posted
So the value of your marriage depends on the value of others' marriages? I don't hold that view. I think the value of any marriage I enter into will be dependent solely on the love, faithfulness, and respect with which I and my spouse treat each other.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally more intrigued by pooka's argument that entering into marriage is like passing some kind of exclusive test. This would seem to imply that we hold married couples to some kind of standard in this country, but that's clearly not the case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We all must remember that OSC comes from the LDS church which has about the strongest "family values" in the country. I, however, agree with most of his points(except that I think homosexual couples should get some financial compensation).
Note: I haven't read any of the previous posts. I hope my ideas are semi-original
Somehow I think this phenomenon of high rates of homosexuality is a natural occurence due to the high population of humans in the world. When there are few people, as earlier in history was the case, everyone was a generalized contributor to society. You provided almost everything for your family, and had responsibility for the success of the future of your community as the very purpose of your life.
As the population increaes, more food is produced than is consumed per capita. This leads to specialization of jobs. Families don't need to provide everything for themselves. Thus, women shirk their naturally occuring roles as keepers of a stable place we call home and as bearers of children. At least, this can be put off for a longer period of time. Because of this, males have less available females who need a mate and a protector. So the male is left to his own devices as well.
People are so specialized in their jobs today that people don't have to have responsibility except to their own job, if they so choose. Their parents will be put in nursing homes. Their children are put in day care/school so the parents can work. The grocery stores will have all the food they need and more. The hospitals will be there in case anything is wrong with a body. There is a service available for every conceivable need, and this is all because we produce more food than we need for ourselves. Since survival is not the core issue of life anymore, people take for granted that all those people responsible for providing these convenient services will always be there. Everything is now about gaining material wealth or the advancement of human knowledge from here on out.
Since there are so many people and nearly everyone is well cared for, we have no reason to worry about the survival of the human race. Thus, if there is any person who feels homosexual urges, he/she will be more likely to act on these urges. The survival motivation is simply not there in any way. It has been shown that even lower animals such as rats will have an increased tendency towards homosexuality as population density increases. While human sociology is more complicated, it seems these are correlative phenomena. When there is no need to propagate the species, activities which do not promote it are more likely to be followed. So yes, acting on homosexual urges would seem to be a choice, to a large extent. I think it is only genetic to the extent that we can recognize the attractiveness of another of the same sex. This is of course necessary for survival in order to know who our mating rivals are. But in our current situation, maybe people are more likely to act on this recognition in a non-competitive way, as is most often the case.
Anyway, that's enough from me. Have fun!
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, but shouldn't we be, especially in light of the profound effect the strength of marriage has on children?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're willing, as a society, to deny people the freedom to produce and raise offspring unless they meet certain social standards, I see no reason why we couldn't include heterosexuality as one of those standards. Of course, I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall in any debate in which people tried to establish what, exactly, those standards should be.
Can you divorce? Can you be poor? Do you need a certain level of education? Can you be ugly? Fat? Alcoholic? Violent? Criminal? God forbid -- can you be gay? What about Californians? Surely no Californians should be allowed to raise children, for the good of society....
It's absurdist, but you get my point. We have already decided, as a society, that the freedom of the family unit TRUMPS the interest of society in the potential success of that unit, unless clear and present danger can be demonstrated (in which case, presumably, things like Child Services kick in). I'm reluctant to tell a gay couple, "Sorry. These heterosexual people have the right to screw up society all they want, but YOU people can't be trusted to raise a child properly -- unlike Bubba McThumpy and his common-law wife, here, who we've already permitted to raise eight kids in twelve years."
The idea that homosexual marriage would somehow be the "last straw" in such a situation amuses me greatly, as it seems obvious to me that the energies of religious groups would be better spent doing things like making divorce illegal again than addressing an issue which only affects a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
quote:More than eight out of 10 Asian-American children in the United States live with both parents, a rate of two-parent families significantly higher than for any other racial or ethnic group, according to a new Census Bureau study.
I demand that all non-Asian "marriages" be reclassified as civil unions. Non-Asian marriages are less stable than Asian marriages and thus they are a threat to my people's way of life. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ela, that's just how it appears in my neck of the woods. Really conservative elders, somewhat more liberal middle agers, and completely clueless youth who parrot their parents' views.
I just want y'all to know I love Hatrack. I'm really disturbed by the fierce fighting this issue has caused. I don't know why gay marriage is worse than child abuse or trampling freedoms in the name of protecting our country or paving our natural resources until the nation is made of concrete and oil. I wish more Americans would get riled up over those issues.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do I. I wish the right would stop acting like homosexuality is the worse thing in the world. If they could spend this much energy on children... Why can't there be a bill in congress to prevent child abuse? It's sickening really. But it shows society has to change.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn: No one's going out of their way to try to legalize abuse against children, except NAMBLA.
Child abuse is already illegal, last I checked-- no bill necessary.
Now, extra funding for prevention of child abuse. . . that's debatable. And as nearly controversial as bills allowing homosexuality.
From C.S. Lewis:
quote:And [this] is why I cannot give pederasty [homosexuality] anything like a first place among the evils of the Coll. There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? ... The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, niether Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell, but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.
posted
it's not nessasary having a bill to say marriage is between men and women only seems so... superfluous.
unrelated- society would be better if there were more people raising children. Not just 2 parents but a lot of mentors, other relatives and people that are trustworthy to help kind a child. especially with single mothers. instead of criticising them, why not put more support into big brother and big sister programs and other such mentor programs. which reminds me... i need to start volunteering!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I appreciate your posts. I don't envy your position and I think you give your father greater leeway than he deserves (or may even want, for all I know), but I understand your defense of him and I agree that some posts on this thread have been just as out of line and counter-productive to rational debate as his article. I appreciate your words to me, specifically, and I'm humbled to know that my posting here makes any kind of difference. (I'd better watch myself more closely ) (/to Geoff)
I understand that an author will write to a particular audience. Implying that this article wasn't written to me (or to an audience that includes me) doesn't make it any less offensive. It only makes it like walking up behind a friend who is bad-talking you to strangers.
I fully understand where OSC is coming from in terms of his religious beliefs. I know LDS doctrine and the LDS worldview from the inside. The doctrine, I once believed. The worldview, I once held. I did not give any of that up lightly. I understand the frustration OSC must feel, believing what he does and seeing what we can all see of the world today. Even as an agnostic/atheist, I can recognize things in the world that are detrimental to peaceful society. Even as a gay man with no children of my own I can see the precious value of children and the extreme importance of raising them to be responsible, fully functioning, human beings. Also, even as a gay man, I can see many ways I can be a part of the process of raising society's children, maybe even an important part at least to certain individual children.
What I can't see (and I don't think this is due to bias or "being too close to the situation") is any way in which my getting married to the man I love and living in society as a married couple either diminishes any other straight couple's marriage or makes it any harder to raise their children in a healthy way.
What I got from OSC's essay is that he seems to claim [I orginally wrote "believe" but I don't think he really believes this] that most men (or at least enough of them to break a critical societal threshold) only stick with parental responsibility to the degree that they do because they can still claim ownership of a word that homosexuals can't. The problems he sees with the state of marriage today are real, and his fears about the near wholesale lack of responsibility and commitment in relationships are fears I share. And those fears become all the more intense when there are children involved. But this is clearly a situation that has come about not at all because homosexuals want to marry. The current state of marriage in this country is solely the result of straight attitudes towards it. Gays haven't been able to marry for all the years of current American society, yet now, somehow, we are the scapegoat for what will happen to marriage if this changes.
"But let's not make things worse when we don't know what will happen if we mess with the status quo." Well, let's say the radical right wins the battle. Let's say a Constitutional Amendment is passed that lays down the law once and for all that "marriage", by definition, is between a man and a woman only. On that day will we hear the clang of the re-forging of the pillars that support the "traditional" family? Will deadbeat husbands run home to their wives and hug their children because now "marriage" has real meaning? Will children know that because those two odd guys who live in the apartment across the hall are "just roommates", well then it must mean that mommy and daddy really do love each other more?
The current uproar over this issue, including the article by OSC, is the desperate reaction of self-appointed keepers of American Morality who have failed to inspire loyalty to family through love and now must turn to inspiring loyalty through fear. The problems are real, but the target of the fear and despair is the wrong one. It is not only unfair and irrational to blame homosexuals and some conveniently-defined "liberal elite" for the destruction of the family, it is counter productive and could ultimately lead to further weakening of the idea of marriage.
I don't doubt that there are some gay couples rushing to get married in San Francisco because it will make them feel like crusaders. Some might have the idea of a political stand in their heads more than the love for their partner. Some of these marriages might even end in divorce, if they survive the legal challenges, because they were largely built on what will then be a moot political point. It's not inconceivable. That is precisely why I, myself, wouldn't get married there now even if I had the money to fly myself and my partner out there. My love for him is such that I don't want any hint of ulterior motive present in the expression of it. But if (God! how I hope thats "when") the day comes that I can legally marry him, I will honor those who are making the political stand now that will make this possible.
And what do I hope to gain? Well, legal recognition of my relationship with my partner. The elimination of all the extra pitfalls and legal issues and entanglements that I would otherwise have to go through to share fully my life with him that a married couple avoid under the umbrella of "marriage". The added protections of being married. Would I bring a child into this? Who knows. I think I could be a good father. Hell, I think I could be a better mother than the average. And I know that Chris has the qualities that make and outstanding member of society regardless of gender. I know I'm already a better person for his influence. The world will be better and safer if he can transmit those qualities to any child.
But if there are no children? Is the marriage then a sham? Is it more a sham than any childless heterosexual couple? "But they, at least provide role models for a healthy (read "straight") marriage. Won't it harm children to see a gay marriage as a viable alternative? Won't they be taught by example that the whims of their sexual urges are more important than reproducing and raising healthy children?" Well, since when has the fact of heterosexuality been --in and of itself-- a supplier of good role modeling? OSC, your children don't have to watch TV to see examples of disfunction. I was Mormon, once, too. Let me tell you there are plenty of examples of disfunction in the pews next to you. Spend your energies fighting to eliminate that kind of disfunction and you will save marriage for all of us, gay and straight.
[edits for spelling or otherwise explained in context]
You know, not long ago I voted in and American family poll about the 'gay marriage issue' and I was shocked to read that they pulled the poll, because the results were not what hey wanted. *scowl*
I think it's just really hard for people who think they are right to accept that maybe most people don't actually agree with them.
posted
KarlEd, you are awesome. My thoughts exactly. People need to mind and take care of their own fences... That's how you build a good society.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One reason members of the LDS church do not support gay marriage is their beliefs about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman. We believe that no one can fully realize his or her potential, i.e. exaltation, or becoming like God, without being married by the proper authority under the proper circumstances. A man cannot be exalted without his wife to whom he is married for eternity. A woman cannot be exalted without her husband, to whom she is married for eternity. This strong belief in the continuity of the afterlife, and how our time and actions on earth affects it, drives much of the LDS perspective on things.
We also believe that everyone can have this great gift of exaltation. It may not be easy to get to the point where one is ready to be married in this manner, and life is certainly not over afterwards. But those who try to direct their lives toward this end will have the help of God, and ways will be opened for them so that they can accomplish this. We believe that true and lasting happiness comes from following this principle.
The other way around, supporting and condoning marriage any way people want to have it, would be supporting choices and lifestyles that cannot lead to exaltation. They might bring happiness in this life, but not lasting happiness in the life to come. Having the door open to choose a marriage that cannot become an eternal marriage goes against the mission of the church. The church will always puts its efforts into helping people toward eternal marriage in the temple--despite the seeming impossibility of that event in many people's lives.
This does influence how many LDS members respond to this issue, although there hasn't been too much of a religious take in this thread. It's not entirely a religious issue, but I just wanted to add that perspective.
[ February 25, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AfR, is it the position of the Mormon church that all actions which do not lead to the highest levels of heaven should be illegalized, even for non-Mormons?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, my thanks also for your contribution.
Now to meander a bit -- one defense OSC would likely put up for my accusation that he is incorrectly representing the marital practices of the longest lasting civilizations is that while the upper classes practiced such things as polygamy, the majority of the population did not.
I feel that fact is, if anything, a stronger counter to his arguments -- despite having multiple accepted forms of marriage in discriminate populations (sound familiar?) these societies lasted quite long. This is counter to OSC's proposition that having a differing form of marriage (in this case, homosexual. In my historical counterexamples, polygamous w/concubines -- which I would submit is far more different from what we currently have than homosexual marriage would be) results in the undermining of the benefits of the social structure built around monogamous, heterosexual marriages.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, that's a perfectly fine belief to hold. The problem is that lots and lots of other people in this country do not share the same belief, and don't want those who do making decisions on their behalf based on a religion they don't follow.
Doesn't that make sense? My religion taught me that going to doctors and believing in medicine was a waste of time, if not even a little harmful. But do you want me pushing for legislation that prevents you from taking your child to the hospital if she breaks an arm?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... MY marriage, not being exalted, is not equal to theirs in their view. Hmm. I'm actually okay with that. It's the idea that any group can claim ownership of an IDEA that I find disturbing.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Thanks, CT, and I want you to know that I really respect doctors and the good they do for their patients, even if I'm not usually one of them.)
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Understood, AFR. And that is why I am no longer Mormon. I do not seek to change what the LDS church is. I do not ask it to accept me or to change its ways to include me. Time will tell if the LDS church will stand against the changes in society and whether it will change itself, flourish unchanged, or fade into irrelevance. I don't really care which. What I do care about is being forced toward someone else's idea of salvation.
Tell me where the cliff is all you want, but let me make up my own mind whether it's really the danger you believe it is. I absolve you of any responsibility for my soul.
posted
(Ayelar, I was responding as a Hatracker, not a physician. That part didn't even occur to me, oddly. But I thought your analogy was very helpful, and I respect you as always. Well-thought and well-stated.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay-- I don't think anyone's arguing whether or not homosexuals have a right to petition for equal rights.
I think we all understand that everyone has a right to try and influence the government, Mormons included, for whatever purpose they have in mind, for whatever reason they want to list.
posted
Certainly. For what purpose do Mormons intend to force their religious views on the rest of us, exactly, though?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Thank you OSC for your concern and your desire to save my soul and that of everyone in the US.
However, I do not believe it is neccesary, and I find it a bit arrogant that you think it is.
Believing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior is a more basic requirement to saving my soul in most Christian religions (including LDS I believe), but I don't see mass protests that such against Jewish Temples where such proclamations are fround upon.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Believing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior is a more basic requirement to saving my soul in most Christian religions (including LDS I believe),
Dan, that's inflammatory. And wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it's ironic that a group which actually fled the country to escape religious persecution -- imposed "for the good of society," as it was believed then -- has thoroughly rationalized religious persecution for the good of society.
It's not an uncommon tale -- the Puritans basically left England to be free to oppress other people in the way of their choice -- but I can't help wondering when it will occur to society that it's the oppression itself that's the problem, and that people will tend to behave morally when given the opportunity.
It depresses me to think that I'm actually more optimistic about human nature than people who believe that humans were made in the image of a god.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where have I suggested that you can't bring something up?
And, again, let me point out that arguing that people should be free to marry in the way that they wish is NOT exactly equivalent to arguing that people should be free to marry only in the way that you wish. One argument continues to permit those who wish to engage in marriage under their standards and conditions to do so; the other prevents the alternative.
-----
Not to speak for Karl, or anything, but I suspect he WOULD be a better mother than the average; the average mother in this country doesn't necessarily do a stellar job -- particularly if you buy into OSC's argument that most of our moral decline is due to the failure of families to properly raise their children. On the other hand, I don't think anyone here should feel insulted by Karl's observation, unless they think of themselves as a purely average parent.
posted
Oh, we just had this conversation before and coming from our direction, it was illogical and non proportional.
I don't lay claim to being a greater than average parent. I'm just doing my best. I just feel defensive that gay men are dismissive of women's contribution to society. But Karl usually seems really warm and friendly. That's why it kind of shocked me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't get where he was dismissive. His claim that he might be a better parent is, at most, boasting (and probably accurate), it's not putting anyone else down. I'm straight, married, and a father, and I'm a better parent than many mothers I've met. My wife is better with my kids than I am or ever will be. Based solely on what I've read posted by KarlEd, he can babysit for me whenever he likes. This weekend would be good, actually.
Edited to add: no, I wouldn't leave my kids with someone I'd just met. He'd have to go through the interviews, the blood tests, and the deep scan background checks, just like everybody else...
[ February 25, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:AfR, is it the position of the Mormon church that all actions which do not lead to the highest levels of heaven should be illegalized, even for non-Mormons?
Sticky question. It's kind of the way that you put it. If gay marriage were currently legalized, would the church try to change that, or support a change to that effect? I don't know. I doubt the official church stance would be to support gay marriage. It's not that everything that doesn't follow church teachings must be illegalized. That goes contrary to church doctrine. The church exists to lead those who are willing toward lasting happiness and salvation.
quote:afr, that's a perfectly fine belief to hold. The problem is that lots and lots of other people in this country do not share the same belief, and don't want those who do making decisions on their behalf based on a religion they don't follow.
Doesn't that make sense? My religion taught me that going to doctors and believing in medicine was a waste of time, if not even a little harmful. But do you want me pushing for legislation that prevents you from taking your child to the hospital if she breaks an arm?
Again, the people making the decisions on behalf of others aren't doing it as official representatives of their respective churches. And there are plenty of decisions being made on my behalf by people who don't share my religious beliefs. It's going both ways.
I firmly believe in going to the hospital if you break your arm, and would oppose legislation that would prevent it. That's me, as a citizen. You, as a citizen, can push for what you want, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are representing your church when you do it, even if you are acting according to your church's teachings. OSC doesn't officially represent the church any more than I do, and I don't think he's trying to.
quote:So... MY marriage, not being exalted, is not equal to theirs in their view. Hmm. I'm actually okay with that. It's the idea that any group can claim ownership of an IDEA that I find disturbing.
There's no claiming of ownership of the idea. And it's not an exclusive club. And the church views a marriage as something to be continually refined and perfected. Sealed by the proper authority, a marriage can continue past this life and into eternity. But that doesn't make it great or perfect right off the bat. The exaltation part is the couple working together in their marriage toward perfection. Any couple can do that in this life. The LDS view of marriage is that the marriage can last past this life.
quote:Understood, AFR. And that is why I am no longer Mormon. I do not seek to change what the LDS church is. I do not ask it to accept me or to change its ways to include me. Time will tell if the LDS church will stand against the changes in society and whether it will change itself, flourish unchanged, or fade into irrelevance. I don't really care which. What I do care about is being forced toward someone else's idea of salvation.
Tell me where the cliff is all you want, but let me make up my own mind whether it's really the danger you believe it is. I absolve you of any responsibility for my soul.
Karl, I didn't mean any of that to be insulting or demeaning to you. I know it kind of countered your previous post, which I thought was a wonderful post. But I wasn't trying to instruct you or remind you of church doctrine, or heaven forbid show you where the cliff is. There's no forcefulness in it (I hope). I wasn't replying to you personally. It's what I've been thinking about since the thread began.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dog just had a thread about that last week, AfR, though it's not new. Our liberal friends assure us they would never restrict our religious practices.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our liberal friends assure us they would never restrict our religious practices.
As long as those practices don't hurt anyone or infringe on anyone else's rights, why on earth would we want to? (Ye gods, am I a liberal now?)
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, the people making the decisions on behalf of others aren't doing it as official representatives of their respective churches. And there are plenty of decisions being made on my behalf by people who don't share my religious beliefs. It's going both ways.
I firmly believe in going to the hospital if you break your arm, and would oppose legislation that would prevent it. That's me, as a citizen. You, as a citizen, can push for what you want, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are representing your church when you do it, even if you are acting according to your church's teachings. OSC doesn't officially represent the church any more than I do, and I don't think he's trying to.
afr, I agree that none of us can or do claim to officially represent a church. What I was trying to say, though, was that official or not, making decisions for other people based purely on religious beliefs that they don't share is misguided at best.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(pooka: I voted for GWB. I had always considered myself a conservative, but recently the definition of conservative seems to have changed. I suppose I'd call myself a moderate.)
But who said anything about basing decisions solely on religious belief? I haven't. If I think something's a bad idea, like not taking your broken arm to the hospital, I don't need religious belief to tell me so.
Though I'd say my belief system permeates many of my thoughts, actions, and reactions. That's true of everyone, religious or not. Where else do you get meaning but from your notions of how the world works?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general, yes. If an idea loses its validity outside of the context of a religion, how can it have any meaning for someone who doesn't believe in that religion?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are the communities of a Church, Neighborhood, State, and Country. Lets take those for example.
The community of the Church has rules, responsibilities, and an understood code of conduct. Lets say that it encompasses the members of the Church, at the very least when the members are in the Church or doing things for the Church.
The community of the neighborhood has rules, responsibilities, and an understood code of conduct. This is sometimes tangible, in a Neighborhood Contract that households sign, or understood and enforced by local laws. It is composed of the people who live within that community, and those that visit the homes in the community.
The community of the state has laws and obligations. The members are the citizens of the state and visitors to the state.
The community of the country has laws and obligations. The members are the citizens of the US and visitors to the US (though sometimes visitors are held by slightly different laws. Those laws are explicitly stated, however).
------- The concern stated earlier in another thread is that once same-gender marriages were legalized, the social liberals would attempt to "extend" this view to impinge on the sovereignty of their Church. The Church is a private sector, honored by the laws of the country and state to have a certain degree of sovereignty within their community. Certain things are judged unallowable, like murder and child abuse, within the community as they are unallowable within the state and country communities at large. It has been accepted that private institutions that run separate from state and country funding have the ability to discriminate. To choose members by an internal code, to assemble and discuss what they want. These rights will be protected whether or not homosexual marriage is legalized. After all, women gained the right to vote, but a Church can legally exclude women from their parish.
Unfortunately, the problem that some people have is the perception that members of the Church community want their code of conduct to extend to the Country community. Is it wrong to want to extend a code of conduct? In a sense, no.
Lets say there was legislation to equalize women's pay in the workforce by auditing companies in certain ways. How do we define if it's "right" for a male-dominant Church to oppose it? They have a legal right to make their opinion known. But in a way, they're opposing the legal right to equality. They have a moral right under their Church to insist that society would suffer as women don't have the mental capacity to use money effectively. But they are morally wrong to many by insisting that women are lesser than men. So are they allowed to expend money to pursue the arrest of this legislation? I guess so. But when do the courts get to decide whose view is correct or the best for society? What neutral entity decides? And what power should a subset community have on the larger community?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet: I'd say we're promoting marriage at its fullest potential--not just as an idea, but as an institution. Not owning it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun-- The Constitution of our country decides that, and the courts are our method of determining that decision in an as unbiased way as possible.
That is why high on the list of constitutionally mandated rights is the Freedom of Religion. It states, far more than the idea that a church cannot get involved with the state, that the state cannot impinge its opinion on the church.
That is why, allowing Gay Marriages will not lead to demanding gay marriages in your church.
I like your four tiered community description. What I see this fight about is the idea that the acceptance of the gay community has reached high points in three of those levels, and was begining to reach points in many church communities. The decision to ban such marriages was a reaction, not to un-Christian behavior by non-Christians, but a defence of Conservative values with in the churches themselves. In a wonderful feat of informational slight of hand, they have promoted this crusade not as an attempt to bypass liberal/conservative discussion within the church community, but as a Christian v.s. Liberal Heathen argument.
Kath: I apologize if my critique crossed the line into bad form. The idea that legally mandating baptism is equal to legally out-lawing homosexual relationships may seem overly dramatic, and was done with an insensitive abruptness.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) (/to Geoff)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I had always considered myself a conservative, but recently the definition of conservative seems to have changed. I suppose I'd call myself a moderate.)
