posted
The distinction between banning something and not recognizing it is not mere semantics. People go to jail because of the distinction. If the police started arresting gay wedding parties, then gay advocates would admit the difference.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:by mistaben:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by starLisa: I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've lived in Seattle for over a year now. Imagine, an old-fashioned conservative (though not Republican anymore--that's for a different thread) like me in a bastion of liberal thought like the Emerald City. I don't think I've developed any stress disorders, but it has been uncomfortable sometimes.
You aren't seriously comparing the two are you? I don't imagine you have ever run the risk of being fired or arrested for your conservative views? How about disowned by your family? Excommunicated from your church? Shunned by your friends? How is your experience anything like that of a homosexual from the time period of your cited studies? (Or indeed from that of many homosexuals still today?) Why not try a reasoned response to starLisa's point above, as some others have given your thoughts a reasoned response. Or would you rather emmulate those who have dismissed your posts lightly and without much thought?
More to the whole point of your original post: I reject that many of those statistics were true back when they were published, and even less so today. Compiling statistics on homosexuality is notoriously difficult because those homosexuals willing to be counted and analyzed have mostly been on the fringes of society, both "gay society" and "general society". Until recently, you almost had to have a "screw society" mentality of some sort to even accept yourself as a homosexual. And even then acceptance of yourself as a homosexual didn't mean you were impervious to the idea that you were just accepting yourself as a piece of crap. For most the choice was "Accept yourself and move to the fringe" or "reject/suppress yourself and fit in". Given those choices, it's no wonder there might be a higher incidence of mental illness.
But let's suppose for the sake of arguement that it is a verifiable fact that gays are 6 (or even 10) times more likely to suffer from a mental illness than straights. Well, what are you considering "mental illness" for your study? I'm willing to hazard a guess that the criteria applied in the study wouldn't disqualify a straight person who fit the criteria from being a parent or from getting married. Why should it prevent a gay person, all else being equal? Straight parents can be clinically depressed. Is this automatically grounds for removal of their parenting rights?
Straight parents, on occasion, beat, rape, murder, and otherwise horrifically mistreat and abuse their children. Is the fix for this the abolition of marriage all together or the complete denial of all straight parenting rights? Or do we deal with these issues on a case by case basis as rationality would demand?
quote:mistaben: 3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book). The US Dept of Justice study below found an annual average of 13,740/16,900 homosexual/lesbian victims of domestic violence. (Aside: contrast that to 1,558 victims of sexual orientation hate crimes in 1999. Who's really the principal threat to homosexuals' safety?)
Can you link to the study? This states homosexual/lesbian victims. It says nothing about the perpetrators. Would gay sons beaten by unaccepting fathers count as "homosexual victims of domestic violence"? If a lesbian woman is beated by a straight husband in a former marriage and now lives in bliss with a lesbian partner, how might she answer the question "Have you ever been a victim of domestic abuse?" Would her response count in the above study? In other words, what indication do you have that the above numbers apply strictly to incidents of domestic violence under homosexual heads-of-household? If they don't, then the statistic is meaningless to the discussion at hand.
Oh, and I must say that last sentence is particularly sly and pernicious. When a gay man is beaten, tied to a fence post, and left to die it's useful to know that the perpetrators weren't the principle threat to his safety, isn't it? Hell, they probably even saved him from being beaten when he got back home. Statistically speaking, of course. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The distinction between banning something and not recognizing it is not mere semantics. People go to jail because of the distinction. If the police started arresting gay wedding parties, then gay advocates would admit the difference.
Here's the disconnect. We're not so much arguing the "banning" as the "something". You're saying that gay private social arrangements aren't banned. We're saying that gay civil-marriage ceremonies are banned, de facto, in several states whether the wording is spelled "b-a-n-n-e-d" or not.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many states certainly would arrest someone who kept claiming the civil benefits of marriage for a homosexual relationship (listing them on the tax form as a spouse, say).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with bringing statistics into this argument is that both sides have had their time to froth over the results of already pointed studies.
So, I don't trust 'em.
I don't believe that homosexual marriage will be 'good' for children as a whole, but that's because I don't believe that homosexual marriage is a 'good' step for society to take. It's not based on findings or statistics, and I'm not going to lie to myself, or massage my viewpoint by trying to mold 'facts' into pretty little data points.
I believe that individual homosexuals can be as effective parents as heterosexuals (this isn't QUITE true; the gender modeling bothers me a bit, but I think it can be overcome, like many parenting issues, with love and attention). I don't think that homosexuals with children are more prone to sexually abusing them. I think that, as individuals, most of them would try to raise pretty good kids, just like the rest of humanity.
What it boils down to, is religion. Let's get past all the faux-statistics and pretend-datum-- that's what the homosexual movement is up against. Until the movement can recognize that (and that's one of the reasons I insist that this is not a battle that will be won with logic) and find a way to interact WITH the religious point of view, the two sides will continue to hammer at each other until legislation/court action forces a new balance.
The onus is on the homosexual community, because in the popular culture's mind, God doesn't change. He said don't, and he meant don't EVER. The homosexual movement has started making inroads into religion-- the Episcopalians, for example, and I believe the UMC, both allow active homosexuals to be pastors. I don't know how those particular pastors get through the declarations in Leviticus and Paul's haranguing on the subject, much less through almost 2000 years of Christian commentary on it, but I'm not one of their parsonage. (This is assuming a belief in the veracity of the Bible, and a belief in an unchanging God-- and anyway, I'm rambling. . .)
So maybe I'm wrong-- maybe this is something that can be gently worked into society.
From time to time, I speculate on what would it mean if Mormonism (my religion) came up with a way to validate homosexual couples in the context of the Plan of Salvation. How would we justify it? Because so much of our religion is tied up in the biologically natural way to produce families, what would have to change to admit a pairing that can produce no biological children? (Speaking here of the ETERNAL capacity to produce spirit children, which we've been told can only be done by a male/female pairing). Additionally, the prophets have asserted several times recently that gender is eternal-- meaning that if you are a guy now, you've always BEEN a guy, you'll always BE a guy. We don't have the luxury (though with imagination, there's some squeak room there) to say, "Oh, I'm a female in a male body, that's why I'm gay." (Androgynous people-- yeah, not sure how we deal with that one from a doctrinal point of view).
Is it right to deny someone common priveledges (marriage being a priveledge, not a right) because of religious concerns? Well, from a legal standpoint, no, I don't think so. BUT here's the kicker-- for me, legalizing homosexual marriages is comparable to putting a cultural stamp of approval on pre-marital sex.
And I can't do it.
That's enough rambling for one day. You'll please note that I have not said that homosexuals cannot love eachother, or are just out for a piece, or any other silliness. I've merely compared MY internal feelings on the two subjects. And I fear that I may have exposed too much-- I'm going to go back to being apathetic now.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: legalizing homosexual marriages is comparable to putting a cultural stamp of approval on pre-marital sex
Wouldn't it suddenly and dramatically reduce the amount of pre-marital sex actually happening? Besides, Mormons already make a distinction between "real" temple marriages and all the other kinds of marriage, so you may as well say that any non-temple marriage is comparable to the cultural approval of pre-marital sex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, in a convoluted, techncial way, but that's not really what I'm concerned with.
EDIT: You edit, so I'm forced to edit.
Tom, I DO NOT feel that homosexual relationships are like pre-marital sexual relationships; I said, or tried to say, that APPROVING them would be the same as if I (personal, intimate 'I') approved of pre-marital sex.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not married. Is all of the sex I've had "pre-marital?" What if I never marry (including, if your beliefs are true, in the afterlife)? Was it still all "pre-marital?"
Is it "pre-marital" sex you oppose, Scott? Or is it all "non-marital" sex?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott brought out something I'd been thinking about but wasn't going to post on, but now I think I will.
The reason the gay marriage debate is so contentious (IMO) is because "marriage" is a social construct. It is what we say it is. I don't hold with traditionalists who claim some sort of de facto truth about what marriage is on a societal level. Marriage is just what society as a whole agrees for it to be.
Which is why it's not about logic, and it's not about rights, and it's not about the children. These are all convenient talking points, but in the end it's about society recognizing the union of two (or more, in some countries) individuals. And when a society I'm part of recognizes the validity of the union, it means on some level I personally recognize the validity of the union. So we fight for our viewpoints, because otherwise we'll be forced to say something (vicariously) that we don't agree with, and we all want to be honest with ourselves and not be forced to say something we don't mean.
This made more sense before I started writing it. Reading it now, it all seems sort of self-evident. Mostly I was just proud of making the "marriage is a social construct" link in my mind. It really cleared up for me a lot of the conflicting emotions I had regarding it.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: APPROVING them would be the same as if I (personal, intimate 'I') approved of pre-marital sex.
But why? Surely my marriage is no more legitimate in the eyes of a Mormon God than KarlEd's hypothetical marriage might someday be. And if you're not particularly bothered by cultural acceptance of my marriage, why might you be bothered by his?
Or, heck, consider Slash and his wife, who're quite determinedly childless and definitely not LDS. Their marriage doesn't meet many of the Mormon requirements for marriage, really -- so why is theirs a real one?
If you're uncomfortable with approving of homosexual marriages because they don't fulfill Mormon requirements for marriage, why aren't you as uncomfortable with the literally millions of marriages out there that don't?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Surely my marriage is no more legitimate in the eyes of a Mormon God than KarlEd's hypothetical marriage might someday be. And if you're not particularly bothered by cultural acceptance of my marriage, why might you be bothered by his?<<
Consider, Tom, the work we do for our ancestors in the Temples. Our non-Mormon ancestors are married by proxy for time and all eternity, the same way living, worthy Mormons are.
So, obviously, the Mormon god does give weight to non-mormon heterosexual marriages.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couldn't you just as easily seal homosexual marriages, assuming you really cared? If proxy sealing is possible -- if people's marriages can be turned into Mormon marriages after their deaths and without their living knowledge -- then I can only assume that divine legitimacy is a transferable value.
Edit: the only way this would NOT work, as I see it, would be if the legitimacy is contingent upon heterosexuality, divine grace being largely irrelevant to the function of gender. But if that's the case, then homosexual "marriages" are ultimately completely irrelevant -- as in "have nothing in common with, and do not intersect" -- divine marriage, and therefore divine marriage isn't even a part of the same conversation.
posted
>>Couldn't you just as easily seal homosexual marriages, assuming you really cared?
Sure, if there were a revelation saying we could. That's what my whole point was with this statement:
quote: I speculate on what would it mean if Mormonism (my religion) came up with a way to validate homosexual couples in the context of the Plan of Salvation.
By the way, are you assuming *I* don't care?
EDIT: If you think my 'apathy' is anything but a front. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Our non-Mormon ancestors are married by proxy for time and all eternity, the same way living, worthy Mormons are."
Don't you mean given the option to be married by proxy? 'Cause as I understand it, that's the reason relatives of people who have chosen other religions aren't supposed to be offended by the whole baptism by proxy thing, because the soul has the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinance, when it is offered.
I don't mean this as an attack on Mormons or a complete derail of the thread, I'd just like a little clarification, please. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, But when you read the Bible the right way, it clearly shows that LDS have religion all wrong and are in fact leading people away from God based on their perversion of his teachings. It might not be legally okay to ban them from prostelytizing just because my religion teaches that they are bad for doing so, but to me allowing them to do so is conferring social approval on Mormonism, which I just can't do. So we need to ban them.
---
No one (or at least very few people) actually believes in the principle that it's ok to legislate based on religious prejudices. What they believe is that it's ok to do it based on their religious prejudices. Because, you know, when they impose their religion on others, they're right, not like when others wrongly impose a false religion on them.
This is not just an isolated fight over one issue. It's part of a confrontation with people bent on imposing their religion on other people. And the large bulk of these people really don't like the LDS. If they actually came into relatively unchecked power, at the very least they'd ban you from prostelytizing. But you'll be all right because many of the same people who are pushing against their ability to enforce their prejudice against gay right are and will fight against their religious prejudice when it's applied to you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky: What's the difference between your slippery slope and some of the others that have been presented in this thread? Look, I've been PAID to write science-fiction-- you think I don't know a blatant conjecture when I see one?
Let's deal with things as they are RIGHT NOW, hmm? There are enough uncomfortable moral implications in my attitude NOW, you don't have to look for what MAY happen.
quote:I'm not married. Is all of the sex I've had "pre-marital?" What if I never marry (including, if your beliefs are true, in the afterlife)? Was it still all "pre-marital?"
Is it "pre-marital" sex you oppose, Scott? Or is it all "non-marital" sex?
Let's cut through all the semantics, and just say I object to all sexual relations that don't take place between a husband and wife who love each other.
EDIT: Speaking of convoluted, that last paragraph is a doozy.
I object to all sexual relationships outside of a loving marriage (EDIT 2) between a man and a woman.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Maybe that mine isn't a slippery slope? It's an argument on reality and principle.
For one thing, there have been laws against Mormons prostelytizing both on the books and proposed. And they were opposed by groups like the ALCU who actually support Freedom of Religion as opposed to Freedom of My Religion.
Secondly, I was pointing out the inherent hypocrasy in thinking it's okay for you to impose your religious prejudices on other people while at the same time valuing the prevention of other people imposing their equally valid religious prejudices against you.
Standing up for a right or a principle is often not an easy thing to do. When you are for Freedom of Speech, it means you have to support a lot of people saying thing that you really don't agrree with. But we do this, in large part because we need to fight these fights in order to preserve these rights for everyone, especially ourselves. In this case, you don't like what what Freedom of Religion would dictate, so you abandon it. But I've little doubt that, if the bulk of people on your side of the gay marriage issue followed throuh on thier inclinations of discriminating against LDS, you'd scream bloodly murder and wrap yourself in the mantle of Religious Freedom to do so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
My view, which may or may not be similar to Scott's, is that the proponents of gay marriage are just as surely trying to impose their morality on me as vice versa. I don't approve of same-sex unions, yet you would impose on me the requirement to recognize them based off of your morality. Just because your morality is not (necessarily) religiously derived doesn't make it any less of an imposition.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I appreciate your frank and open post. I hope you don't feel that you have exposed too much, and especially I hope you never feel that way from me.
I understand and appreciate where you are coming from in your post. Where I disagree is that "the onus is on the homosexual community". What you appear to have essentially said is "We religious have the divine stamp of approval on our view and that will not (cannot?) change. Those of us who have changed are rationalizing their departure from God's will. The onus is on the homosexual community to meet us on our terms." (This may not be what you intended, but it is how that part of your post parses to me. Feel free to correct me.) Do you not see how that attitude sours dialog? Do you really believe that it's up to the homosexual community to make all the concessions? If so, isn't it also a legitimate response to say, "forget the feelings of the fundamentalists, we'll see you in court." which is pretty much the state we're in today?
Here's what I see is going to happen. Society is going to become more and more accepting of diversity of sexual life-styles. Many long held traditions will fade as new traditions take hold. Society will increasingly recognize the gay community as a partner in the progress and stability of the whole. From a legal standpoint, out-dated and unnecessary restrictions on marriage and adoption will go the way of laws forbidding work on Sunday as society distills what is necessary to social stability and what is merely blind adherence to the status quo. I'm an optimist. I firmly believe this will happen. I think I have the example of history on my side.
I think what will happen is that those religions who feel the onus is on both parties to build a free society where all men can pursue happiness equally will continue to be a vital part of American life. Those that feel the onus is entirely on the homosexuals to make the effort will find themselves increasingly taking a position hostile toward homosexuals and their more tolerant neighbors and eventually against society at large.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, But you would be wrong. This is not a matter of imposing morality, but rather one of upholding rights. Recognizing that it wrong to ban someone from speaking does not confer support onto what he is saying. Recognizing that personal and religious prejudice were not valid reasons for barring interracial marriages did not carry punishments for the people who held these views, nor did it infringe on their rights.
The two sides "We should be able to impose our religion on others." and "Using the government to impose your religion on others is not permissable." are not equivilent. You may as well say that the government is imposing it's morals on the Baptists when it prevents them from banning the LDS from prostelytizing.
You are free to believe whatever morality you want. However, when you use that morality to deny other people equal rights and protection under the law, you are in the wrong.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
My view, which may or may not be similar to Scott's, is that the proponents of gay marriage are just as surely trying to impose their morality on me as vice versa. I don't approve of same-sex unions, yet you would impose on me the requirement to recognize them based off of your morality. Just because your morality is not (necessarily) religiously derived doesn't make it any less of an imposition.
Is there any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality? The real battle here is whether the US is a "Christian" nation or a secular one. I vote secular and think that our laws should reflect secularly derived morality. In a society made up of hundreds of differing moral codes I don't think it is unreasonable to require more than "my interpretation of my God's commandments forbid this choice" before adding an idea to the common secular morality.
Repeated attempts to find secular reasons for prohibiting SSM have proved almost non-existent.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
1) the UMC does not allow "self avowed practicing homosexuals" to be ordained. The UCC, however, does. Some American Baptist churches do too, they get away with it on the "congregational autonomy" principle.
2) A parsonage is a house (owned by the church) where a pastor lives. While I agree that you are not one, you probably meant parishioner. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Again, I feel you're getting very contentious, which as I said is possibly inevitable in this conversation (although Scott and Karl are doing an admirable job of avoiding it).
I said in an earlier post that I don't believe the debate is about rights, or children, or any of these other points. The argument is over social approval of the union. And in that framework I see this as two competing moralities, each trying to "impose" a definition of marriage on the other.
And, as a final note, you should work on disagreeing without being disagree-able (as should I, probably). The opening statement of your reply seems to me quite rude.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe that mine isn't a slippery slope? It's an argument on reality and principle.
quote:If they actually came into relatively unchecked power, at the very least they'd ban you from prostelytizing. But you'll be all right because many of the same people who are pushing against their ability to enforce their prejudice against gay right are and will fight against their religious prejudice when it's applied to you.
I think I read a similar story somewhere... Oh, yes, last month's Asimov's.
So. . . 'It's not a slippery slope 'cuz *I* said it.'
quote: I was pointing out the inherent hypocracy in thinking it's okay for you to impose your religious prejudices on other people while at the same time valuing the prevention of other peopel imposing their equally valid religious prejudices against you.
I'm well aware of how my POV may be viewed as hypocrisy. I know that many people feel the way that you do, Squicky. And I'm not particularly bothered by your opinion. From your point of view, it's a valid one.
But not in mine.
quote:What about sexual relations between a husband and a wife who's not really all that into him?
I think the deliberateness with which I crafted the wording of my opinion kind of answers this question for itself.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality? The real battle here is whether the US is a "Christian" nation or a secular one. I vote secular and think that our laws should reflect secularly derived morality. In a society made up of hundreds of differing moral codes I don't think it is unreasonable to require more than "my interpretation of my God's commandments forbid this choice" before adding an idea to the common secular morality.
No, I don't think there is any law that isn't at heart the imposition of a particular morality. Whether it's yours, mine, or ours, it's all about "imposing" a morality on a general populace.
However, I think the law base should not derive from a strictly secular moral code, but should reflect the diversity of moralities, as society is made up of the diversity of its citizens. I have no problem with a battle over gay marriage, and when it is eventually won by proponents (I'm a pessimist) I will certainly submit to that view. I have no problem with losing, I have a problem with people saying I'm wrong in basing my political beliefs off of my personal morality code just because it's religious.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, I'd be fine with your definition of the debate if it were in fact on the social approval of the union. But it's not. It is first and foremost an arguement over laws and rights. From what I can tell you (and Scott) are saying that we should deny them equal status under the law. Or am I wrong and you are against banning gay marriage but still feel that it's morally wrong?
I (and, as far as I can tell, most other gay marriage proponents) are fine with the latter position. In fact, I support your unconstrained expression of what you believe and your attempts to convince other people of it. In terms of social approval, I'm all about the marketplace of ideas. But, in the area of laws and such, I don't find "Because my god said so" a legitimate basis for an argument.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I've little doubt that, if the bulk of people on your side of the gay marriage issue followed throuh on thier inclinations of discriminating against LDS, you'd scream bloodly murder and wrap yourself in the mantle of Religious Freedom to do so.
Pfft, goes to show what you know. When Mormons get persecuted for REALS, we don't scream bloody murder; we leave.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the deliberateness with which I crafted the wording of my opinion kind of answers this question for itself.
I thought that's what you were saying, but I wasn't sure. You're definitely on the side of "love before marriage," then?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm well aware of how my POV may be viewed as hypocrisy. I know that many people feel the way that you do, Squicky. And I'm not particularly bothered by your opinion. From your point of view, it's a valid one.
But not in mine.
I'd be interested in knowing how you resolve this apparent contradiction then. Could you explain?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's only a contradiction to you. I recognize that you view it as such, but do not feel that you are correct.
>>You're definitely on the side of "love before marriage," then?
Why do I feel like I'm walking into a trap, here?
I think this is pretty standard, isn't it? Am I walking around with virtual dog poo on my shoes or something?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I get that you don't see it as a contradiction. That's what I'm asking you to explain. From my perspective, it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me." which I think is pretty clearly hypocritical. I'm asking how it is that you see the situation such that this hypocrisy doesn't exist.
posted
>>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Frighteningly, I understand that point of view. I just don't believe that it is possible to objectively arrive at that conclusion. That's why I believe God as most people envision him does not exist. That or he is the ultimate sadist. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I think society should seek to maintain an objective morality. People should be left free to follow whatever "higher morality" they feel is true (within certain obvious limitations) but they should have no power to force it upon others.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
As I believe mine is. I'm no pluralist either, Scott, but does your religion require you to try and enforce your religion on the citizens of a nation in which people are not supposed to be subject to the whims of this religion or that?
I'm against same-sex marriage in Judaism. Strongly. Not that it matters, because even if I thought it was a good idea, God disagrees, and that's never going to change.
But then, I'm also against idolatry, and an awful lot of variant forms of Christianity definitely qualify as idolatry according to my religion.
And Catholics. They hold that divorce is forbidden, right?
So... should they be campaigning to make divorce unrecognized by the state (if not outright forbidden by law) and people who remarry prosecutable under bigamy statures? Should I be out there trying to stone Christians for bowing down before what I see as an idol and blaspheming?
Or is it possible in your religion to say that you hold something to be objectively wrong, but recognize that living in a country that has as one of its primary principles the idea that no one should be subject to the dictates of the religious views of others means refraining from attempts to force your religious views on others?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
