Politics, Religion, and Morality

[caps]

Originally Posted by jschild

The problem is that some Christians seem to believe they came up with or own the concept of marriage. All of history implies quite otherwise.

I can agree with that. I don't think its unreasonable to suppose that a society as a whole would want to define marriage in a specific way. Although Fundamentalist Christians are the most vocal in opposition to Gay Marriage, I don't think they are alone.

[Ashus]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Maybe its less. Maybe its just different. I'm not sure. The term "marriage" has a lot of baggage for most Christians and even some non-Christians.

Another issue I have with the logic behind the "gay rights are the same as race rights" is the idea that men and women are completely and totally interchangeable.

Men and women are not identical, interchangeable parts. They are both capable of doing just about anything the other can (setting aside some biological functions), but what they bring to the table in terms of how they go about it typically varies. People are very diverse.

That's not really an argument against gay rights, just an argument against saying that the gay rights movement is the same as the race rights movement.

Races aren't identical, interchangeable parts either. They are all capable of doing just about anything the others can, but there are racial differences that give certain races distinct athletic abilities. People of African descent have (on average) a higher center of gravity, which lends itself well to sports that involve having to run very fast. Races with lower (on average) centers of gravity tend to excel in water sports, where a more balanced body type helps wave-form production and travel.

Races are different, and yet they all deserve lawful protection. Homosexuals are different too, and yet they all deserve lawful protection.

The "movement" is identical: protect everyone and let everyone do everything everyone else can do.

[Ranior]

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Everyone has an "ultimate principle," or "fundamentalist viewpoint," if you will, that forms the foundation for their system of thought. Modern secularists tend to base their ultimate principle (their "fundamentalist viewpoint") on reason in some form or fashion, but reason is fallible.

My goal was to argue that Pure Reason (being fallible), is not the only legitimate means to arrive at a conclusion for how to vote in the United States of America. I do not think I can make my position any clearer. I am not even sure that I am capable, at this moment, of supporting it by any argument of reason or logic other than what I have so far. For the record, I think people should think things through before voting and would, in general, encourage people to apply reason and critical thinking to their decision making in all areas of life. Nonetheless, it would be unjust for the carrier of one worldview to tell the carrier of another worldview that they could not use their worldview to inform their vote; be the worldviews in question be based on reason, science, conscience, gut instinct, religious teaching, or whatever. Your vote and your voice are your vote and your voice and no one should ever tell you that you don't have a right to use your vote and your voice the way you want to. Even if I think the way you want to use it is a bad way to go about it.

I felt it necessary to argue this because it made me angry to see Ranior trying to browbeat Anonymous into thinking his worldview--based on a religion that is at least 2,000 years old*--was not a legitimate foundation upon which to cast his vote and express his voice. Human reason is not the end-all and be-all of, well, anything.
* even older if you consider it an extension of Judaism

First off, you suggest reason is fallible. I would like to see this better explained, rather than just stated. If one has the facts and evidence, one can arise at the most reasonable path forward. If you are suggesting that this may not actually be the best course of action, I can accept that. But then the alternative path you suggest we should follow needs to show that it does a better job of leading us forward I would suggest. I guess my point is even if reason and logic don't get you the truly correct answer, it gives you the best answer based on what you know, meaning your are making the most informed, safest choice.


Next off, if I ever strayed too far and said someone COULDN'T vote however they like, I am sorry. You can vote however you please. For whatever reasons.

I will continue to stand by that it is wrong and unethical to try to legislate your beliefs onto someone else. It just isn't right to tell gays they cannot gain marriage benefits from our government because your relationship with God and your faith says so.


As for what systems should be used in governing, let me try to make it even clearer why reason and logic are the only paths forward that we should use, rather than using fundamentalism.


Each man's relationship with his god/s is between him and his gods. He will believe what he will based on his personal experiences which the rest of us cannot share. Each person may have their own things that make them certain that God exists, or what have you. Their relationship with God is between God and themselves. Therefore this relationship, this faith, is not affected by the outside world, by evidence, or by reason necessarily. Others may not be able to share their faith or relationship with their God.

But all men have access to reason. We can all utilize facts and logic to arrive at conclusions. (Even if in some cases this may be different conclusions.) Still, all men have capacity to reason and follow logical thought.

So if we are trying to govern, what should we use? By using reason, we can all try to get to the best path forward for all based on shared facts and evidence.

If instead we all begin to use our faith in governing, we will not be capable of going anywhere I would suggest. What faith shall we use? In our nation I suppose this means a Christian faith. But how far are we to go then? How are we going to legislate? Follow just what the bible says? Allow each man to just vote and support his interpretation of scripture and vote based on his own relationship with God, which no one else can share, and in our society, many do not share?

Overall fundamentalism has no place in governance. You are again legally allowed to vote however you may like. I will continue to say that I think it is unethical to support your fundamentalism viewpoints being made into law. You are perfectly allowed to pass around your thought that gays are sinners, and convince everyone of this, and make society distrust gays and try to make individuals not want to be gay, and not be gay or whatever. But legally, we should be a secular nation, and so the fundamentalist point of "I know God exists, and nothing will change my mind, and I know gays are wrong for God tells me, and nothing will change my mind, so we should prevent gays from marrying", has no place in governing. And I will continue to say it is wrong to vote for preventing gays from marrying if you are fundamentalist about it. (If on the other hand you truly believe there are non-religious reasons for doing so, then so be it, but this is what we were originally discussing, and nobody seems to be trying to support that point anymore, probably because it is a weak position)


Hopefully that clears all the confusion up.

Spoiler Alert!

[QUOTE=capsocrates;1704373]

Originally Posted by jschild

Anytime someone claims to give you something equal, but then refuse to give it the same name, they are saying it is less.

It's why DADT had to go. Telling soldiers that they could die for our country but must hide what they are was wrong.

They deserved the right to be who they are (while following the exact same rules as straight people in the military) while still being allowed to fight and die for our country.

Maybe its less. Maybe its just different. I'm not sure. The term "marriage" has a lot of baggage for most Christians and even some non-Christians.

I'll state this again because I think it is one of the things most people are ignorant of on this debate. When we are talking about gay marriage, or gay marriage having been passed in any state, it does NOT mean that churches or religions have to accept gays and marry them. Religious organizations are exempt from being forced to marry anyone. We are talking about giving gays the governmental right to go to your courthouse of town hall, fill out a marriage licence, and then be eligible for the numerous benefits that this governmental marriage provides.

That's not to say that some churches won't go out and marry gays, but that is in the hand of each church and their leadership. Basically my point is that Christian's aren't having their marriage infringed upon one bit, if they want to think they own the institution. And as for separate things for gays, my point is that's effectively what we are already talking about. Perhaps if we just call all government marriages civil unions, we won't have any issue.

That's not really an argument against gay rights, just an argument against saying that the gay rights movement is the same as the race rights movement.

True enough. It is not the same.

I think the point most try to make, and at least I surely am is look at how close they are. They are extremely similar. Very close in a lot of fashions. Heck, even DADT was really similar to letting blacks in the military. You can find some of the EXACT same arguments being used on both sides, you just need to replace "interracial" with "homosexual", "black" with "gay", and if you're in a very virulent spot, replace the n-word with the f-word.

For the fun of it, do the opposite, and turn the arguments being used against gay marriage into arguments against interracial marriage. They sound absurd most of the time. I would suggest that this is how people 40 years from now will look at the current arguments against gay marriage.

I think the link is important to look at, because history often does repeat itself. I think it is important to look at, and if you oppose gay marriage, I think you should answer why you think this issue is different enough that it shall play out differently.


But I do think it is wrong to state they are exactly the same, yes. But I think they are close enough to provide some additional issues to ponder.






Finally, to your point of why we are discussing this, it is what came up. I'm having fun talking about it. I think any discussion will help us all understand each other better, which may lead to real changes in opinion. This page has a lot more views than people just posting here--who knows if some of them reading this thread aren't learning something, and going to change their mind.

I agree there are a lot of other issues to be discussed about this election, but someone would have to bring them up to have us discuss them. Plus I don't think we're quite done with this line of thought quite yet, although I sense we might be wrapping it up.

And as to the stuff about Obama and Romney, I think jschild covered it for me. I do think there is a very big difference between the two on this issue though. If a bill was on their desk to pass gay marriage, Obama I think would now sign it, whereas Romney assuredly will not. I think that speaks a lot. If you think gays should have equal rights, Obama is your guy. If you don't, Romney is your guy. (Although Romney is far more of a moderate then he is campaigning as, and in his past he supported the repeal of DADT back in the early 2000's even, before that was a popular opinion to have. I doubt he would upset his conservative base by passing gay marriage, it's hard to know where this guy actually stands on some things.)

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I think both of these statements are debatable. The latter on multiple fronts.

Viewing marriage as a "right" that homosexuals are currently denied is not, I think, the only way to center the discussion.

[philosophical musing]
Even if it were, one could argue that there are other things one class of people justly has a "right" to while another does not. I'm not sure if those groups could be fairly compared to the various groups of sexual orientation.

In the abstract, speaking of rights still, is it necessary that just because Joe has a right to X it is unjust for Jack to not have a right to X?
[/philosophical musing]

Just throwing some thoughts out there.

Both statements are completely debatable but that's the point, and the fun.

I'm clearly missing your point because I don't really know where else to center the point on the subject "the right for gays to marry" anywhere else but on the fact that gays don't currently have the right to marry. Because if they did already have the right to marry then it would be like me demanding the right for white dudes to vote.

I completely agree! Sexual orientation shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. I just wish someone would explain to me why it currently does.

If Joe has the right to X then Jack and Jill and Humpty Dumpty and all the kings horses and all the kings men should also have the right to X. Equal rights for all.

Originally Posted by Bannister

Actually, I doubt it would win him many votes, in fact, likely it cost him some. His view on gay marriage was fairly complex, opposing marriage but supporting gay rights (quite rightly eliminating DADT and civil unions.).

Second, you claim it was a couple months. It was 6 months ago. Not a "couple'. Again, exaggeration doesn't help one's arguments.

Holy Crap, now I'm sleep posting! Oh wait, that wasn't me.

Bannister

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Bannister

I completely agree! Sexual orientation shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. I just wish someone would explain to me why it currently does.

There are two types of laws in this country. The first type are the protection laws--where the government protects our safety and freedoms such as freedom of speech.

The second type are statist laws.

Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

These types of laws include high taxes on cigarettes, bans on prostitution and some drugs, bans on gambling, and other laws meant to promote one type of lifestyle over another.

The purpose of statist laws is to promote a healthy, more stable nation. Whether they actually achieve that or not is a different story.

So marriage laws were originally intended to promote one type of marriage for the benefit of the family and society as a whole. Lawmakers saw a societal benefit in awarding certain benefits to a man and woman married couple.

I hope that explains your question.

[Bannister]

Lol, I see what you did there!

Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists," advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Putting the political philosophy definitions aside and hopefully clarifying my point, Should sexual orientation, race, IQ, anything be used as a reason to differentiate one group from another in the eyes of our government? Should it be equality for all? Should it be majority rule? If majority rule then why things like the The Americans with Disability Act?

If businesses are forced to accomodate patrons who may or may not frequent their establisment, what is wrong with churches recognizing a form of marriage that they may or may not have a religious aversion about?

Bannister

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Bannister

If majority rule then why things like the The Americans with Disability Act?

Because the majority of congressmen voted for it.

That's not meant to be a snide answer--but it's the way our government works.

The purpose of statist laws is to promote a healthy, more stable nation.

In the case of the AwDA, enough congressmen thought that it would promote a better society.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by White Knight

Because the majority of congressmen voted for it.

That's not meant to be a snide answer--but it's the way our government works.

In the case of the AwDA, enough congressmen thought that it would promote a better society.

I am sure your point is very clever and I am just to dense to "get it" but are you saying that you are "pro statism"?

Bannister

[caps]

By WK's definition (note "to some degree") almost everyone is "pro statism."

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Conservapedia

Statism is the belief that the civil government (or man via civil government) is the ultimate authority in the earth and as such is the source of law, morality, and righteousness (that which is right and wrong)

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

Maybe we are just using different ideas about what "Statism" means then. I personally am for less government, not more.


Bannister

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

By WK's definition (note "to some degree") almost everyone is "pro statism."

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Except for Anarchists, most people want the government to make at least some laws which promote certain aspects of society.

I gave the Statism definition mainly to help explain about Statist laws. They are laws that give benefits or restrict behavior in order to "benefit society". These include drinking laws, "sin taxes", gambling laws, marriage laws, patent laws, property laws, and the like. I am sure that some people would be happy for gambling to be legal everywhere in the USA--but many other want to restrict or eliminate it.

I suspect very few people want to completely eliminate all Statist laws.

Edit: I am not FOR Statism--but I am for some Statist laws.

Edit 2: Those who are truly anarchists would be opposed to ALL marriage laws.

[Bannister]

But isn't that the question we are discussing ultimately, what role do we each believe our government should play?

Look at your politicians and ask yourself, do you really want these people dictating morality to you? That is of course politicians on both sides, R's and D's.

If what benefits society, in the case of marriage, is the traditional wife, husband and kids, with anything outside this being "less beneficial for society", then shouldn't a "statist government" make tougher divorce laws?

Of course, the real question is, what qualifications do any of our elected officials have that would give them the ability to determine what is "best for society"? Do any of us really want to give anyone that kind of power over our lives?


Bannister