly individualistic response to a homosexual. For one it might simply be that they are capable of embracing heterosexuality and stifling homosexuality, if they only seek to do it. For another it may be that the environment they were raised in coupled with their nature has already firmly grounded them in homosexuality beyond our normal ability to dissuade it, and it may be best that they remain celibate for the time being.
Furthermore it would be up to God to decide if any modification regarding church policy towards homosexuality is needed. Church policy regarding homosexuality has already seen some change.
edit: I'm not too happy with that post but I need to pick up my wife and I am not sure I'll have any more time today to hatrack around.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KOM: I believe I responded to that statement with, "In order to agree with that I would have to reword it thus, "I now agree that my belief in theology includes assumptions, which my evidence does not necessarily justify."
Ah so, looks like I'm the one who missed a post. But still, I do not see the difference between your statement and mine. If your assumptions are not justified by evidence, what does justify them?
I'm dropping the homosexuality bit as I don't find it very interesting; I want to concentrate on the epistemology.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] swbarnes2:
quote:You said that they aren't choosing to use all the tools available to them. Why does that not count as trying enough?
Well for one thing in regards to experience all men are not created equal. They could be completely ignorant of facts or methods they would need to make such a change.
So the people who went through 'conversion' programs and failed to become straight are ignorant of exactly what tools that would allow them to succeed?
Because if you can't name them, and demonstrate that they exist, then we are back to the start, where you believe because of your faith in things that no evidence shows exist, and that lots of evidence suggests don't exist.
quote:
quote:I have no problem beliving that people who deliberately ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs are not going to be able to draw sound conclusions. And doing so is foolish, and can lead to some very dysfunctional results.
Are you saying I am guilty of all those things, it seems that you are.
For goodnesss sake, yes. I don't know how amny times I can type the same thing, and have you still not understand. I've said it 5 times, and you never claim that I am mistating you.
You claim that it is possible for gay people, to change their orientation. I'm claiming it's not, and have a pile of "shells", as you call them, the unfortunate people who tried as hard as they could, and failed. I also have the consensus opinions of medical and psychologists, who agree that what you claim is possible is not.
The number of sucesses you can count that support your claim is pretty much zero, out of thousands and thousands who have tried. But you still believe that you are right, and I am wrong, because your religion tells you so, despite all the evidence that disproves it.
quote:I'm not sure why you waste your time discussing anything with me if that is what you really think.
Becuase as far as demonstrating that religiously-motivated conclusions are counter-factual and harmful, believing in gays becoming straight is like shooting fish in a barrel. And when you go on about how gay people are like people with mental illness and phsyical paralysis, that's just more and more...enlightening.
quote:
quote:It's been 30 years since psychologists took homosexuality off the list of disorders. I refuse to believe that you didn't know that.
You are right, I already knew that. I do have alot of respect for the discipline of psychology, but I also believe it's a very difficult field to work within. People are difficult to study.
This is your dodgy way of saying that you reject the conclusions, and accept the proclamations of your religious beliefs instead on this matter?
Why can't you just say so straightforwardly?
And what does this tell us about your "I'll listen to science", if you have your "studying people is hard" excuse at the ready whenever science tells you something you don't like?
quote:
quote:What exactly is it that the scriptures "require" of gay people? And what exactly are the tools that are "available" to them that would allow them to do what you claim they are required to do?
Broadly stated, it is required that they live according to the truth that is meted out to them. That they like any other truth seeker are willing to live by that truth no matter how difficult it might be to accept.
Don't be coy. What are you arguing is that truth with regard to how gay people should live their lives?
(Hint, you were on the track of your opinion when yuo were talking about disorders and paralysis and mental disorders. Stay with that, it's your honest opinion)
quote:There are many maladies that do not have a cure, and while cures for some will eventually be found, others continue to remain a mystery.
That's more like it. What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
Once again, the fact that expert scientists don't think it's a malady is totally ignored by you. Who claims to listen to science.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
swb:
quote:What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
Once again, the fact that expert scientists don't think it's a malady is totally ignored by you. Who claims to listen to science.
What people define as "healthy" or "unhealthy" depends as much on subjective value judgments as it does on scientific data. There is only a thin veneer separating "healthy/unhealthy" from "good/bad" or "right/wrong". Of course someone with a different moral outlook on the world also has a different definition of mental "health". That shouldn't be scandalous, or even surprising.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Actually, I'm curious what the criteria are, within the scientific community, for rulings like this. What defines something as mentally "healthy" or "unhealthy"?
Is it the ability to get along in Western society without serious impediment? If so, I imagine that the definition would change with society, and vary for smaller subcultures.
Is it about survival value, from an evolutionary standpoint? It's a more universal standard, but it's also less concrete and less well-understood. It's also more difficult to apply to non-competitive behaviors without opening a big can of worms Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"The research on homosexuality is very clear" doesn't seem to leave much room for disagreement for someone like BlackBlade who claimed (1) that his view could be changed by science, and (2) that there isn't a scientific consensus on homosexuality.
When shown that (2) is not the case, BlackBlade responded that "people are difficult to study," implying that either the extant scientific evidence is insufficiently persuasive for him, or that (1) is in fact not the case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2: I don't want to share with you what I am finding in my look at scientific research and homosexuality. I am convinced that no matter what I would find you would still be convinced that I am an moron and your enemy.
Everything I say is seen in a negative light to you. I am a Political Science major, one of the soft sciences. I love it and even I have to concede that when compared to say chemistry we polysci folk don't get to experiment much, rather we have to do a truckload of observing and talk about our observations rather than actually saying X causes Y.
I am responding to what you have already said, and then I am done until you actually care to help me work through this, rather then looking at me like I an enemy and that this world would be well rid of me.
quote:You claim that it is possible for gay people, to change their orientation. I'm claiming it's not, and have a pile of "shells", as you call them, the unfortunate people who tried as hard as they could, and failed. I also have the consensus opinions of medical and psychologists, who agree that what you claim is possible is not.
Then all I'd have to do is find a single person who by all accounts was a homosexual and was able to live a happy life in a heterosexual relationship. When you say nobody can change their orientation are you saying then that all those who are homosexual and yet happily live as heterosexuals already have that heterosexuality within them, they've just chosen to ignore their latent homosexuality? Or are you saying that those who say they have homosexual desires are all or nothing in those sentiments?
quote:This is your dodgy way of saying that you reject the conclusions, and accept the proclamations of your religious beliefs instead on this matter?
That's not a question, it's a statement. And no there is nothing dodgy about saying that in some noticeable ways, studying human behavior is much more difficult then studying the human body.
quote: Why can't you just say so straightforwardly?
I am being as straightforward as I know how. I qualify what I say because that is how I feel. There is precious little that I am absolutely certain without reservation about. It's unfortunate that I cannot share your certainty concerning homosexuality. It would be so easy for me to see you as somebody who shackles homosexuals down by saying they can't do something, that you are their enemy. But I don't because I believe you actually care about others, something I wish you could wrap your head around for me.
quote:Don't be coy. What are you arguing is that truth with regard to how gay people should live their lives?
This whole time I have never acted like I knew exactly what to do. I refuse to believe that I have actually given you the impression that I am not actually seeking for answers and that I know everything I believe there is to know about homosexuality. Please just stop.
quote:That's more like it. What are you saying is "required by scriptures" with regard to this "malady"?
I honestly do not know. The only thing I believe is that God has commanded that sexuality be kept within the bounds of marriage. Currently marriage is only permissible between committed males and females. Therefore currently homosexuals must not act on that impulse. I don't know what the proper course of action for a gay man or woman is in dealing with this problem. I do not possess it, and I am not responsible for another human being facing this dilemma. When I am, I believe the answers will be there for me if I am worthy of God's help.
---- Twinky:
quote:The research on homosexuality is very clear" doesn't seem to leave much room for disagreement for someone like BlackBlade who claimed (1) that his view could be changed by science, and (2) that there isn't a scientific consensus on homosexuality.
I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is. You are welcome to help me in this effort.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If you make your own definition of homosexuality "A type of lifestyle/behavior which is sinful, wrong, and unhealthy." Then you can pretend all you want that science might sway you, when in fact you know that it never will.
If you're unwilling to either accept that your definition is wrong, or at least be open to modifying it, then science can tell you day and night that the earth isn't the center of the universe and you can say, "Sorry, I'm going to believe what God tells me over what you say any day."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Would you claim that the perceived risk of the parent of three is less than that of the parent of one?
If the parent fears losing ANY child as much as he or she fears losing EVERY child -- which is, after all, quite likely -- there's no distinction to be made at all.
The claim was made that the perceived risk of a theist who risks his mortal life is less than the perceived risk of an atheist. I think that is nonsense.
Losing a child is losing a child. Having "spares" is only relevant to the degree of loss if we're talking about noble lineages. Losing (or risking) your life is risking your life. The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
I don't see how you can honestly make that claim. If you lose something, but get another similar, perhaps even BETTER something, that's clearly better than losing something and getting nothing...FOREVER.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's trying to make life into a mathematical equation again.
But the thing is, Spock was wrong.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't see how you can honestly make that claim. If you lose something, but get another similar, perhaps even BETTER something, that's clearly better than losing something and getting nothing...FOREVER.
So losing my beloved stuffed tiger I've had since I was a year old and getting a brand NEW stuffed tiger is measurably better than just losing my beloved stuffed tiger?
I disagree. The pain of forcibly losing something you care very much about is not significantly reduced just because you are paid for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So losing my beloved stuffed tiger I've had since I was a year old and getting a brand NEW stuffed tiger is measurably better than just losing my beloved stuffed tiger?
Isn't it? Bear in mind that, according to Mormon theology, the second beloved stuffed tiger is one that you're going to have forever, and is one that, moreover, is the best stuffed tiger ever. At the very least, you still have a stuffed tiger -- as compared to the person who has no tiger at all.
If I know that someone will buy me an Enzo with a lifetime warranty and unlimited free gas if I lose my car in an accident, I'm not going to shed anything but crocodile tears if my current one gets totaled.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The difference here is whether you actually care about the thing you are losing itself, or whether you only care about the function it serves for you.
With a son or daughter, you care about the child, as an individual. Losing your son and having him replaced by a new "better" child would not make you happy because you care about your son as a individual person, not for the functions he serves. Similarly, often with stuffed tigers, people are attached to them as individuals. They don't want a new, better tiger; they want THEIR stuffed tiger.
Cars, on the other hand, are more valued for their functionality. If you can replace one with another that does all the same things better, most people would be happy to do that. (There do exist some people, however, who are attached to their cars individually - and would rather keep the old car that they've come to know and love rather than get a new one.)
So, the analogy here is going to depend on what sort of object we are talking about. When we are talking about life itself, the question is: Do we care about our life only for the function it serves? Or do we care about our life because it is OUR life? Another way to put it is, would you trade your life with someone else's life, if that someone else has things easier and happier? Or would you keep your life just because its yours?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Actually, I'm curious what the criteria are, within the scientific community, for rulings like this. What defines something as mentally "healthy" or "unhealthy"?
Is it the ability to get along in Western society without serious impediment? If so, I imagine that the definition would change with society, and vary for smaller subcultures.
Is it about survival value, from an evolutionary standpoint? It's a more universal standard, but it's also less concrete and less well-understood. It's also more difficult to apply to non-competitive behaviors without opening a big can of worms
I've directly explained this to you specifically before. It's not any of those things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is.
I could be misremembering this, but didn't we already do this? I was pretty sure I went into this at pretty extended length with you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you've said it once, you've said it a hundred times...
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
A very important question. The theistic afterlife concepts which I'm most familiar with are ones which involve some essence of ourselves, including aspects (or the entirety) of our personality and memories, continuing to exist.
Obviously a scenario where the afterlife is not presumed to include a continuation of consciousness would not necessarily be superior to oblivion, but then I'm not sure that "afterlife" is necessarily a good description of any scenario where consciousness is not preserved.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The existence of another life does not make the loss of this one any less -- not unless you believe the next to be merely a continuation of this one. Like a cat's, I suppose.
Do you believe our consciousness carries over to the afterlife?
To some degree. But definitely not the same way as in this life, as I mentioned a couple pages back.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick:
quote:I've directly explained this to you specifically before. It's not any of those things.
Clearly, I've forgotten what it is you said, despite it having been explained "directly".
Other people:
Regarding the "is death less of a loss for religious people" question, there's another way to approach it. The fear of death is not a rational fear. It's something we have evolved, and we experience it regardless of whether we believe, intellectually, that the risk is worth taking, or that the loss is less severe than our fear would indicate.
Thus, if the question is one of bravery — ie, are atheists who risk or sacrifice their lives more brave than religious people who do the same? — then I'd still answer no. Overcoming the fear of death is the same difficult process, no matter what your esoteric beleifs are.
Another point is that faith != knowledge. People who experience faith act with trust that their beliefs are true. But the whole point of faith is that it is not 100% verifiable, even to the individual experiencing it. They act on it in the face of the possibility that their actions might not lead to the consequences they envision.
That grain of uncertainty, in my mind, makes the choice to risk one's life much more equivalent than some folks here have asserted. An atheist must steel themselves to overcome the fear of losing everything. A theist must do the same — their method is often to focus on their faith in the afterlife, but the same threat hangs over both, and it requires the same kind of emotional resolve to get through it, despite the use of different tools.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm impressed by your memory of old discussions Though in my defense, the paper you linked was primarily about sex addiction, which was one of the subjects of the thread. I read through it to find out what it asserted about that particular subject, and didn't necessarily record the criteria for their definition of a disorder once I verified that I approved of it.
So it seems that the paper you linked indicates that the criteria for defining a "disorder" (as opposed to a simple benign feature of someone's psychological makeup) are the following:
1. Distress. The symptoms are painful to the subject. OR: 2. Disability. The subject is impaired in his ability to carry out some important function. OR: 3. Risk. While the subject isn't experiencing either of the above criteria, his risk of incurring them is substantially increased.
It specifically says that deviation from cultural norms does not constitute a disorder.
That's a good answer. And you'll note that in my post above (which you were responding to), I was deliberately suggesting things that I did NOT believe were the criteria, in order to elicit a response detailing what the criteria were.
So ... cool. Thanks for letting me know the answer was there.
The one area, though, where I think the definition of a "disorder" among subcultures might have room for variance is in the definitions of "important functions" that can be impaired, according to criterion number 2.
If a particular culture defines a few extra functions that it expects its members to carry out, a psychological feature in an individual that is not clinically diagnosable as a disorder might nevertheless function as one in regards to their ability to fulfill those particular demands imposed on them by their culture (presuming that they wish to do so).
Psychologists are correct to avoid addressing such things as "disorders", since they are so dependent on an individual's subjective desire to pursue a particular way of life. Humans get to decide what they want out of life, and if they choose to pursue something (like a religion) that conflicts with some feature of their psychology, that choice itself is not a clinical problem, and it is up to the individual, not a doctor, to determine whether the cost is worth the pursuit.
(For some, the experience of faith makes the desire to pursue a particular religion so overwhelming that they take on quite a bit of pain and difficulty to do so, but that's quite possibly a separate discussion, and the point still stands that the decision to pursue a course of action is always a choice, whatever the psychological or experiential underpinnings for that choice.)
Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the fact that homosexuality is not (and, in my opinion, should not be) recognized as a disorder does not automatically invalidate BlackBlade's position, as from his perspective, within his culture, there are important functions that homosexuality does inhibit, and that conflict does need to be addressed, and not dismissed out of hand because of the official position of the psychological community.
In other words, I agree that cultural norms should not define clinical disorders. However, when an individual has chosen to pursue a particular culture, a feature that is not a clinical disorder may nevertheless need to be addressed in much the same way in order to resolve the conflict and satisfy the individual's desire to be a part of that culture.
Whether or not it is appropriate or realistic for homosexuality to be addressed in this way is still up for discussion. Thus far, it seems that in most cases, attempting to resolve this particular feature with this particular culture through suppression of the feature is futile, which causes many of us who belong to the culture to wonder what our other options are for resolving the conflict.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Overcoming the fear of death is the same...process
I have no idea why that would be.
If I am jumping off a fifty-foot diving board, I may feel some fear. If I am certain that there is no water in the pool, I will feel more -- and different -- fear.
I don't see how this can be disputed.
quote:Another point is that faith != knowledge. People who experience faith act with trust that their beliefs are true.
So you would agree that the amount of fear experienced is inversely related to one's certainty of a good afterlife?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If I am jumping off a fifty-foot diving board, I may feel some fear. If I am certain that there is no water in the pool, I will feel more -- and different -- fear.
If you're blind, and deciding whether or not you believe there is water in the pool, rather than staring right at it (or the lack of it), the difference between the two is lessened significantly.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:So you would agree that the amount of fear experienced is inversely related to one's certainty of a good afterlife?
No, because of the other point I raised about the fear of death being an irrational, evolved part of our makeup, regardless of our philosophy.
None of the individual arguments I'm raising is certain to completely equalize the experience of an atheist and the experience of a theist. However, I think that they bring the two experiences close enough together that the difference between them is much smaller than the normal human variation in bravery.
IE, whether I fear death more than you do is more heavily influenced by my personality versus your personality than it is by the fact that I believe in an afterlife, and you do not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: A very important question. The theistic afterlife concepts which I'm most familiar with are ones which involve some essence of ourselves, including aspects (or the entirety) of our personality and memories, continuing to exist.
Obviously a scenario where the afterlife is not presumed to include a continuation of consciousness would not necessarily be superior to oblivion, but then I'm not sure that "afterlife" is necessarily a good description of any scenario where consciousness is not preserved.
As a point of curiosity, IIRC reincarnation in the Bhuddist sense could be considered an afterlife in which there is no continuation of consciousness (at least not consciously and not immediately).
This of course depends on whether you think of "afterlife" as "after^1 life" or "after^n life" (i.e. whether the afterlife is whatever comes after this life or what comes after all n earthly lives).
A calculation for a person for this set of beliefs would presumably need to include a factor for the probability of whether one would get a better or worse life in the next life.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the fact that homosexuality is not (and, in my opinion, should not be) recognized as a disorder does not automatically invalidate BlackBlade's position, as from his perspective, within his culture, there are important functions that homosexuality does inhibit, and that conflict does need to be addressed, and not dismissed out of hand because of the official position of the psychological community.
In other words, I agree that cultural norms should not define clinical disorders. However, when an individual has chosen to pursue a particular culture, a feature that is not a clinical disorder may nevertheless need to be addressed in much the same way in order to resolve the conflict and satisfy the individual's desire to be a part of that culture.
Whether or not it is appropriate or realistic for homosexuality to be addressed in this way is still up for discussion. Thus far, it seems that in most cases, attempting to resolve this particular feature with this particular culture through suppression of the feature is futile, which causes many of us who belong to the culture to wonder what our other options are for resolving the conflict.
Within specific contexts, many, many behaviors that are not intrinsically disorders are still things that can or even should not be engaged in. You'll get no argument from me.
A gay person not wanting to engage in homosexual activity can be a perfectly healthy desire and them refraining is in no way intrinsically unhealthy.
This exchange, however, seems to be more concerned about the conversion homosexual people to heterosexual ones. There is a strong scientific consensus on this. Over 40 years of attempts to do this with highly motivated subjects has yielded no positive results that adhere to even a low standard of scientific rigor.
The APA's official position is that the ethical treatment for an ego-dystonic homosexual (one who really doesn't want to be gay) is getting them to accept that they are gay rather than trying to turn them straight for this reason and because the outcomes in terms of the mental and physical health of these people is so very much better.
The repartive therapy and ex-gay crowd have a long history of suicide, clandestine homosexual behavior (that is often the risky stuff), and a host of other psychological and physical unhealthinesses.
According to the science, counseling gay people that they "already have the tools" to change from gay to straight is a pretty terrible thing to do.
---
Don't know if I should add this or not, but Geoff, I really, really didn't expect you to actually look up our interaction or pull information from it. I am impressed that you did. It was not consistent with my conception of you based on our previous interactions and I'd like to say that I may have misjudged you. If so, I am sorry.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB,
quote:I said there is not much consensus on homosexuality, specifically stating that we don't even know what causes it. I am currently looking into just what the consensus is.
I could be misremembering this, but didn't we already do this? I was pretty sure I went into this at pretty extended length with you.
I believe we talked about reform efforts, not scientific consensus. A few posts ago I hinted at our discussion by saying that I looked at a few reform programs that I ended up finding reprehensible. I'm currently looking at alot of stuff through google scholar and I'm probably going to extend to JSTOR.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I thought we'd talked about the scientific consensus of reform efforts, which is what I thought was being discussed here.
Are you talking about scientific consensus about homosexuality as a whole? It's a terribly complicated issue. You can't really talk about the scientific consensus on it. Some aspects are understood very well. Others are not.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The APA's official position is that the ethical treatment for an ego-dystonic homosexual (one who really doesn't want to be gay) is getting them to accept that they are gay rather than trying to turn them straight for this reason and because the outcomes in terms of the mental and physical health of these people is so very much better.
I'm curious ... as a corollary to this, how are people with transgender inclinations handled? Is the subject's desire not to be their current gender treated as similar to an ego-dystonic homosexual's desire not to be gay?
quote:Don't know if I should add this or not, but Geoff, I really, really didn't expect you to actually look up our interaction or pull information from it. I am impressed that you did. It was not consistent with my conception of you based on our previous interactions and I'd like to say that I may have misjudged you. If so, I am sorry.
Ha ha. I like to surprise people
Seriously, though, I'm all too aware of my spotty memory, and I hate it when someone feels like I don't care about something they said just because I let it slip my mind. So when I can counteract such situations, I usually try to. (I'm also glad that I happened to pick the right search terms to find the thread ... if I hadn't, I'd still have no idea what you were talking about.)
In the thread I linked, you seemed to have the impression that I was generally disinterested in evidence and scholarship, and that I was only interested in backing up my own position. I hope I can dissuade you of that — the positions I take are sometimes controversial, but I'm much happier to face up to the places where my initial inclination flies in the face of scholarship, and adjust as needed, than plug my ears and pretend that such conflicts do not exist.
(I also hope you don't take the fact that I'm sometimes difficult to dissuade as evidence that I don't care about opposing evidence. I just think it's generally a bad idea to flip opinions without making the new input do some pretty hard work, first, to persuade me. Otherwise, my natural desire to please people would have my opinion flopping all over the place )
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The afterlife, at least in all religions I'm familiar with, is generally seen at the very least as a kind of reward for the faithful, if not explicitly as THE BEST THING EVER. Isn't that generally the point of the afterlife - that one gets a reward and final judgment for all the faith and good deeds done on earth, one gets to become more fulfilled, more complete, gets to hang out with God and their eternal family and loved ones?
It seems a contradiction to me to claim that the afterlife isn't something really, really good. Different, yes, but still awesome. It's one of the big selling points for religion.
So how is it even possible to imagine that the theist doesn't face a much, much less fearful possibility of death, both because of the promise of a super-sweet afterlife, and moreover, with the hope that supernatural intervention will save him when the bullets start flying.
If a person truly believes that his prayers will be answered, and that upon his death he will receive a heavenly reward, how is it even remotely possible that he would have as much to fear as someone who believes that he has just this short, physical life, and that no supernatural power is available to protect him?
I know for a fact that many cultures perform ceremonies in which they explicitly ask their supernatural powers for protection from swords and bullets before battle for the specific purpose of giving them courage.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But many theists also believe in a super bad unhappy place if you have not lived up to standards. So, if you aren't confident that you have met all the requirements, death could be a very, very bad thing. Whereas an atheist doesn't have to worry about burning in hell for all eternity.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: But many theists also believe in a super bad unhappy place if you have not lived up to standards. So, if you aren't confident that you have met all the requirements, death could be a very, very bad thing. Whereas an atheist doesn't have to worry about burning in hell for all eternity.
I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have met many LDS women who do not think that they will be worthy of the happiest place. Of course, LDS have the whole multilevels so they don't believe they are going to hell, just not the best heaven.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You can't really talk about the scientific consensus on it. Some aspects are understood very well. Others are not.
Not according to certain people in this thread, and you are a blind god nut who pretends to care about science if you disagree.
I'm actually glad you are here MrSquicky, as you have some experience in efforts to reform homosexuals. You mentioned one group that I agreed had a less than effective methods. Could you remind me of who they are, as well as any other groups or methods of reform that you are aware of? I would greatly appreciate it.
Mighty Cow: like scholerette mentioned, for LDS people the mere fact you believe in Christ and try to do good is not the key to a super awesome afterlife. I know quite a few protestants who also feel this way. I'll be honest even though it's risky to be so. If I was faced with death right now, I would not be ready. It would be terrifying for me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Not entirely true. In widely believed Chinese folk beliefs, many believe that *everyone* goes to hell. Thats why all those 'Hell money' (conspicuously in English too) bank notes that are burned for the recently departed are burned for loved ones.
As Wikipedia explains in a (slightly dubious bit ... but with the right spirit) section:
quote:A popular story says that the word hell was introduced to China by Christian missionaries, who preached that all non-Christian Chinese people would "go to hell" when they die, and through a classic case of misinterpretation, it was believed that the word "Hell" was the proper English term for the Chinese afterlife, and hence the word was adopted.
Furthermore, it is believed in Chinese mythology that all who die will automatically enter the underworld of Diyu to be judged before either being sent to heaven, to be punished in the underworld, or to be reincarnated. As such, the word "Hell" usually appears on these notes.
Believe me, since this was probably the first place where I came across the word 'Hell', it confused the heck out of me when I reached grade school.
Edit to add: There's a pretty good gallery of images of the things here with a pretty good sampling of ones with English printing http://www.bigwhiteguy.com/baskets/hell.php and may specially appreciate this one link Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ... I have never met a theist who believed she was going to hell. Hell is for the other guys.
Not entirely true. In widely believed Chinese folk beliefs, many believe that *everyone* goes to hell. Thats why all those 'Hell money' (conspicuously in English too) bank notes that are burned for the recently departed are burned for loved ones.
As Wikipedia explains in a (slightly dubious bit ... but with the right spirit) section:
quote:A popular story says that the word hell was introduced to China by Christian missionaries, who preached that all non-Christian Chinese people would "go to hell" when they die, and through a classic case of misinterpretation, it was believed that the word "Hell" was the proper English term for the Chinese afterlife, and hence the word was adopted.
Furthermore, it is believed in Chinese mythology that all who die will automatically enter the underworld of Diyu to be judged before either being sent to heaven, to be punished in the underworld, or to be reincarnated. As such, the word "Hell" usually appears on these notes.
Believe me, since this was probably the first place where I came across the word 'Hell', it confused the heck out of me when I reached grade school.
That's very interesting Mucus. It illuminates my understanding on something that happened awhile ago. I was talking to my brother recently back from his mission at the time and he talked about people in Taiwan burning their, "hell money" and I remember saying, "What are you talking about, it isn't called hell money!"
But I guess in away it could.
edit: That reminds me of those museums that have depiction of what is done to you in order to atone for specific sins. Wax sculptures and paintings of people being sawn in half or hung by skewers and being prodded by red hot pokers. It's why I remember laughing when I read Wild Swans and Jung Chang's twice married grandmother who had taken her to such a museum scurried her past the depiction of a woman being drawn in half by her two husbands fighting over her.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's one of the big selling points for religion.
Not mine.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Isn't that generally the point of the afterlife - that one gets a reward and final judgment for all the faith and good deeds done on earth, one gets to become more fulfilled, more complete, gets to hang out with God and their eternal family and loved ones?
I don't think, at least in my religion, it would not be accurate to call it a reward. It's more of a gift than a reward. It's along the lines of the prodigal son story. You could have a rotten life and reject God too, yet if you honestly asked for forgiveness at the last minute you'd be forgiven. You just need to accept the gift.
Living a good life and having faith is not so much done to receive a heavenly reward as it is done for its own sake.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
It just seems like one of those "How you see the problem, is the problem" situations.
From the people who brought you "left-handedness is the devil" comes a new trait that can be corrected given enough slaps with a yardstick and the right tools.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If you make your own definition of homosexuality "A type of lifestyle/behavior which is sinful, wrong, and unhealthy." Then you can pretend all you want that science might sway you, when in fact you know that it never will.
If you're unwilling to either accept that your definition is wrong, or at least be open to modifying it, then science can tell you day and night that the earth isn't the center of the universe and you can say, "Sorry, I'm going to believe what God tells me over what you say any day."
BB, I can tell you I was touched by God. Right after I accepted myself, I felt the most divine peace settle over my countenance, a peace of such magnitude I have never felt before. And you know what it said? "It's OK."
It felt like putting on a suit that fit me perfectly that was there all my life, I just never wore it.
So who's feelings of God are the truth? The ones that say it's wrong, or the one's that say it's ok?
It shouldn't matter, because nobody KNOWS much for sure of anything, but because of "belief" we have 30 page long forum threads debating the validity of our fellow humans experience of life.
Isn't that what most religions profess? This is the way, and all those other ways are wrong?
And when called upon for their crimes against humanity, all that is offered is the religious equivalent of the Nuremberg defense, and if we're lucky it's wrapped in a bit of the science of the times.
But like you BlackBlade, I and others, are not responsible for what, from the outside, appears to be a dilemma for religions and you. But if your mission carried you to our door, I can say that you would not be met with lambasting. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So whose feelings of God are the truth? The ones that say it's wrong, or the one's that say it's ok?
Neither. Your subjective feelings are not evidence of anything external to your brain.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Your subjective feelings are not evidence of anything external to your brain.
The similar experiences which convey mutually exclusive truths are evidence that at least some and perhaps all such experiences are misinterpreted.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
But that's part of my point, maybe should've made that clearer. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Neither. Your subjective feelings are not evidence of anything external to your brain.
That's an assumption I don't agree with. When I feel cold, it's usually pretty good evidence that the air temperature is lower than usual. It may be subjective, but it's accurate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Earendil18:
quote:BB, I can tell you I was touched by God. Right after I accepted myself, I felt the most divine peace settle over my countenance, a peace of such magnitude I have never felt before. And you know what it said? "It's OK."
It felt like putting on a suit that fit me perfectly that was there all my life, I just never wore it.
I like that way of saying it alot.
quote: So who's feelings of God are the truth? The ones that say it's wrong, or the one's that say it's ok?
Perhaps it is right that you first accept that part of yourself. I wouldn't presume to say your feelings are wrong.
quote: It shouldn't matter, because nobody KNOWS much for sure of anything, but because of "belief" we have 30 page long forum threads debating the validity of our fellow humans experience of life.
I agree, I don't think my experiences are very applicable to anyone but myself.
quote: Isn't that what most religions profess? This is the way, and all those other ways are wrong?
I see it this way, "This way is the best we've got and is functional, all other ways approach it in correctness." There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
quote: And when called upon for their crimes against humanity, all that is offered is the religious equivalent of the Nuremberg defense, and if we're lucky it's wrapped in a bit of the science of the times.
Could you be so kind as to elaborate on this? Do you feel those who voted for Proposition 8 committed a crime against humanity from which there is permanent damage?
quote: But like you BlackBlade, I and others, are not responsible for what, from the outside, appears to be a dilemma for religions and you. But if your mission carried you to our door, I can say that you would not be met with lambasting.
I really appreciate that. I hope that if you do come across missionaries that if they come across as kinda strong or even insulting, that you realize they are young men and women, who are trying to learn how to be good representatives of Christ. We screw up alot in that effort.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is plenty that could be improved upon in Mormonism, I believe that the reason it isn't perfect is because we aren't ready even though we profess to want all the knowledge God can grant us.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
on it.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I used to be on Hatrack all the time, but ages ago (in the early days with the nick 'enjeeo'). Recently I read something about OSC and it reminded me of Hatrack and here I am.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
On the bright side you get the shorter version.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)