quote:Fortunately there have been cases where what God wanted didn't make sense initially but later it did.
Given enough time, many seemingly nonsensical positions would eventually make sense just based on probability. Almost any dietary restriction, for instance, could eventually be shown to have wisdom behind it merely by pointing out a toxin or parasite that is unique to that food or another characteristic of that food that would result in harm to people that consume too much or prepare it improperly.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proposition 8 seems to me a measure on which people should be able to disagree without rancor. The controversy concerning rights for same sex couples today seems to me similar to the division of opinion in the United States shortly before the Civil War. With the benefit of hindsight, I have no problem in declaring slavery an abomination; but that does not mean I think Stonewall Jackson was necessarily morally wrong for choosing the side of the Confederacy. Judging how others should act is not usually our business anyway, and it is not clear to me whether the passage or the failure of Proposition 8 will lead more quickly to a just society. Besides, with my wife and my neighbors fervent Proposition 8 supporters, I had better be able to tolerate their behavior.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: If you were absolutely convinced of God's omniscience you can't conceive of perhaps exterior reasons for God's commands? You know earth and humanity make up a fraction of a fraction of the universe.
I suppose I could, depending on how absolutely convinced I was. But it's difficult to imagine anything in my experience being so incontrovertible a proof of God's omniscience that I'd be willing to go to infinite lengths to come up with "exterior" reasons for actions I don't understand. In every case I can think of off-hand, it is considerably simpler to reject my earlier assumption regarding God's omniscience than it is to construct a scenario that might justify certain behaviors and silences.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:With the benefit of hindsight, I have no problem in declaring slavery an abomination; but that does not mean I think Stonewall Jackson was necessarily morally wrong for choosing the side of the Confederacy.
Let's say the issue boiled down to slavery vs. non-slavery, and strip out all the other complicated ancillary issues that make the Civil War example murky.
Do you really not think it would be morally wrong to support slavery?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The benefit of hindsight shouldn't just make the past clearer; it's supposed to make the present and future clearer as well.
I'm not so sure about the slavery issue, but many of the arguments against SSM sound altogether too much like the ones used to attack interracial marriages.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "I'm sorry you have to do that, Papa. But on the bright side, at least now steven can smile at one of my posts being edited by you. "
What are you wanting from me, exactly? Are you wanting some kind of general statement of approval of some aspect of yourself or your personality? It's kind of hard to be nice to you because you are always savaging folks. I generally don't hand out approval unless someone practically gets in my face and does something I really like. I'm always pleased to see good posts by you. They're rarely in threads that I'm posting in, but I do seen them. We just don't seem to cross paths when you're behaving in a way I would openly, verbally, approve of. Whatever. I don't know what to say. Fighting isn't what I care to do, but at the same time, I'm not going to tolerate disrespectful misbehavior. Can't you just say "they're stupid, and don't know any better" to yourself, instead of treating people, on a verbal level, like a haughty monarch treats their subjects? We're people. We have feelings.
Actually, I don't want anything from you. It'd be fine with me if you'd just shut the hell up about me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest fear of gay marriage is that our lives will be seen as the legitimate, productive and happy lives they are, and that we will be seen as viable role models.
There is a large contingent of the religious right that is terrified that they have largely lost the ability to point at the dejected, unloved, self-loathing, perverse, and diseased homosexual as representative of the norm. They'd rather their gay children suffer than risk them accepting themselves and becoming productive and happy members of society (and thus burning in hellfire.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: In my previous post I meant to say, "For me" rather than making the statement generally. As in there were times in MY life were what God commanded didn't make sense to me, but I've tried doing it and not doing it, and God's way ultimately ended up making sense.
Karl: That may very well be true minus the hellfire bit. I've got some ideas about other perceived problems but they are hard for me to articulate, and I'm not sure they're fully formed in my head. I'll try to figure out how to get them out soon, but it will have to be later, as I am off to try and vote before work. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you were certain of the existence of an all knowing being based on personal experience, and that being has humanity's best interests at heart, and the organization he setup was explicitly ordered to block say gay marriage, would you think it a bad idea to remain in the organization even if you couldn't wrap your head around the block intellectually?
If I were certain of the existence, benevolence, and omniscience of Being A based on my personal experience, and yet Being A put forward a policy which I could not interpret according to my personal experience as being anything but harmful and evil, I would question the personal experiences which I have taken as proof of the existence, benevolence, and/or omniscience of Being A.
I would know that Being A had not put forward such a policy and that the organization was wrong and in need of correction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would know that Being A had not put forward such a policy and that the organization was wrong and in need of correction.
I believe we're also assuming that I've had some kind of personal experience assuring me of the rightness of the organization. Otherwise, yeah, assuming the organization is no longer properly representing Being A is the easier conclusion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fortunately there have been cases where what God wanted didn't make sense initially but later it did.
Just about anything can be rationalized. Either when it happens, or later. Selective memory (deliberate or not) really helps with the more difficult rationalizations.
The LDS church has successfully rationalized - for the adherents, anyway - some really strange and seemingly disastrous experiments, so I don't have much doubt there will be some way to justify the encouragement to support Prop 8, no matter the outcome.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several early settlements in the east that didn't work out. A migration to the west during which many faithful members died. The communal property thing (the label for which escapes me).
Every church and group has a history of failures and bad things that happened. It's not peculiar to the LDS. I'm just saying that "things tend to make sense later" is more of a description of human sense-making tendencies than a unique feature of God's commandments.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, I don't want anything from you. It'd be fine with me if you'd just shut the hell up about me.
I thought you were the one who mentioned him... I am confused now.
Nope. Ordinarily I ignore him, but when UnicornFeelings either edited some of his own posts or was edited by PJ, steven went on a tirade against the "bias" whereby UF gets edited and I don't. Because everyone knows, I'm a favorite here on Hatrack...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: 54% Yes to 46% No. Looks like it's going to pass.
That's with what 23% of the precincts voting. I think it's far too early to say. But I recall Frisco being one of the precincts having reported, but maybe I misheard.
posted
The No on 8 guy currently on TV says there are still Bay Area precincts which haven't been counted, so there may be a chance still.
It's sad to me that it's even this close though. I hate seeing this many bigoted people anywhere, but especially in a relatively liberal state.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "yes" people ran a very good, dishonest campaign. Good job guys! A special shout out to the churches that supported the campaign.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I'm so sorry we have to live in a democracy where we can't simply have everything exactly as we specifically would have them.
Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
Get over yourself. It's interesting to me that apparently Obama could win California hands down and yet Proposition 8 may actually pass. Seems to demonstrate that he may actually be the change we need while apparently for Californians, Proposition 8 is as well.
MattP: There is little doubt in my mind that some sort of movement will immedietly begin drafting and gathering support for a repeal to Proposition 8. Why not support that instead of bitterly railing against those who believe just as strongly as you do?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am so worried that this will pass, especially if it does it will be extremely difficult to overcome it. It actually hurts to think that I might live in such an intolerant state that people would vote not to grant to gay people a right that they themselves enjoy. As much as people say that gay people still have the same legal rights, symbolically marriage is still the way to validate a relationship and the two persons' dedication to each other. Plus, I always feel like I'm going to be sick when I see the Yes group celebrating on tv.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think it's as big a deal as you think it is. They can still have domestic partnerships/civil unions. It's just semantics.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I really don't think it's as big a deal as you think it is. They can still have domestic partnerships/civil unions. It's just semantics.
Separate but equal has historically shown itself to be a great way to do things Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not support that instead of bitterly railing against those who believe just as strongly as you do?
I don't bear most of the supporters much ill will. Many of them were convinced by the deception that I am talking about. My scorn is addressed to those who know better, and those who should have known better, who organized, ran, or endorsed* the official campaign. The product of that campaign was a series of ads and talking points which were predominantly non sequiturs. Few of the consequences of SSM that were warned about would be mandated if SSM were permited, nor would they be prohibited if SSM were not.
* The LDS church has a lot of lawyers. They have made legal arguments against SSM several times, and they never used many of the arguments that came from the yes on 8 campaign. They knew they were bogus arguments, but they remained silent on these arguments while they continued to support the campaign.
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: I get, I do. I just don't think anyone should get too upset about it.
I believe that's what they said about segregation too. Wouldn't want anyone getting uppity.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Calling all those who supported Proposition 8 bigots is akin to them calling those who opposed it family haters.
I just call it like I see it. I can see zero reason to deny marriage to gay couples except bigotry.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more than semantics. Why don't we go around and ask married couples and ask them how they feel about being described as being "civilly unioned" or in a "domestic partnership" instead of married? I believe that being able to say that you are married is very important to a lot of people; otherwise, why is there a stigma that society imposes on people who live together but are not married, or people beginning to ask when you will get married if you have been dating someone for a while without getting engaged? Your argument feels like a "separate but equal" agreement, which I think was ridiculous when applied to African Americans and whites half a century ago, and is ridiculous now. If everyone is truly equal, the same terms should apply.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you mightycow. Taking away rights is not the way to go.
I understand the religious arguments against gay marriage but at the same time I don't want anyone's religion telling me what to do. A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage, but why can't city hall or a ship captain do the ceremony? If I can get married by an Elvis, in a swimming pool why can't my sister and her girlfriend? Who did I hurt, who would they hurt?
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They think marriage is being cheapened by having its definition changed. It's not entirely stupid.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage
No church has ever been forced to perform a marriage they did not approve of. That they might have to perform or recognize such marriages is one of the deceptive arguments of the "yes on 8" campaign.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's cheaper than an Elvis/Pool party wedding? If the argument is that that scenario is respectful of the sanctity of marriage just because it was between a man and a woman then I feel like the argument loses respectability.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: They think marriage is being cheapened by having its definition changed. It's not entirely stupid.
That's just a cop out. Lots of segregationists said that Black people shouldn't get a vote because they weren't smart enough, not because they were a different color. Spin it any way, it's still a duck.
Besides, two post-op trannies can legally get married in a Satanic ceremony, in the nude, while smearing feces on a picture of Christ. The idea that anyone is "defending marriage" is a red herring.
Nobody wants to admit to being a bigot, sometimes even to themselves.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any Yes on 8 people would support that either. Saying they shouldn't defend what they believe because there are worse things to fight is definitely a cop out.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Catholic church shouldn't be made to preform a same sex marriage
No church has ever been forced to perform a marriage they did not approve of. That they might have to perform or recognize such marriages is one of the deceptive arguments of the "yes on 8" campaign.
Right. I feel like the no on 8 campaign should have pushed that point more. I hate that there are banners that say "yes on 8 = religious freedom".
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying they shouldn't defend what they believe because there are worse things to fight is definitely a cop out.
Except they've done a piss poor job of showing why what they believe is correct. *How* will it weaken marriage? *How* will it harm children?
If they want to say "God told me that gay is bad", that's fine, but that's not a winning campaign. Instead they just make stuff up to scare people who don't necessarily agree with what you think God is saying into supporting their position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Religious freedom" comes up a lot on the "yes" side. One wonders how that is reconciled with the various churches that support SSM. If SSM is permitted, either side can perform the marriages that they approve of. If not, then the side that supports SSM is unable to perform marriages that are acceptable to their religion while the anti-SSM churches are unaffected. Who is restricting religion freedom in this scenario?
quote:I think both campaigns were pretty slimy
Can you quote any factually questionable statements from the "no" campaign? I'm not so concerned about "nasty". I'm looking for dishonest. Mean people suck, but liars are much worse, IMO.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: [QB] I never saw a banner that says that.
When I was watching the election coverage tonight I saw them strung all over the party room of the prop.8 supporters.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination." That's just stupid. If you feel marriage shouldn't be given to a gay couple, you are well aware you are discriminating.
Also the whole "eliminates rights" thing isn't exactly fair.
I'm not defending the Yes on 8 campaign. Those were some awful awful commercials.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. On the bright side you get the shorter version.
BlackBlade: That same God who (in the context of your Church is true 100% scenario) told Church leaders to 'block gay marriage' also provided scripture in D&C 134:9 that says:
'We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.'
Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society (or several who have become one over this issue) to the detriment of the spiritual and civil rights of others. Same-sex marriage does not threaten straight marriage. It does not cheapen it, just as marriage between two Hindu does not cheapen Christian marriage, just as inter-racial marriage does not threaten or tarnish intra-racial marriage.
Marriage has meaning in the law and it delivers a range of rights and understandings in society. This makes it a civil matter and the seperation of church and state comes into play. The Church leaders, in following what they believe to be God's command, should have limited their actions to blocking it within the Church. And that's it.
Nothing has made me more angry in this whole campaign than the use of the song 'Save the Family' to support Yes on 8. These ARE families. They have partners and children they love and should be able to protect under the law. Some of these people are already legally married and Proposition 8 seeks to strip that from them. It's a really effective way to make someone understand that they are a second class citizen, with a second class family, who deserves only second class rights.
'Separate but equal' approaches have never succeeded in delivering equal rights and why anyone imagines they will here is beyond me. Maybe it's as simple as saying that 'separate but equal' is not really about providing equal rights, but more about appearing to do so.
As long as marriage has meaning in the law it is a civil matter. Whatever meaning anyone, religious or not, chooses to assign to it beyond that is up to them.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just look at it as a definition issue. SSM would change what marriage means. They don't want that.
"Proposition 8 is all about fostering the viewpoint of one religious society"
Not accepting Civil Unions as good enough is all about fostering a pro-gay viewpoint.
"Allow same sex marriage." "That's not what marriage is." "It should be." "You can have civil unions. It's just as good." "No it isn't."
That's what it seems like to me.
I'm aware this puts me in the "butt-buddies" group, but I think it is a good compromise. Gays get all the benefits of marriage and the religious people get to "protect marriage."
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think racial segregation and having different words for SSM and traditional marriage are comparable.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't see parallels between separate drinking fountains for black people and white people and separate legal designations for gay and hetero relationships?
Jim Crow laws were struck down because these separate facilities were inherently unequal merely by being separate.
What message does the separate facilities send that the separate designations does not?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Just got to the last line of my post and then accidentally erased it. ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
On the bright side you get the shorter version.
