quote:We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state.
Still confederate, Alcon.
:THORNY ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I can either go up and try to talk him out of drinking the drink, do nothing that affects the situation, or go up and encourage him to take the drink.
Only one of those actions is moral, IMO.
The problem with your analogy isn't the comparison. Analogies almost always use things that aren't intended to be compared as such.
My problem is that you're comparing trying to talk someone out of something with using the power of government to force your view on others.
:BETTER ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I walk over and take the drink away, despite his protests, and tell him, "You don't get to decide. I know better than you."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
When the vote actively harms people, it's not like making a decision based on a person's looks.
Families torn apart. People denied the right to grieve for spouses. Children ripped away from their parents. Institutionalized discrimination.
None of that is legitimized by religious prohibitions of sexual acts.
Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I walk over and take the drink away, despite his protests, and tell him, "You don't get to decide. I know better than you."
Actually, it would be an even better analogy if the person was not your friend, or anyone you even knew (making it absolutely none of your business whether he drinks or not). Furthermore, the person disagrees with you that he was an alcoholic.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I'm about as big an opponent to SSM as we have around here, and I would never go after anybody for being Jewish, even if I knew I could get away with it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
Interesting choice of words: "Pretending," "made up...."
Whether or not you believe what I say is your choice. But if this discussion is to have any merit at all, we have to accept that the people on the other side of the argument do not have any hidden agendas in the things they say: that they actually believe what they say they believe.
Even when we DON'T believe what they say they believe.
I'm not pretending; I'm not making this up. I believe in what I say enough to stand up for it on a forum full of highly intelligent, highly articulate people who disagree with me.
We can call eachother's ideas stupid; we can poke holes in one another's philosophies. But let's not call eachother liars, okay?
quote:And that Scott is the kinda attitude that led to the creation of the United States. The kinda attitude that made the founding fathers write separation of church and state into law.
Because when people start trying to legislate their religious beliefs like this it can only lead to very very bad stuff.
Mmm... I disagree.
But whether obedience to God's commands leads to bad stuff or not, it's still imperative that those who know those commands obey them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
The stupid analogy was about my feelings about voting/not voting for something that was wrong. I could have used the same analogy for voting against/ not voting at all for legalizing marijuana...
Heck, PROponents of same sex marriage could use the analogy to show why it's imperative people get out and actively stump for legitimization.
quote:Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
Interesting choice of words: "Pretending," "made up...."
Whether or not you believe what I say is your choice. But if this discussion is to have any merit at all, we have to accept that the people on the other side of the argument do not have any hidden agendas in the things they say: that they actually believe what they say they believe.
I don't think you are pretending in your beliefs any more than I think the judge in the quote was pretending.
I think you are both sincere in belief in the need to legislate religious morality. He may have been a great guy, who was morally and ethically exceptional in every way (according to his belief system anyway). I'm sure he was deeply religious.
I also think the judge in the quote is arrogant, that his beliefs are disgusting, and that him and those who thought like him did much harm to the world and that their beliefs advanced bigotry and oppression. I further believe that the majority of folks reading the quote would think similarly to how I do toward him.
I don't think history will look at those who oppose homosexual marriage for religious reasons any more kindly as those who opposed interracial marriage for their religious reasons.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I've heard this warning a couple of times on this forum (usually in regards to Mormons, first time for Jews). It boils down to 'watch out or you're next' fear mongering. It's insulting-it presumes that the person somehow wouldn't vote their convictions out of fear of what might happen to them.
Edit: Oooo, while I was typing the 'your grandchildren will think of you as a bigot' was thrown out there too. Fun.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
I'm sorry Scott, I wasn't trying to attack your analogy as being representative of your views on homosexuality.
Lisa attempted to make the analogy more fitting towards the homosexual marriage situation. I saw a way to make it more fitting to this situation than her alteration (in my opinion of course).
I wasn't trying to use my extension of the analogy to attack your use of it, and I apologize if that appeared to be the case.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think history will look at those who oppose homosexual marriage for religious reasons any more kindly as those who opposed interracial marriage for their religious reasons.
I think that worrying how history views our beliefs is a poor way to go about living the present.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I'm about as big an opponent to SSM as we have around here, and I would never go after anybody for being Jewish, even if I knew I could get away with it.
I'm glad to hear that, Porter. I'm sorry, though, but Rivka and I come from a culture that should know better than to trust in the voluntary forbearance of individuals.
There'll always be individual exceptions. Christian supremicism in the US is growing, however, and I don't think they all have the same scruples that you do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
I think rivka is completely correct here.
I'm not sure why so many Christians think legally banning gay marriage is something Christ would want, though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
The stupid analogy was about my feelings about voting/not voting for something that was wrong. I could have used the same analogy for voting against/ not voting at all for legalizing marijuana...
Heck, PROponents of same sex marriage could use the analogy to show why it's imperative people get out and actively stump for legitimization.
Geez.
I know that, Scott. But you were comparing persuasion and coercion, and I thought the point needed to be made that they are not comparable.
When you vote for a law, you're voting to force a view on people. It's not even in the same ballpark as trying to reason with a friend.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I've heard this warning a couple of times on this forum (usually in regards to Mormons, first time for Jews). It boils down to 'watch out or you're next' fear mongering. It's insulting-it presumes that the person somehow wouldn't vote their convictions out of fear of what might happen to them.
That's not what it presumes at all. I think that all Jews are absolutely obligated to keep kosher, observe Shabbat, etc. I am absolutely convinced of this, at least as much as Porter or Scott or you are convinced that SSM is a bad thing.
I'm entitled to that view, just as y'all are entitled to your view of SSM.
But no, I would not vote for a law requiring Jews to keep kosher. I'd vote against such a law. And I wouldn't do so merely because of a personal fear that I could be next. I'd do so because of a philosophic point of view that says that I don't have a privileged position in this society. No one does. And no one is entitled to force such views on others. Persuade, yes. Argue, yes. Force, no. And law = force.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with Scott voting his opinoin. I have a problem with civil rights issues being put to popular vote in the first place.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Lisa attempted to make the analogy more fitting towards the homosexual marriage situation. I saw a way to make it more fitting to this situation than her alteration (in my opinion of course).
quote:The only argument for banning gay marrige is that "it's against God's will". That is voting religion into law.
Those who think this is the only argument will never change the minds of the many people whose reason is not solely "gay marriage is against God's will." For one, most people who think gay marriage is against God's will also think that there are reasons for God's will being what it is.
quote:Rivka and I come from a culture that should know better than to trust in the voluntary forbearance of individuals.
But your standards still rely on the voluntary forbearance of individuals. It's somethink akin to: "People should voluntarily forbear from working to enact laws based solely on religious beliefs."
There is, quite simply, no way to stop something from becoming the law of the land if enough people want it. Even constitutional interpretations that strike down laws can be overriden if enough people care enough.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you were comparing persuasion and coercion, and I thought the point needed to be made that they are not comparable.
No. I was using the analogy to show that NOT ACTING against something I find objectionable would be as morally reprehensible, for me, as ACTING TO PROMOTE something I find objectionable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no, I would not vote for a law requiring Jews to keep kosher. I'd vote against such a law. And I wouldn't do so merely because of a personal fear that I could be next. I'd do so because of a philosophic point of view that says that I don't have a privileged position in this society.
Take as a given that Scott and MPH view other acts than gay marriage as being against God's will but do not want to pass laws forbidding those laws.
Your task, if you wish to be an effective persuader, is to identify what distinguishes gay marriage from those other behaviors in their minds. The only way to do this is to attempt to truly understand their view, with such understanding as an end in itself - not as an step along the way to changing their mind.
It's a shame that the history on this board of treatment of those with their views - treatment I have not seen repeated yet on this thread, I'm happy to say - has made most people with those views unwilling to share them here in depth. Because it is a rare opportunity to exchange such understanding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is that different than saying, "When we've made similar decisions, we've been wrong. It will probably turn out that we are wrong now?"
I don't believe I've ever, personally, been wrong about something like this.
Worrying about what the future will say about us and our views is fairly futile. Today is the day we should be worried about.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Take as a given that Scott and MPH view other acts than gay marriage as being against God's will but do not want to pass laws forbidding those laws.
Don't forget me.
I still agree with everything Scott has said in this thread. And it's great, I don't even have to come up with my own responses. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perfect example. rivka, would you favor a law, here in America, that forced Jews to keep kosher? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I don't want to presume.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Interesting. There was a discussion on this board some time ago where it was said that the reader of Ender's Game had the right to assert that Ender was female, even against the author's explicit statements.
I can't remember on which side of that discussion you fell on, starLisa. But now that I've stated plainly why I said what I said, AND that it was NOT about coercion, or persuasion, you STILL disagree with me about what I meant?
Fine. I think you're a purple rock gibbon, with pretty pink shoes and a lovely red parasol.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your task, if you wish to be an effective persuader, is to identify what distinguishes gay marriage from those other behaviors in their minds.
That's only true if it's us they are trying to persuade, and not the audience.
If third parties are the true target, then mischaracterizing our views and motives can actually be very effective.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religious people who are against gay marriage almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from legalizing gay marriage. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
Honest question, not a snarky one. This is getting to the question that most puzzles me. There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That post actually does help understand why you feel the way you do, Scott [Edit: Sorry, it wasn't Scott!].
From your set of beliefs, you are acting in a completely logical and moral manner. If I shared your beliefs, I'd likely act the same.
Unfortunately, that sentiment, and the actions that follow from it, I think are a good demonstration with why religion can be a dangerous thing.
I haven't been following the "what's wrong with religion thread" for a while, but this to me is a great example [Edit2: Not with what is wrong with religion, necessarily but one way in which religious thought can be dangerous].
Perhaps you'll see why I think this way if you let me do some substitution:
quote:Religious people who are against [letting women not be completely covered in public] almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from [letting women not be completely covered in public]. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
You could insert [not executing those who deny Allah] or just about anything else into the brackets, and I think the statement is not changed one bit.
The exact same thought process for your religious legislation is true for all religious legislation, and I think it is all dangerous and downright terrifying.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
In that case, aren't you complicit with those Jews who don't keep kosher? Or "confederate" with them, to use Scott's terminology?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Interesting. There was a discussion on this board some time ago where it was said that the reader of Ender's Game had the right to assert that Ender was female, even against the author's explicit statements.
I can't remember on which side of that discussion you fell on, starLisa. But now that I've stated plainly why I said what I said, AND that it was NOT about coercion, or persuasion, you STILL disagree with me about what I meant?
Fine. I think you're a purple rock gibbon, with pretty pink shoes and a lovely red parasol.
That's silly, Scott. It is a fact that the example you gave was one of persuasion. Do you claim that it was not?
And it is a fact that using the power of law to deny people like me the right to marry is not a matter of persuasion, but of coercion. Do you claim otherwise?
If you disagree with either one of those facts, I'm open to hearing why. If you agree with them both, then why can't you just say, "Good point, Lisa. The analogy was faulty."
Whether you intended to compare two things that can't be compared isn't at issue. But you can only claim that you didn't intend to. If you want to claim that you actually didn't, in the face of what seems to be a clear contradiction, then it behooves you to explain why, and not just continue to assert, "But that's not what I meant."
And the analogy to Ender as a girl is a false one. I'm not arguing with what you claim your intent was. I'm arguing that as a point of fact, you did use a case of persuasion to demonstrate why coercion is okay. And that's not okay.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Which includes a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife.
Rivka, would you support (vote for) a law criminalizing a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife, here in the US?
Note that the same law does not forbid a man from sleeping with a non-married woman, whether he's married or not.
Furthermore, would you, if you're basing this on the Noachide laws, support a law that makes abortion a capital offense for non-Jews? Pikuach nefesh isn't an exception for non-Jews.
How about legalizing lesbian marriage? I mean, the Noachide laws don't forbid anything between two women. And in fact, they don't forbid marriage, or marriage-type relationships between men, either. Just anal sex. And there are no extentions of that law for non-Jews, as there are for Jews.
Since lesbianism is not contrary to the Noachide laws (even if you insist on claiming that it's against Jewish law), would you agree to support a law permitting two women to marry? If not, I'm curious to know why not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Is sexual morality clearly defined?
Yes. Rivka is using a common translation for gilui arayot. But there is a clear definition of the parameters of that set of prohibitions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could insert [not executing those who deny Allah] or just about anything else into the brackets, and I think the statement is not changed one bit.
The exact same thought process for your religious legislation is true for all religious legislation, and I think it is all dangerous and downright terrifying.
And if you remove the references to religion from your rephrased answer, you could still have people justifying their ban in the exact same way.
For example, there are non-religious people who want to ban porn based on how it harms women. Some of their bills have been struck down on first amendment grounds.
Further, your analysis quite simply ignores what it is that makes people choose to not desire legal enforcement of other moral premises arising from their religion.
Almost everyone's analysis of what should be legal or illegal includes an analysis of the harm wrought by the contemplated act, whether the person doing the contemplation is religious or not.
This is especially true when we consider enforcement via denial of benefits, as opposed to coercion (which is why Lisa's reworking of Scott's analogy doesn't quite fit.) rivka's position, at least, distinguishes between these concepts in some way.
We give benefits based on some pretty strange criteria in this country.
Superior medical benefits are available based on age (Medicare is much better than Medicaid, and is not need-based).
People who choose to buy a house get significant tax savings, but only if they choose to finance it via mortgage.
People who buy medical insurance through their employer get to deduct it; people who buy it themselves don't.
People who choose to study in fields other than divinity can receive scholarships to do so (in either Washington or Oregon).
People who make part of their living gambling face a less-lenient tax structure than people who don't.
Here are the people denied access to the civil benefits of marriage:
1.) same sex couples. 2.) people related by blood to a certain degree. 3.) people below a certain age. 4.) people below a certain age who don't have parental consent. 5.) people lacking the ability to form consent (3 & 4 can be considered a subset of this). 6.) people who are already married (WRT their newly desired spouse).
Further, people who do not wish to marry - some of whom choose this for ethical/philosophical/religious reasons - are denied significant benefits that we make available to those who do marry. While this can be viewed as the exercise of a choice to decline the benefits, we still package those benefits together in a rather arbitrary way.
For example, consider two brothers who live together. Unless both share title, they suffer capital gains hits that spouses who don't share title can avoid. If one supports the other (assuming neither is a ward of the other), they pay higher taxes than if one spouse supports the other. They are ineligible for survivorship benefits from Social Security. The list goes on.
We provide these benefits for a reason. To my mind, we can provide them to same sex couples without harming civil marriage's ability to fulfill those reasons, in a way that the other limitations on marriage could not be accomodated. Others disagree.
Still others feel that a set of benefits which is intended to encourage certain behavior - and make no mistake, almost all government benefits are intended to encourage some behavior and discourage others - should not be extended to encourage behavior they don't see as desirable.
The law is rife with benefits denied when the benefits would encourage undesireable behavior - and morality is often a component of what determines desireability.
This is why don't think coercion is the appropriate term here. Marriage laws aren't coercion, but bribery. The fact that some don't want certain kinds of behavior to elicit those bribes isn't novel to this particular issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
...in this thread. If you go over to the OSC side, and look in the Card on Capitalism and Mormons thread, you'll see me be just as passionate about another thing that makes me an evil, authoritarian, patriarchal, bigoted pig-dog.
quote:How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
It depends on what you call 'damaged.' The fact that eight year old girls wear low rider jeans is evidence (to me) of a damaged society; other folks think it's okay to dress little girls up like they're sexually available.
Back on topic:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
To understand my religious objections to same sex marriage (and I know you didn't ask), you have to know:
1) I believe that spirts have a definite gender.
2) Our Heavenly Father has a definite gender (male), and he is married to our Heavenly Mother (female). These are our Heavenly Parents, who created (for lack of a better word) our spirits.
3) Our goal in existence is to become like our Heavenly Parents. Our goal is to learn what we need to learn in this life, return to them, and continue to create spirit children, the same way they do.
4) Our Heavenly Parents are what they are because they honored laws that allowed them to be that way. This is an important and interesting theological difference between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity: God Himself is the fount of all good in our reality, but He does not exactly determine what is right and wrong. This is important in my view -- for example, God cannot make adultery not sinful.
5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
6) Everything that our Heavenly Parents do is to lead their children to the type of marriage and the type of life that will allow us to be like them.
7) When we leave this life, our habits will stay with us; as well as some of our predilictions, character traits, etc. I like how OSC says it in (fudge, can't remember the title now).. basically, "Jesus cured the sick, the lame, the blind. He never cured even one SOB."
8) Homosexuality, for reasons that should be clear now that I've rambled for a while, is in opposition to the plan of our Heavenly Parents. As far as we Mormons know, there is no pair of Heavenly Fathers any where in eternity. As far as *I* know, this is because there is a...law... that prohibits two male spirits from creating spirit children.
9) Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
That about covers my religious objections. I'm sure I've botched something, or not covered some particular area well enough.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which includes a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife.
Rivka, would you support (vote for) a law criminalizing a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife, here in the US?
rivka already stated she doesn't think that there should be a law banning sodomy. So there's something else than merely being part of the Noachide laws that applies here. She has not in this thread advanced the premise that the Noachide Laws should all be enforced by the civil or criminal law, merely that those non-Jews who don't follow them are acting in violation of God's law in a way that a non-Jew "violating" the Sabbath is not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you remove the references to religion from your rephrased answer, you could still have people justifying their ban in the exact same way.
I don't think so, Dag.
Say someone thinks [X] is wrong, because their religion says [X] is wrong. They are opposed to legally letting [X] exist in our society, because [X] would harm society. Why does this person believe [X] is harmful to society? Because their religion says it is wrong!
This person is acting in a logic way, and in a rational way, but based off of irrational* premises.
You cannot remove religion from this without replacing it with another irrational premise.
* As defined by me as: "Not based on reason**." ** Where reason is defined as: "thought based on logic and facts"
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
...in this thread. If you go over to the OSC side, and look in the Card on Capitalism and Mormons thread, you'll see me be just as passionate about another thing that makes me an evil, authoritarian, patriarchal, bigoted pig-dog.
Now really. Did I say that?
quote:How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
It depends on what you call 'damaged.' The fact that eight year old girls wear low rider jeans is evidence (to me) of a damaged society; other folks think it's okay to dress little girls up like they're sexually available.
Back on topic:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible. [/QUOTE]
So would you vote for laws to give benefits to parents who dress their daughter in a way you (and I, BTW) think is undamaging to society? And there was a time (not too long ago - still may be in some places) where stores were, by law, forbidden to be open on Sundays. Having them open does make sin more accessible. Do you vote for those laws?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does this person believe [X] is harmful to society? Because their religion says it is wrong!
This is where you leave the tracks. For example, OSC believes that tolerating open, non-traditional sexual relationships will lead to a breakdown of the organizational effects of marriage. Whether he's right or not, it's not a strictly religious reason.
There's no strictly rational basis in the sense you seem to be using it for banning homosexual marriage. But there's also no strictly rational basis for making a whole host of benefits available to two people who intend to have sex exclusively.
All laws have, at their heart, an irrational premise. There is no way to get from a strictly observationally statement to a moral imperative without some axiomatic premise that cannot be proven.
Let's pick what should be an easy example: murder laws.
Why do we make it illegal to kill another person (in most cases)?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This person is acting in a logic way, and in a rational way, but based off of irrational* premises.
You cannot remove religion from this without replacing it with another irrational premise.
* As defined by me as: "Not based on reason**." ** Where reason is defined as: "thought based on logic and facts"
I absolutely love those definitions, because they allow you to paint anything you disagree with as being based on irrational premises.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:9) Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
I fail to see how society making something legal has anything to do with what you choose to do with your life according to your beliefs. You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
On a broader scale, I don't understand the "society will be/might be harmed" reason that many opponents of same-sex civil unions have. What exactly are you trying to make society into? A secular version of all that is good and Holy? "You don't have to believe in God, but we want you to do what he thinks is right, anyway, because it's for the good of all society"? Do you honestly think that you will halt the downfall of society by banning this? Or do you think that perhaps this will be a start to reversing the process?
I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
quote:Those who think this is the only argument will never change the minds of the many people whose reason is not solely "gay marriage is against God's will." For one, most people who think gay marriage is against God's will also think that there are reasons for God's will being what it is.
Okay, so God has reasons for his will being what it is--but why does it immediately follow that you (general "you" here--I'm not solely speaking to Dagonee or Scott) think he wants you to impose his will on everyone else? There are a lot of rules that God has that have good reasons behind them--in fact, I'd dare suggest that all of his rules have good reasons behind them. God gave everyone free choice to follow his rules or not, and I don't see that any of us have the right to take that away by rule of law. The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
For the record, I do think that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong--but that is based on my religious beliefs. I do not believe I have some God-led duty to force my beliefs on everyone else. It's actually taken me some time to get to that point, as I've been persuaded by other opponents to same-sex marriage and civil unions and their arguments about the damage to society. I still am iffy about same-sex marriage--but civil unions seems like a fine compromise to me. Marriages can move completely to the realm of religion, and civil unions can offer the legal benefits needed to 2 people choosing to spend their lives together--dare I say I don't care if they have a romantic connection or not. There are plenty of convenience marriages around already--and it would be nice if they could turn to civil unions. If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, then maybe you should worry about people who marry who don't really love and care for each other.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
