quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Reason has had a better track record for determining truth than hunches have. Besides, those hunches are usually assumptions one has inherited from one's parents. In that sense, they're arbitrary.
1) Using the words "hunch" and (to a lesser degree) "arbitrary" show a serious lack of trying to understand the (imagining there were just one for a second) religious position. Actually, it seems from your post that any understanding of the religious position was for the sole purpose of dismissing it as invalid or insufficient.
Especially since you are advocating that Puppy do what he already does.
2) Prove that "reason has a better track record for determining truth" than religion does. Without being self-referential. That is, you may not use reason to support your case.
You state is as axiomatic, but it simply is not. Not unless someone shares certain unstated assumptions with you.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Actually, it seems from your post that any understanding of the religious position was for the sole purpose of dismissing it as invalid or insufficient.
Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
I used the words 'hunch' and 'arbitrary' to express the fact that they are culturally transmitted ideas which most people don't spend time reasoning through. I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Especially since you are advocating that Puppy do what he already does.
Sorry, what do you mean?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 2) Prove that "reason has a better track record for determining truth" than religion does. Without being self-referential. That is, you may not use reason to support your case.
I can't, and neither can you. My point was that you and I both live and breathe reason. You lock your car when you get to work because somewhat might steal it. You boil water because it's a necessary step in making coffee. You do X because you rationally determine that X will yield better results than Y. You even feel happy because you received a promotion, or depressed because you broke up with your girlfriend.
Some causes are more complicated than others. Some are so complex we can't explain them at length, so we call it luck. But we know that the winner of a lottery received his money because that numbered ball hit that numbered ball, which hit the other numbered ball which rolled down the tube... And so on.
posted
I think not allowing ssm denies homosexuals happiness and benefits that we freely give to heterosexuals without question. But I don't think it forces gay people to live by others values, even though others values are the excuse for denying them these benefits. I am really just arguing semantics and I will admit that. And I don't know if my prior statement made any sense at this point (need a nap). Also, my inclusion of the statement if you care about fairness and stuff was meant to indicate that I did not actually think that was an argument I would ever actually support. When its 7:30 pm and I am still at work, my posts are not the best or reflective of my opinion (kinda just arguing to argue).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, Geoff started off this thread with the assumption that the majority of people who support gay marriage are just fine with unjustifiably attacking and shouting people down.
quote:You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
Can we get to the part where these two quotes match up, please? Because I'd really love to see some explanation on that. Or does it take a majority to shout someone down, and I just missed it? That's certainly good news!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and furthermore I'd just love to see something approaching concrete evidence of Puppy equivocating 'shouting down' and 'homophobic violent hate crimes' as anything except both being examples of intolerance.
If not, we can kindly disembark from that particular train of hysterical outrage too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assigning to others your own motivations is rarely a good idea, Euripedes. Your inability to do otherwise says to me that there is no purpose in continuing this conversation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking about the first part of my post, where I talked about inheriting cultural assumptions?
The vast majority of the time, it's true that you absorb your ideas from your environment. Religion is no different. It's less common for people to go out of their way and decide to convert, unless there is a significant shift of values in their culture.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I look more closely at the laws our government does pass, and the policies and procedures that arise from those laws, I have come to the conclusion that MOST laws should have an escape clause in them.
Something like: "we pass this law hoping for X to happen, and for Y to NOT happen. If, within ___ years X does not occur, or Y does occur, then this law is automatically nul and void unless Congress acts to keep it intact."
In my field of Traffic Safety, I urged (unsuccessfully) the Iowa legislature to consider such a conditional "sunset" provision on their recent law increasing the speed limit on interstates. They hoped that commerce would improve and that the highway crash and death toll would not increase. I asked them (via letter to my representatives) to sunset the law automatically if highway-related fatalities increased by x% after the law passed. Sadly, they didn't do that. The highway fatalities have gone up. It is directly related to the increased speeds on the highways. And we're stuck with it.
Oh...by the way, the legislators who supported this bill claimed that they would fund increases in the Highway Patrol, and that there would be NO INCREASE in highway deaths. They had plenty of data showing that this wasn't true, but they went with it anyway. And the law is intact, and we're killing more people in Iowa as a result.
Now...it's a little trickier with something like a social issue, but would it be possible to frame a SSM law such that an automatic sunsetting of the law would happen if certain worst-case scenarios occurred?
Could we name the specific fears or concerns that people would care to put in as sunsetting provisions? (And no fair saying "sunset the law if homosexuals actually marry -- that's what I fear most.") These provisions would have to be something like "the rate of homosexuality among teens increases by x%" or "churches get sued for refusing to perform the ceremonies" or something like that...
I think such an approach has merit for a number of reasons. First off, it is worthwhile trying to allay at least some fears that people have about this change in our society. Waiting for data and studies to answer all of the fears is going to take longer than I would want to wait were I gay and hoping to marry. This way we could try the law out and see what happens, but not be committed to it even if it turns out to be an unmitigated disaster and the worst fears of religious people are realized.
Now, before you just attack the notion because it is impractical, you should know that I realize this will never happen. But I submit it as still something worth thinking about for all sides.
What conditions would religious people want in a law that would make for the triggers to automatic repeal? Remember it has to be measurable and (one assumes) reasonably short time frame. What things would pro-SSM people want to see as guarantees or limits in the ways that the law could sunset?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe rises in divorce rates? That is if the primary worry for the religious camp is the devaluing of marriage as a social institution.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
If we're assuming that an SSM law is on the books at this point, then yes, it would be the judge's responsibility to issue the marriage license, just as a Catholic pharmacy worker would be obligated to provide contraceptives to a customer if requested, even if the pharmacist believes that contraceptive use is immoral.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judges don't issue marriage licenses, at least not in Minnesota. County clerks do, and then whoever's officiating at the ceremony fills it out and sends it in. So you go down, apply for your license, and come back 5 days later to pick it up. (We have a waiting period.)
Officiants, which include justices of the peace, can accept or decline to do weddings for any particular reasons they want to now, and I see no reason for that to change. There are plenty of people who would be willing to perform a SSM ceremony, I can't imagine why anyone would want to force someone to take part in their wedding who believed it was wrong.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
If we're assuming that an SSM law is on the books at this point, then yes, it would be the judge's responsibility to issue the marriage license, just as a Catholic pharmacy worker would be obligated to provide contraceptives to a customer if requested, even if the pharmacist believes that contraceptive use is immoral.
Actually, lots of pharmacists and doctors are suing for the right to not have to prescribe medications that they think are wrong or which they consider to be against their religion. Several states have exceptions that allow pharmacists to not give you your prescription if it conflicts with their morals.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churches don't have to marry people NOW, if they don't think they should. A lot of times, they have hoops to jump through. A friend of mine is Catholic and marrying an athiest. They have made the two of them go through all kinds of stuff. And now, although they can be married, they are not permitted to have an outdoor wedding if they want to have a Catholic ceremony.
posted
dean: what states and are we talking about only things like contraceptives or are there other prescriptions as well?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As of 2004, Mississippi, Arkansas and South Dakota had "conscience clauses" which allowed pharmacists to refuse to fill any perscription that they opposed on moral grounds-- this is mainly the morning after pill, but in some cases, this clause was used on any form of birth control or anything that the pharmacist believes could be used for assisted suicide. Also in 2004, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin were considering similar bills.
quote:Four States (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota) have passed laws allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense emergency contraception drugs. Illinois passed an emergency rule that requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. Colorado, Florida, Maine and Tennesee have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically mention pharmacists.
California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner.
posted
It's a weird clause to sunset a SSM law if the divorce rate goes up afterwards. I mean, it's already been mentioned that at least some groups with historically low reported divorce rates have seen an increase recently anyway...so it'd be sort of odd to blame increases on the SSM law per se.
Also, what if the divorce rate climbed because people who were really homosexual but were in bad heterosexual relationships decided that society was finally ready to accept them?
Is that a problem with any new law?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like your idea, Bob, insofar as it gets people to actually verbalize their specific fears. I disagree with most of the "escape clauses" listed so far.
1. I imagine a rise in recorded teen homosexuality is going to happen with our without SSM, and I'll even accept that it might be even more of an increase directly because of the acceptance of SSM. I don't think this is a bad thing for a few reasons. First and foremost, citing it as a negative assumes that homosexuality is inherently a bad, undesirable thing. I'm not saying it's good, or desirable, either. I think it, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Second, such an increase, in large part, is naturally going to be because the segment of gay teens who go "unrecorded" now do so in part because they're terrified of coming out. I'd like to see a comparison done 10 years after SSM is accepted nationally. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in "teen homosexuality" (whatever that means) and just as likely, a decrease in teen suicide.
2. As you've already noted, there is an increase in the divorce rate among certain groups already. You can't blame that on SSM at this point so I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to base SSM's validity on whether or not the increase continued or even excellerated after acceptance.
3. Lawsuits against churches shouldn't be a factor. We live in such a litigious (sp?) society already that it's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a church for this. If it is decided that such suits are a bad thing, then it seems the most logical step would be to pass legislation to protect churches in this area, not to shove a whole class of people back in the closet to stop lawsuits.
But yeah, I'd love to see some more fears actually expressed. I can address the specified. I can't be expected to defend myself against fears of a nebulous set of "things bad for society".
posted
Bob, you're right about that. As in, divorce rates would not be a good indication of SSM's harm towards the Christian conception of the marriage contract. Considering the complaints of the religious camp, it was the best I could come up with.
As Karl says, it would be interesting to hear more responses to your hypothetical. Coming up with an answer compels you to articulate the anti-SSM side of the argument, which is yet to be clearly articulated in this thread.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
As an ancillary issue: I think this is one of the major reasons people can get offended in this sort of discussion. It's too easy to spin a straw man when doing this sort of thing, and people perceive just enough of the truth in your straw man to recognize your distortion of their actual position. It's very easy and guilt-free to do this, since the kernel of truth in the description is what you see, but the people who're being "accused" of the rest of the position see only the exaggerations and obvious distortions. In fact, the trap you can fall into if you do this often enough is to eventually forget that your distortion is NOT their position.
I get accused of asking leading questions all the time. One of the reasons I DO that, though, is so that I can use people's own words and descriptions for their own positions. This doesn't insulate me from criticism, since I simultaneously attempt to demonstrate perceived discrepancies between what people say and what they actually think or practice (which is pretty inherently offensive), but it does mean that I'm not usually guilty of manufacturing a false position in order to rail against it.
Your followup -- that you'd like to hear more of the anti-SSM argument -- is solid, and is really the way this sort of thing should go. But I'll warn you that many anti-SSM people won't answer, either because they're tired of answering so often due to the frequency of this discussion (which is no fault of yours), or because they're afraid to have their positions spin around and used against them (which, while a valid concern of theirs, is still not so much a fault of yours as a reminder to try -- as I so often fail -- to be circumspect in your responses and appreciative of their participation.)
------
In defense of hunches, BTW, I have to say this:
I believe they exist. In fact, there's strong evidence that they do exist, and are in fact far, far more reliable than "reason" in certain specific scenarios. Specifically, we have reason to believe that people who are experts in a given field, when faced with a complicated problem with many variables that they have to solve in a limited amount of time, will come up with a superior answer through a "hunch" than through a more rigorous approach to the problem; the idea is that the brain filters its responses through past experience at a subconscious level faster than it does at a conscious level.
But if people aren't already experts in a given field, or if people are given time to think about an issue, or if the issue is one that's really quite simple, the statistical advantage of hunches disappears; it's the combination of complexity, time pressure, and subconscious experience that makes them worthwhile.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an eclipse clause, it's fraught with the exact same problems as divorce rates, but a lowering of the (heterosexual) marriage rate could also be considered indicitave of a weakening of the traditional marriage as a social structure in our society.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
In the most recent SSM thread, statements made by opponents to SSM were misunderstood or mischaracterized at an inordinate rate.
This may be solely a problem with the people doing the misunderstanding-- however, it's happened often enough to make me wonder if it's endemic to the discussion. (PIX noted the same thing)
Even when that misunderstanding was clarified, some people insisted on continuing in their misinterpretation of what the opponents of SSM said. Seriously: what am I supposed to discuss when I say "I said X," and someone else says, "No, no: you said Y." And when no amount of evidence to the point that I really did say X convinces them of that... where's the conversation?
What it feels like is exactly what Geoff described: a ban on expression of thought through aggressive misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It seemed like some people were ANXIOUS to misinterpret things opponents to SSM said. And when they got called on it, even their apology was qualified-- like it was somehow someone else's fault for their aggression.
In this atmosphere of hostility, it's tempting to give in to the attitude that Pixiest and Lisa so often ascribe to opponents of SSM: that of majority might. I feel like some of those who disagree with my point of view willfully distort my statements in order to prove how terrible I really am-- so at times I want to shout, "Screw discussion. Let's just cut to the polls."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This may be solely a problem with the people doing the misunderstanding-- however, it's happened often enough to make me wonder if it's endemic to the discussion.
I think it almost has to be, since the differences start even with the definition of terms. Consider a premise: "marriage is a fundamental human right."
Some people may disagree with that and thus oppose SSM. Some people may agree with that and still oppose SSM, because their definition of "marriage" doesn't include partners of the same sex. Until they agree until use a hypothetical version of the word "marriage" that does include same-sex partners, there will be "willful" misunderstanding every time that premise is discussed.
I'm not sure how to get around this. It's like the whole "are fetuses sentient human beings" question, which is a definition on which the debate hinges.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: but a lowering of the (heterosexual) marriage rate could also be considered indicitave of a weakening of the traditional marriage as a social structure in our society.
I have a problem with assuming "traditional" marriage is a necessary social structure in society. I guess I'm more philisophically feminist than I realized. I view it as an economic structure that ends up dictating social mores in various directions throughout history.
I think that in today's society that marriage has already been devalued. I think the real common ground that the SSM crowd can find with the "traditional marriage" crowd, is that they agree that marriage has value to society. The real danger is the increasing numbers of people, (including myself) that are generally apathetic to marriage as a social or economic construct. I don't think the lowering of the marriage rate has anything whatsoever to do with SSM. If anything legalizing SSM could cause a temporary statistical blip of upswings in marriages.
AJ
Addendum: I realize divorce is legal. However marriage still, to me, has an implicit "for life" about it. While I've been with Steve for 7 years, and can imagine growing old with him, for some reason the locked in "for life" of it all gives me heebie jeebies (there's a nice rationally undefinable term for you) I think that locked in aspect of it is a deterrent to others also.
Is it a fear of commitment. I guess. I'm not afraid of a long term and/or indefinite commitment, but a lifetime commitment is a lot. I would feel so trapped by the future commitment that I couldn't enjoy the present.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: [QUOTE]I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
And I am Catholic - despite not being raised Catholic - because I spent 25 years thinking about my faith and trying different religions and studying them, then went through a year long course of study in order to be received into the Catholic Church.
I am not unique. Just because you don't give your faith a lot of thought, don't assume that is true for everyone else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
aj: It's the "for life" aspect that makes marriage so important. That's what gives it the stablizing affect on families, both gay and straight. (In addition to all the other benefits)
It's a legally binding promise that both people will stick around. One that you can build plans for the future around. Buy a home, have or adopt children, plan for retirement... knowing your partner can't wake up one morning, say you're through and be out of your life forever.
Every time I look at my left hand I'm reminded of the promise my husband and I gave eachother. And that's what I want for the rest of us. Regardless of the sex of the person we end up with.
posted
kmb, you may not be unique, but you may be in the minority. I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe in general, culturally, Euripides may have the right of it about religious "inheritance" as it were.
posted
Pixiest, if the "for life" thing is indeed the most important of it all, then that is the genuine area where both sides of the marriage controversy should be converging.
Because I believe that there are increasing number of "for life" commitmentphobes throughout society. There is scientific evidence emerging that the original human pattern was serial monogamy, and in fact it often still is today. So why fight it?
posted
Scott, In this very thread, you've transparently misrepresented what I said and, when caught out neither apologized nor even acknowledged that your accusation was false. In the thread you linked, I was called a liar for saying things that were true for no other reason than it disagreed with BB uniformed opinions. Of course, he at least acknowledged that his accusation was incorrect even if there was no apology. Geoff started this thread with an accusation (which you've continued) that seems to me to be on par, both in deservedness and insulting nature, with that of "Nearly all people who are against same sex marriage are bigots." but not only don't most peopel not seem upset with this, but I'm apparently supposed to accept this as the starting ground for a dialogue on the situation. In the thread I linked I had to put up with disrespect and constant mischaracterization for Geoff, when he wasn't just ignoring what I had to say, to say nothing of the obloquy I got from other sources. Through all of this, I continued returning complex, rational arguments, which, in many cases - such as this thread - go basically ignored or at the ery least unanswered.
I don't deserve these things. I don't deserve Geoff's characterization. I don't deserve to be called a liar or without integrity or not caring about marriage or any of the other things that have been levelled at me.. I think I deserve to have the fact that I offer up arguments and discussion that are complex and not based on demonizing the side I'm arguing against at least acknowledged.
I'm not popular, so I can't expect other people to stick up for me and it doesn't seem things like calling me a liar for no good reason really affect people's opinion of the person doing so. So the best I can do is try to make people defend their often vague attacks on me. Can you support any of the things that you or Geoff have said about me in this thread? Can you demonstrate why I deserve to be disrespected, ignored, and insulted?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
You may be right about this, to a certain extent.
But please don't make the mistake of thinking someone is merely religious because of the environment in which they were raised. People who consider themselves religious also consider their beliefs well-pondered.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paraphrased from above: There is evidence that an original human behavior was X, and in fact it often still is today. So why fight it?
Let me point out that there are many values for X for which someone could say the above, and there are some which virtually everybody would agree are things we should fight.
Murdering people from other "tribes" is one example.
My point is that there can be very good reasons to work against natural tendences.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, although perhaps a noble goal, I don't think eliminating war is actually possible, any more than expecting on heterosexual married monogamy in an entire society is. I think the U.S. society is actually better at lessening the impact of wars overall, than they are at strengthening the value of any marriage, same sex or otherwise.
I think people need more convincing that marriage is still valuable in this day and age more than they need instructions on which sex to marry.
I believe that all of this same sex marriage and defense of marriage stuff, going back and forth is jading younger generations on marriage entirely, just by the boring repetition of it all.
posted
About the wider issue, you are going to lose. Gay Marriage is going to become legal. It will take longer in some places than others, but it's going to happen. Think about it, the states where divorce is lowest are the ones who have allowed it or are moving towards it. It's the high divorce states that are most strong in fighting it.
You're going to lose for a very simple reason. It's the same reason that I, who used to be a moderately strong anti-gay bigot, am now strongly on the pro-gay side. That is, gay people, once you get to know them, are basically like other people. As more and more people are encountering gay people and having extended experience and relationships with them, the idea of treating them as second-class citizens or of them or them getting married as some sort of threat fades away, often in direct proportion to how strongly outside people are pushing these things. The extreme accusations and positions taken by many of the anti-gay rights crowd are actually speeding up this process.
And consider the state of the anti-gay rights movement right now. While I'll never suggest that they are all bigots and have chided others on this site for even suggesting that, there are a lot of people in this movement that are bigots and many segments of it are pretty comfortable and supportive of this. Also, the basic idea that underlie many of the efforts is "We should get to force our religion on others." I mean, Scott was very clear in the other thread that he is more about his religion and presumably trying to legislate it in some cases than about the spirit of America.
But that only works as long as you have to force to pull it off. And, as I've said, this force, at least in terms of popular support, is eroding daily.
Consider, both of those aspects make these groups both less than admirable and more dangerous, especially as their support wanes. And, while I and many others would be strongly against sanctions (social or possibly things like revoking tax-exempt status) against groups and religions merely because they consider their version of marriage as only between a man and a woman, I'm not sure I have a problem with them for these aspects.
Also, as I've said mulitple times on this thread, anti-gay marriage is the wrong place to focus on. If you are teaching and trying to convince people of a conception of marriage that is inconsistent with gay marriage, but is not defined by this opposition, you are both going to likely be more successful and to draw much less disapproval. Very, very few people have a problem with you doing this.
This is a fight you are going to lose. It's pretty much up to you if you're going to come out the bad guys or not. Ultimately, I'm pretty sure the conservative religious people are going to follow historical precedent and make the wrong choices, but I'm always open to pleasant suprises.
---
On a related note, there are serious problems affecting our culture's approach to marriage and sexuality. These things, which I and many others on my side are very concerned about, appear to suffer because people are unjustifiably linking them to gay people and gay marriage. To me, it would be of much greater benefit to your values, marriage, and the state of society if the effort focused on opposing gay rights, especially SSM, were turned towards these things. But, then the cynical side of me says that the support for the movement, both in terms of political support and the rank and file membership, would experience a sharp down-turn.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are indications that serial monogamy appears to be, in many ways, a much less optimal social arrangement than "for life" marriages, at least in our social context. But, don't quote me on that, because I really don't have a any but a barely passing familiarity with the literature on this.
---
I think it's important to note that there are several indications that among a certain segment of the population, i.e. college-educated people in their 20s and early 30s living in east coast big cities, that there has recently been a significant decrease in short term divorces. Empirically, I know several children of divorce who have gotten married and are determined to do it right and not screw up like their parents did. None of the 15 or so marriages in my cirle of close acquantences has broken up. I look on this as a potentially big source of hope.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
If there's a better characerization of human advancement than struggling against aspects of the human condition that you are almost definitely not going to overcome, I don't know what it is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think people need more convincing that marriage is still valuable in this day and age more than they need instructions on which sex to marry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
We agree on something! Even if it's only ONE thing in the entire world, we AGREE!
quote: My point was that there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
You seem to agree with me.
I will agree with this caviat:
quote: there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition and there can be bad reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
quote:posted by Puppy: 1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else. 2. For the first time, a strong subculture of people in your society is very vocal about wanting X to be incorporated into your society, and they seem to have a strong chance of success. 3. You know that your reasons for believing that X is inappropriate cannot be proven, and therefore, you cannot use them to convince anyone else that your position is even worth considering. 4. However, if X is incorporated into your society, you suspect that several things will happen: A. Whatever consequences you believe will result from X in the eternal scheme of things will be played out on a larger scale, to the detriment of many people. B. It will become more difficult for you to teach your beliefs to your children, and protect them from those consequences. The entire language of society will steer them toward viewing your beliefs as eccentric. C. Your own community will risk becoming social pariahs in the backlash against the former "bigotry" that prevented X from being adopted sooner. Your beliefs will mark you as an undesireable member of society, even though you know that you are not motivated by any sort of ill will towards anyone.
Sorry to jump in the thread so late, but I only just noticed it. First of all, thank you, Puppy, for laying out your concerns in such a clear fashion. I'd like to respond specifically to the effects you suspect would occur in society, and I think the rise of atheism provide an interesting case study to evaluate your concerns.
Atheists and homosexuals have both been around for a long, long time but only in the last century or so (to my knowledge) has it begun to be tolerated for either to publicly declare themselves so. That covers #2 in your reasoning, and I think points 1, 2, and 3 are clear in their application to my analogy. If anyone disagrees, I'm all for discussing it.
On to the points you address: A) I can't say I'm overly familiar with LDS teachings, but I think I'm safe in assuming that a public acceptance (or even merely tolerance) of atheism constitutes being to the detriment of many people. I also think it would be difficult or impossible to prove any concrete damage by either atheism or SSM, as others have already written.
B) I view exposing children to different ways of life as beneficial to them, not detrimental. OSC wrote somewhere that belief without opposing viewpoints isn't true belief (I know he's your father, Puppy, and I'm not trying to put his words in your mouth or anything; I just think he makes a good point). In any case, the rise of atheism surely has the effect of making it more difficult to transfer religious beliefs.
As an interesting aside, I worry about how I'll be able to raise my kids (when I have some) in a proper, atheistic household. Especially with all this 700 club nonsense, not to mention right-wingers railing against "the secularists." Though I decided early on in my life that this God stuff wasn't really for me (lost interest before I was 10), I still have irrational fears of Hell from time to time. I hope I'll be able to protect my kids from that.
C) Here, I think, is your most valid concern, and one point where my analogy diverges. In the atheistic sub-culture, theists are already the social pariah, as you're well aware. And if that predictive only makes you more cautious in regards to SSM, then I can't blame you. Yes, anti-SSM proponents WILL be made into social pariahs to some extent (more than atheists or homosexuals are now? I don't know).
But what if the LDS church announced tomorrow that, though it still felt that partaking in homosexual acts was wrong and would still actively encourage people to enter heterosexual relationships, it would support civil unions for homosexuals in the name of religious tolerance? I think most SSM supporters would respect that, and remember it in the future.
I guess my main point, though it got lost a bit along the way (sorry 'bout that), is that the "X" in your argument could be many many things. It could be Islam (or Mormonism) to some people. Fortunately, our constitution protects those things in a very strong manner. I think the spirit of that law also provides for SSM (or civil unions, if you prefer) though the letter may or may not be lacking. I also think that putting that spirit into the letter more clearly will strengthen the right of religious people to believe as they will.
If the reasonable people on both sides of the debate could work together to call the crazies on their BS, that'd be pretty awesome too.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
