posted
Belle, the problem I have with your position is two-fold:
1) You STILL want law and civic society to discriminate against homosexual unions. I recognize that this isn't likely to change, but it does mean that I am firmly opposed to your position in this regard.
2) I'm not sure that no-fault divorce is somehow forcing or even encouraging people who would otherwise stay together to get divorced; if anything, on the downside, I think it's encouraging people who would and should otherwise not get married to do so. As it stands, people who want to stay married can ALREADY stay married without requiring a new law to be passed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get it, Belle. Isn't Karl just rewording the method by which you personally would like to codify Christian marriages separately from civil marriages?
And isn't it you who are making the distinction between the more righteous and the less righteous by insisting that the state recognize marriage-by-your-faith as something more binding than a marriage-outside-of-your-faith?
I wouldn't call that sarcasm, I'd call it being coy.
You're complaining that our side of the debate won't throw you a bone. It's like you don't even realize that you already hold all the bones.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:CT, don't we already? Does not the state already punish people by breaking what are religious laws?
Yes, we do. In fact, I just got notice to appear at a Federal Court because I had a bacon-and-swiss-cheese sandwich last Saturday, after turning on the light in my kitchen.
Or are you saying that the state, in punishing people, is breaking religious laws (Such as: "Did you know you were travelling 58 mph in a 30 mph zone? Here, eat this bacon-and-swiss-cheese sandwich")?
And I still don't get why people are so offended by homosexual unions, except that many may find the actual sex acts involved in homosexual relations to be offensive. But, you know, picturing my heterosexual parents having sex is a pretty offensive idea, too. And that's just if I'm picturing it. If you're picturing it, well, you should be ashamed of yourself!
posted
Belle, I think coy is a better word, as Caleb said. Also, that post was not meant to refer to you at all or specifically to your beliefs. You have to realize that so much of the religious attitude, especially when it comes to secular legislation, comes across as very "holier than thou" to those who believe they are being persecuted or denied rights based on someone else's religious beliefs.
Now, please note that I am not equating you with this. But the attitude does exist. I thought that by making the comment in a different post it would be far enough removed from my personal post to you as to not be confused. I admit on re-reading, though that I can see where you might think otherwise, and for that I apologize.
For the record, I do not think you a bigot and I was not trying to attack you, even obliquely. I will admit I was being snide, but not to you.
posted
You know, I can see why Belle's in a hard spot.
Churches have no teeth in our society, so they are unable to enforce moral imperatives upon even their own congregations. Christians are treating marriage just as trivially as anyone else is these days and the nuclear family has become less of necessity for successful living than it used to be. To be fair, most of my friends who grew up in divorceless homes also lived in religious homes. But then so did I, and my home was no stranger to divorce. Our difference is that Belle thinks a permanent man & woman led househould makes better people and, in turn, a better society, whereas I think imposing those limitations as a matter of law makes more religious people and, in turn, a more religious society.
But as Belle is pretty much the first person I've seen to approach this issue from a money-where-our-mouths-are perspective, I'm of the opinion that most American Christians are not willing to sacrifice their own liberties in pursuit of a more moral society. It's a lot easier to sacrifice mine.
<the above is not meant to be vindictive or accusatory in any way; I'm more or less just rambling>
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're right, JK. I hope Belle is not still insulted. If she is, then maybe it will be a learning experience - not that she shouldn't post her ideas, but that she shouldn't take every slight on religion or Christianity as a personal attack. Just as I have to endure all the general comments on the sinfulness of homosexuality she should reasonably expect to have to endure it when some of the less flattering light is cast on something she holds dear and an integral part of herself.
I agree she is in a tough spot. According to the 2000 census, 83% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian. Who do they think is doing all the failed marrying? Who is doing the divorcing? Who is doing the unwed-mothering, and dead-beat dadding? Who is doing the abusive parenting? Well, I imagine about 83% of it is being done by Christians. It seems clear to me that the single biggest threat to marriage and family stability in the United States is Christians themselves.
I can see where her idea could be a help in strengthening marriage for some people. But as an answer to the SSM debate, well, it's still just a game of semantics. I'd be in favor of it because it would give gays the right to marriage. It would then fail its intended purpose (as a compromise to the SSM debate) because if there is any real benefit to a Covenant Marriage as opposed to a regular marriage, it would be even more ludicrously unconstitutional to deny them to gays, who would by then be recognized by the state as valid participants in marriage.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:she shouldn't take every slight on religion or Christianity as a personal attack.
*thinks* I really think there's a difference between the apologetic expression of an opinion and sarcasm. I don't blame her, and I think I don't take everything personally.
When one side does start to get sarcastic or snide or whatever, the discussion is over, if not literally, then content-wise.
posted
In contract law, benefits and burdens are defined solely by the contracting parties. A person entering a covenant marriage is exchanging the burden of greater difficulty in obtaining a divorce for the benefit of making it more difficult for the spouse to obtain a divorce. No matter how others may judge this as a benefit or burden, the parties obviously think it is beneficial. In that respect, denying covenant marriages to SSM would be denying them a benefit, even if 98% of the people choose not to exercise that benefit.
But in response to you, I think sarcasm has a place in civil discourse and one must consider the target of the sarcasm. Along with the central idea of my post above I was including an expression of contempt for the "holier-than-thou" attitude that pervades so much of this debate. Upon re-reading it, I regret the paragraph but mostly because it detracts from the point of the rest of the post.
In no way did I aim this at an individual. Perhaps if Belle is from Louisiana (I honestly don't know) she might think for a second it was pointed at her, but in the context of everything else I posted above you'd think she'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I wasn't. And maybe she has. I don't know because she hasn't posted. Has she withdrawn from the discussion? I don't know. I haven't checked to see if she has posted elsewhere today and have no way of knowing if she's even online.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can it matter anyway, since Belle's purpose as queen of the world was to make the very distinction that Karl "sarcastically" labelled righteous vs. unrighteous?
"Apologetic opinions" are naturally open for scrutiny, since they admit from the outset that they are flawed. Otherwise they would need no apology.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There weren't any citizens of Louisiana in the thread. There was, however, a Hatracker who agreed with them, who was doing her best to explain her position, and who you know is sensitive.
The "When I sneered at the Christians, of course I didn't mean you. Don't take it personally." apology wouldn't work on me, if I were her.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Good night. Are you trying to help or to prove my point?
<retracted in light of explanation>
quote:"Apologetic opinions" are naturally open for scrutiny, since they admit from the outset that they are flawed. Otherwise they would need no apology.
Do you not understand? They are apologetic because the people expressing them know they may hurt, but choose principle instead. Not because they are flawed. And they are not being said with the PURPOSE of hurting.
posted
kat, I don't think John was being snarky with that "queen of the world" comment; specifically, Belle herself said that these were changes she'd make if she WERE queen of the world, and I think John was pointing out that the one change she'd make in that role was of the nature he described.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In that respect, denying covenant marriages to SSM would be denying them a benefit, even if 98% of the people choose not to exercise that benefit.
Yes, but the government denies many benefits to people (benefit to do drugs, benefit to drink and drive, etc.) They can deny the SSM benefit as well, I think, so long as they ban same-sex marriages equally for everyone.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "When I sneered at the Christians, of course I didn't mean you. Don't take it personally." apology wouldn't work on me, if I were her.
And this analogy only works if you are actively trying to find a way to portray my "offense" as inexcusable. A more accurate portrayal of my apology would be "I was sneering at jerks. Not at you."
My remark did not refer to Christians, or even Southerners specifically (which are the only two major groups to whom I know Belle belongs). I only used Louisiana because that is the state with the law in question.
I am sorry that my apology doesn't meet your muster, katharina, but I'm not entirely sure any reasonable one could.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, the scrutiny is not given with the intent to hurt, either. If you scroll back up the first page you'll see that Belle says this is the answer she would come up with if she was "queen of the world". The sensitivity game is a little old, as careful reading of the thread shows that no one is trying to hurt anybody else.
Belle specifically asked for opinions about her proposal. We specifically responded. If you'll reread that first page you'll see that I was even generally supportive of it, too. Let's try not to be offended more than we need to be.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've made it abundantly clear before you posted that I know why she might be offended. And I have chosen to clarify the intent rather than to plead guilty to a presumed offense.
But thank you for taking the opportunity to let me know that you don't care to recognize a reasonable appology. You'd rather vilify me through a false paraphrase.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but the government denies many benefits to people (benefit to do drugs, benefit to drink and drive, etc.) They can deny the SSM benefit as well, I think, so long as they ban same-sex marriages equally for everyone.
My comment was made applying to a hypothetical scenario where SSM are allowed for normal marriages but not covenant marriages. In other words, it presupposes SSM is resolved to some extent.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
