quote: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.
Yeah, there is. The benefits of marriage for both the people in it and the surrounding society. Ultimately, you could say that wanting things that are good for people and for society is irrational, but that's several levels removed from the irrationality of a religious or personal prejudice.
quote:Why do we make it illegal to kill another person (in most cases)?
We don't want to get killed and set up society in such a way that "people like me not getting killed" is strongly discouraged.
No, you didn't. I should be clearer when I'm being self-deprecating for Pixiest's (and other libertarians') benefit.
Kind of like, "You can't call me an authoritarian, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy-- HA! I already called MYSELF that!"
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?
The first-- no. I don't give that particular element enough weight to merit social benefits. Should I?
The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm forgetting, are you okay with saying that places like Afghanistan should be able to kill people who, for example, convert away from Islam? I'm not asking if you support such or thing or that you'd work against it, just whether you think this is legitimate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, probably until after we're dead. This situation is different qualitatively compared to the racial civil rights cause 50 years-ago, so I don't suspect public anti-SSM/homosexual opinions to become taboo as quickly as anti-miscegenation/racist opinions.
So, I would have to say that if someone honestly believes that the US will be a worse place because same sex couples could do things like sitting at a bedside in a hospital while their loved one is dying, being able to put their long-time exclusive partner on a health benefits plan, or gain custody of the child they have raised after that child's sole guardian, their partner, dies in a car accident, then . . . ok. I guess vote on that, if your heart and mind are really telling you that's a loving and fair thing to do.
I find withholding basic rights from other people because of their mutually consenting sexual acts morally repugnant.
I do NOT find it morally repugnant to believe that the choice to engage in mutually consenting sexual acts, whether homosexual, extramarital, premarital, or interesting positions etc. are wrong; I have no problem with people writing books about it, or preaching about it. But denying people things like having access to someone they love at death's door? Blegh.
I also cannot imagine worshipping an entity that really wanted that.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Did you honestly think they don't know that?
Assuming you do, why do you think this is a worthwhile response?
quote:I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
Then you will, quite simply, never even be discussing the actual disputed issues with someone who opposes civil gay marriage.
quote:The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
People assert this as the foundational premise for law all the time as if everyone should accept it. It's a fairly controversial premise to which many people - possibly the majority - don't subscribe. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a futile way to convince those who don't share this premise when no attempt is made to convince those that it is a proper premise of the law.
A communist shouldn't use "all property is theft" as a premise when debating a capitalist and a Christian shouldn't use Scriptural passages as premises when debating a non-Christian who gives no credence to Scripture. Rather, these premises should be recognized as a disputed point which should be proven. The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "I should be allowed to enforce my religion on others, but others should not be allowed to do the same to me.", which basically turns things into a might makes right situation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, there is. The benefits of marriage for both the people in it and the surrounding society. Ultimately, you could say that wanting things that are good for people and for society is irrational, but that's several levels removed from the irrationality of a religious or personal prejudice.
And yet still founded on an irrational premise.
quote:We don't want to get killed and set up society in such a way that "people like me not getting killed" is strongly discouraged.
This requires at least one premise. Perhaps "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that I find undesirable," although that's too general to provide any distinguishing power. How about, "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that essentially every one would find undesirable." I won't quibble about the few people who don't find death undesireable. However, this is still an irrational premise. The only thing that allows selecting it over "Society ought to be set up so as to allow the strongest to have whatever they want" is either another irrational premise of equality or an exercise in selecting rules without knowing one's place on the board in advance.
But the premises that support that exercise are equally irrational.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Did you honestly think they don't know that?
Why should I assume he does? The premise of the part I quoted seemed to indicate that he (or perhaps he meant other people) would be influenced by such a law--my reply is "So what?"
quote:Assuming you do, why do you think this is a worthwhile response?
quote:I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
Then you will, quite simply, never even be discussing the actual disputed issues with someone who opposes civil gay marriage.
I wasn't talking about the idea that it isn't because God says so that you oppose Same-Sex marriage but rather the reasons behind it---what I don't buy is that it makes a difference. What I don't buy is that it immediately follows that God wants you to or, separate from what God wants, that you SHOULD impose those reasons on other people. I'm perfectly willing to discuss those issues--but if the only reason is that society will be adversly affected--then how is that? I've yet to hear a compelling argument.
quote:
quote:The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
People assert this as the foundational premise for law all the time as if everyone should accept it. It's a fairly controversial premise to which many people - possibly the majority - don't subscribe. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a futile way to convince those who don't share this premise when no attempt is made to convince those that it is a proper premise of the law.
You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
quote:A communist shouldn't use "all property is theft" as a premise when debating a capitalist and a Christian shouldn't use Scriptural passages as premises when debating a non-Christian who gives no credence to Scripture. Rather, these premises should be recognized as a disputed point which should be proven. The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Okay... I'm not sure what sort of argument I could make that doesn't fall back on my own feelings on the subject. I believe as free people, we should BE free--to do whatever we want whenever we want wherever we want, as long as it doesn't inflict on other people's rights. I do believe in the right to own property and to have a home, and that most of the things that we are free to do can be done there in privacy, since doing them in public would be infringing on other people's rights. How can I prove that? I really have no idea.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people don't believe that, but I was surprised to actually be questioned about it. I am quite aware that there are plenty of people who actually believe in the "good for you" laws. I just... can't respect that attitude.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "I should be allowed to enforce my religion on others, but others should not be allowed to do the same to me.", which basically turns things into a might makes right situation.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "anyone who wants to legislate against an outcome that does not meet a particular chronologically distinct viewpoint about what constitutes 'harm' is a reactionary who wants to shove their religion down our throat."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my understanding it is illegal to kill another person because that person has the right to live, and you killing them infringes on that right. I always understood it to be one of those my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things.
Edit: I guess I am just too slow for this thread.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
Here's one take on the subject of what government and laws are for: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Lisa believes that using coercion (taxes, for example) to "promote the general Welfare" is a an immoral end of government.
The police power of the States is often written as encompassing the ability to enforce morals.
This isn't novel, and it isn't a fringe outlook. The fact that you are so suprised is a little shocking, actually. The fact that you assume people who don't share this premise must be unreasonable is a little sad.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about, "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that essentially every one would find undesirable."
Weren't you party to the many iterations of this discussion before?
I'll counter with the veil of ignorance argument. How do you set up a system when you don't know what place you will take in it? It much like the "I should be allowed to impose my religion on others, but not them on me." hypocracy. If you don't know if you are going to be the oppressor or the oppressed, you don't support oppression.
There is also the fitness/sustainability argument. If we grant the irrational premise that societies that sustain themselves and their citizens are better than those that don't, we have a basis for saying certain legal systems are better than others.
Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
One of the major ones is that it provides a basis for discussion that has more or less universal bases. As porter pointed out, people on both sides of many issues have the benefit of society as their concern. So we can say things like "This will harm society because ...." These statements can be evaluated as to whether they are true or reasonable or whatever. Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my understanding it is illegal to kill another person because that person has the right to live, and you killing them infringes on that right. I always understood it to be one of those my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things.
"My rights end at the tip of your nose type of things" doesn't justify 1) employment discrimination laws, 2) laws banning the cruel treatment of animals, or 3) suicide laws.
Now, I get that people can define harm to allow this premise to support #1, can create more limited rights based on ability to feel pain to justify #2, and either justify #3 with a premise suicide is often involuntary or can simply say #3 is an unjust law.
However, it should be clear that historically, laws have not been solely based on a "my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things" premise, although that is certainly a premise that is used often and is shared by many.
There's also so much play in the word "rights" and "end of my nose" that it's not as tight a restraint as many people think.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Yes.
quote:What exactly are you trying to make society into? A secular version of all that is good and Holy?
...according to me, yes. Isn't everyone?
quote: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'm going to say this again-- it bears repeating:
It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
Really, I won't get tired of saying it.
So, for the record: I am not personally saying that anything society wide WILL happen. Maybe it won't. I DO think, spiritually, from a Mormon POV, we'll be the poorer for it.
quote: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.
Discussing the one (homosexual marriage rights) doesn't preclude being concerned about the other, you know.
I'm a Mormon. I can be worried about LOTS of things ALL at the same time. And somehow they'll all wind up fueling my martyr complex...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll counter with the veil of ignorance argument. How do you set up a system when you don't know what place you will take in it?
The idea that this is how it should be set up is still based on an irrational premise - that a system should be set up as if one didn't know one's place in it.
quote:If we grant the irrational premise that societies that sustain themselves and their citizens are better than those that don't, we have a basis for saying certain legal systems are better than others.
Again, though, it's founded on an irrational premise.
quote:Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
Again, few limit it to "my God thinks that is wrong."
quote:One of the major ones is that it provides a basis for discussion that has more or less universal bases. As porter pointed out, people on both sides of many issues have the benefit of society as their concern. So we can say things like "This will harm society because ...." These statements can be evaluated as to whether they are true or reasonable or whatever. Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Which is still founded on an irrational premise, which is my only point.
I'm almost totally done with you by the way. I have not said that it's might make right, and it's so damn tiresome having to correct this that I have no clue at this point how I'm going to handle it.
Please, I'm begging you, let me know what I can do so that you won't make crap up about what I say.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to say this again-- it bears repeating:
It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
I. Get. To. Force. My. Religion. On. Others. But. They. Can't. Do. The. Same. To. Me.
If our society worked that way, the Baptists, et al, would waste no time in making LDS second class citizens at the very least. No missions. Persecution. Conversion away from the TRUE religion heavily sanctioned. Where would your God's laws be then?
Western society worked like that at one time. But we escaped that festering hell hole. I sometimes get incensed when people try to push us back in, becasue they're right and everyone else is wrong.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
Here's one take on the subject of what government and laws are for: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Lisa believes that using coercion (taxes, for example) to "promote the general Welfare" is a an immoral end of government.
The police power of the States is often written as encompassing the ability to enforce morals.
This isn't novel, and it isn't a fringe outlook. The fact that you are so suprised is a little shocking, actually. The fact that you assume people who don't share this premise must be unreasonable is a little sad.
You know, I honestly find it hard to talk to you. You don't actually say anything that is definitively a personal attack, and yet your tone certainly implies condescension and has a patronizing tone--in plain english, you're freaking mean. Specifically in the "little sad" comment. But I'm sure you'll have some well-articulated response as to how it's warranted, relevant, and certainly not personal.
But in any case, why can't we just address my main point instead of asking that I prove my premise about laws? Or conversely prove that there should be laws that have nothing to do with preventing harm to another? Promote the common welfare? Okay, who defines what welfare is?
Get to the nitty gritty--How EXACTLY do same-sex unions ruin or damage society? If you answer nothing else, please answer this.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you make it really hard for me to defend faith to the other atheists...
I guess just getting along really is impossible. Maybe we should all just fight and see who wins.
Maybe one day we'll have more votes than you. Maybe one day we'll have enough judges to interpret the consitution against faith the way its been traditionally interpreted against gay people. I'm sure we can find away around that pesky first amendment. The 2nd sure gets ignored enough. Heck, the constitution is just paper these days anyway.
Then again, maybe we could stop fighting against eachother, grow some mutal respect and you can follow your god and gay people can follow their hearts.
Dag: You don't have to say anything, I know.. I know...
You believe that refraining from homosexuality is God's law.
You wish to make it illegal for people who are going to break that law routinely, not do so with any approval of secular law. In other words, no governmental sancitioning of what you believe is against God's law.
Several people on this board, and millions around the world, believe that eating Kosher food is God's law. Add to them the Islamic members of our world, and the eating of Pork is seen as prohibited by even more people. Not because eating Pork is unhealthy or dangerous, but because it is against what they believe is God's law.
Should we then stop all government subsidies to the Pork industry and not allow pork products to be served in any governmental institution or institution that recieves government funds?
From the points of view of those who are Jewish and Muslim, and as its one less meat being eaten, even from the Hindu's out there, such a ban would be furthering God's Law.
Would you go easily into that bacon-free existance or would you complain, "Hey, that's not what I believe. Why must I be one to pay for your beliefs?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, I honestly find it hard to talk to you. You don't actually say anything that is definitively a personal attack, and yet your tone certainly implies condescension and has a patronizing tone--in plain english, you're freaking mean. Specifically in the "little sad" comment.
As opposed to "There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this?" I you can express shock that someone who holds a different premise about law-making than you can actually be reasonable, why is it inappropriate for me to express sadness about that.
quote:Get to the nitty gritty--How EXACTLY do same-sex unions ruin or damage society? If you answer nothing else, please answer this.
I don't believe that it does.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, once again, Jews don't believe it immoral for non-Jews to eat pork. Just an aside to correct a very common misperception.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess because I see a difference between my suggesting that people, plural, are unreasonable for thinking something and someone suggesting that I personally am stupid for thinking something.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| 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.
There was no "strictly rational" basis for extending those rights to interracial couples.
There's a principle in this country that if we err, we do so on the side of liberty.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
I have no idea about MPH's views on the subject, but from what Scott is saying I'm starting to doubt this is true in relation to him. Scott has said that if Blue laws were being voted on, he would vote for them. Scott, how far does this go? Would you make all non-marital sex illegal? Would you make alcohol illegal? Tobacco? Coffee? Would you ban sleeveless shirts and shorts that stop above the knees? At what point does following God's commandments necessitate a law instead of being an issue of agency?
[Note: These are intended as serious, respectful questions. I am not trying to belittle in any way, simply to understand.]
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please, I'm begging you, let me know what I can do so that you won't make crap up about what I say.
You're going to have to point out where I did that, Dag. In that I, and others, seem to have problems figuring out what you are trying to say to couch my impressions of what you are saying in terms to make it clear that this is how it appears to me, rather a reflection what you are definitely saying.
If you don't want me to do this, I'd suggest coming out and making your points in clear and sufficiently articulated statements. From my perspective, this is something you don't often do.
You may also want to, when someone says things like:
quote:Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
to at the very least acknowledge that this is what they are talking about and are likely to respond to the thing you say in light of this. I granted your premise but extended the analysis to include other things. All you had to do to respond if all you were concerned about what "The lie on irrational premises" was to acknowledge that I agreed with you. If you then wanted to continue the discussion, you could address the obvious main point of what that I was saying.
These are things you could do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that, as with most issues like this, there are those on either side with reasoned arguments for their positions, those who believe what they believe without actually thinking about why.
Where the mistake is made is in assuming that the unreasoned people present the only argument, and tarring the entire opposition with the same brush.
Personally, I'm very grateful to Scott R. for taking the time to spell out what he believes and why. Understanding and communication is far more important to society-building than "yeah, well, I heard you believe such-and-such so you're wrong."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, voting on a law doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think whatever is being voted on is right or not. It has everything to do with whether I think that society has a right to prevent people who don't think it's wrong to do it or not. Voting for or against it doesn't make me guilty of the sin. I'm not voting that people go partake in the sin--I'm voting that they be left alone about it because society or the government has no right to dictate to them whether or not they should do it.
If I don't feel that it's right for me personally to prevent someone from sinning, then I don't believe that it's right for the government to do it either.
It seems to have been suggested here that Scott believes that he doesn't have the right to prevent other people from sinning, specifically the sin of same-sex unions, but he does have a duty to try to persuade them not to--so if that's true, Scott--and please feel free to correct me if it's not--then why do you feel it's alright to extend a right to the government that you don't feel you have individually?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're dogpiling Scott. *gives Scott a cookie even though she couldn't disagree with him stronger*
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was no "strictly rational" basis for extending those rights to interracial couples.
I agree. This is why insistence on "strictly rational" basis for laws is scary to me.
quote:to couch my impressions of what you are saying in terms to make it clear that this is how it appears to me
Claiming I said that "might makes right" is not restating what I did in an attempt to clarify it, Squicky. You can get to "might makes right" from where I stopped only if you add additional premises that I did not put forth. This is why I doubt that you do these things in good faith - because I don't believe you don't know that additional premises are there.
It's the moral equivalent of "recouching" the statement "I think abortion should be legal" as "You think people should be allowed to kill human beings."
There are people who think that a fetus is a human baby and that abortion should still be legal. But there are many who do not believe the being to be aborted is a human being. That's not "recouching," it's assigning beliefs to another without basis. And it's near constant with you.
quote:If you don't want me to do this, I'd suggest coming out and making your points in clear and sufficiently articulated statements. From my perspective, this is something you don't often do.
Then I guess I'll have to do something else, because, from my perspective, you are not clarifying, but adding. Therefore, making it unnecessary for you to "clarify" is not going to help.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Much like supporting a neo-Nazis right to spout his hatred, the issue isn't neccessarily about supporting the use the principle is put to as it is the principle itself.
For example, let's say that I don't think that LDS is a true religion and that they are doing harm by spreading it. I could take Scott's tack and say that I can't vote for people who would allow them to do this thing or I could take my tack and say that it's not my place nor the government's place to suppress things like that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| 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.
Correct. Accordingly, I would be against a law that granted legal rights to the relationship specified.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Pretty sure that wasn't me. Either that, or my memory is even worse than I thought it was.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm a Mormon. I can be worried about LOTS of things ALL at the same time. And somehow they'll all wind up fueling my martyr complex...
Pfft. Like y'all invented that.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Yeah Dag, sometimes I wish we could all be as tolerant as Orthodox Jews.
No need to get snarky, Dan. You used an analogy that doesn't work, and it was already explained why it doesn't in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That has nothing to do with tolerance, Dan.
Right again. Hey, Dags, next time I have a meeting and work and disappear for a couple hours, can I hire you? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain: Dag merely suggest that he was justified in feeling sad that you found it so shoking that folks are reasonable and yet disagree with the way you see things.
You seem to be equating that with stupid and while stupid people are often shocked for the same reasons you are, not all shocked people are stupid. ---------
I'm still trying to gather my thoughts about this entire thread, without simply posting the same rhetoric that we have all read many times. Ill likely fail anyway.
I can't help but be influenced by this idea.
If a core part of what I believe is to share the truths I believe I posess, is it right to condone a behavior that multiples the difficulty in sharing that truth a hundred fold?
By that I mean, picture this.
I meet a man who is in poverty. He accepts the truthfulness of my beliefs as I present them to him. He agonizingly agrees to donate 1/10th of his income to the church knowing he is spending money he needs. Whether or not his faith is rewarded is unimportant.
ok now I go to this.
I make friends with a pair of women who have been married for 10 years and have adopted 2 children. They ask about my faith and as I share it with them they believe. They now have to accept the fact that to enjoy all the benefits of the truth I have shared with them they can no longer remain married, they cannot have the same sexual intimacy that they have previously enjoyed. They have to divorce, figure out custody of the children they have already adopted and begin the painful process of moving on.
I have asked men and women to give up alcohol, their riches, their pride, their coffee and tea, their sabbaths, all because I knew by so doing they could obtain an incredible amount of joy in their acts of selflessness. But I have never asked anybody to give up their genuine love of anything. A person cannot love their money, their tea, their hobbies, the same way they can love another human being.
I cannot begin to conceive the amount of pain it would cause to ask two men or women to do what I have suggested in the second scenario.
I cannot stop people from being gay and acting on it, but should I really allow it to become more and more difficult for people to accept the truth I honestly believe I possess? It honestly feels like being an abolishionist and being told to allow the Dred Scott decision to stand. Under our constitution slaves were not humans, they were property. Just because somebody owns slaves doesnt mean I have to own them. What somebody does with their property is NOT any of my business. Their slaves are not HURTING me, or infringing on MY rights. Just because my religion dictates that its wrong, their beliefs dictate that its a neccesity, a way of life perfectly justified.
I honestly believe that by encouraging homosexuality to gain more and more of a foothold in society I am harming others in that I am allowing them to become more and more entrenched in a way of life that is contrary to true happiness.
Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
Having said all that I have to admit that I am not totally sure how to handle gay marriage/civil unions/etc.
I hate the fact that I am not totally commited on any course of action.
Scott you did a good job in laying out Mormon docterine regarding all this. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I'd also like to thank folks in this thread for being more civil then any forum I've ever observed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dag's posts in threads like this are fairly predictable.
Hatracker: I completely disagree with this belief/law/political statement, as I have just defined it.
Dag: I am not stating my opinion on the situation, but I think that by speaking out based solely on your gut-level opinion and not on clearly labeled facts or logical suppositions you are hurting your own case. Here's how you can go about making a strong case that will be tougher to ignore.
Hatracker: Why don't you agree with me? Defend the other side, now, so I can argue with you.
Dag: I haven't said what I believe. Only that arguing without reason will not accomplish anything and arguing without listening to the other side is not communicating.
Hatracker: I can't believe you're on the other side. Here's something you said that I can pick on. Defend my version of your opinion!
And then it devolves into line-by-line arguing.
I can't say I agree with everything Dag posts, but I always admire his efforts to bring the argument around to one that might actually acomplish something.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, I summarized imprecisely: (Edit: the apology looks snarky to me. It's not intended to be so.)
quote:Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I was using that to demonstrate common laws based on other premises. I doubt this is the thread to discuss them fully in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Correct. Accordingly, I would be against a law that granted legal rights to the relationship specified.
So I'll ask again. Since the Noachide laws do not ban sex or relationships between women (go and ask your local rav if you don't believe me), how do you justify supporting a law that imposes sanctions on women who are not violating any Noachide laws?
And folks, Rebbetzin thread or not, if Rivka thinks that Noachides have any prohibition whatsoever that applies to lesbians, she's wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Again, let's assume the perspective that I think your religion is a bad one and is spreading harm. From the same set of premises that you just laid out, isn't it equivilent for me to advocate legal measures to prevent people from becoming/practicing LDS? After all, it makes it difficult for me to convert them to my true religion, thus making it so that they won't experience true happiness.
Also
quote:Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
that's completely untrue. I can say "You can't say that thse people aren't really happy." without saying that they are really happy.
This seems to be one of the big obstacles to this discussion. There's a big difference between active assertions and action ("They aren't really happy.", "They should be second class citizens.") and a refusal to do so ("Neither you nor I are in a place to say whether someone else is really happy.", "It's not my job nor the governments to do things like that.")
---
One other point that I think is important is that the lesbian couple you're breaking up in your example are very, very unlikely to become straight. The efforts in that direction have all been failures. So, it's not like you're setting them up to get into a real celestial marriage. You're breaking them up from a positive, committed relationship, destroying their family, so that they can become celibate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Lisa, I was using that to demonstrate common laws based on other premises. I doubt this is the thread to discuss them fully in.
I don't think I was discussing them. I was simply making a comment. Your post carried the implication that those are obviously acceptable laws. I felt that by ignoring that statement, I would be tacitly agreeing with it. So I stated my disagreement. That's not the same as discussing them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heinlein said that laws begin whenever anyone does something someone else doesn't like.
While that sounds simplistic and obvious, the implications are horrible.
Think of the things you do every day that someone else doesn't like. Eating meat, driving, heading/cooling your home, heck, I'd wager we all have an internet addiction, computer games, tv, the music you like... All are ripe for laws because *someone* doesn't like it.
BB: The fact that no one knows what makes other people happy is the very basis of freedom because we *must* have the right to figure out what makes us happy. That's a tough enough problem to solve when it's your own head you have to sort through. There's no way you can solve it for someone else.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
