Politics, Religion, and Morality

[Ranior]

I'm going to start throwing quotes into spoilers, to condense the size of posts and make it clearer to follow.

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

As to the article I referenced I wasn't trying to use it as an argument. I just included it because I think it gives a bit of a different take on an issue that most people don't see. I wasn't using it to argue against gay marriage. I included it as an interesting aside.

I call foul. There are two answers here. Either what you just said is a lie, and you were, OR, you just don't review what you are writing. Either way though what it comes off as is clearly an argument:

Spoiler Alert!

In regards to the issue of the permanency of homosexual relationships there is a significantly lower rate of monogamy and shorter relationship span. You can take that two ways. Either the homosexual community and homosexual relationships in general are less conducive to stable long-term relationships or the lack of the institution of marriage is responsible. I think it's a legitimate question and people will come to different conclusions. In regards to some of the statistics I'm not really up to date on divorce rates for married homosexual couples in Europe. For some slightly older statistics from a conservatively biased source you could look at this article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02#edn6

Additionally, they're is a substrain of homosexual philosophical thought that rejects marriage as a goal to be strived for because it is viewed as overly restrictive. We read an article from that perspective in my Philosophy class.

The way you wrote it, I think makes it seem like you were intending it as a continuation of the previous line of thought, that homosexual marriages are not stable or effective long-term. Maybe it is a mistake, but you have to understand how it came off.

The site I referenced had statistics about the permanency of homosexual relationships on average, not necessarily married ones, and domestic violence statistics. I think the difference between comparing it to race or income level is a practical one. Most heterosexual couples will have children whether the government likes it or not. Thus, since the government knows practically that people of all races will have children, it makes sense to promote the more stable family structure of marriage. The same is true of income level. Lower income level people will have children whether the government likes it or not. Thus it makes sense to support marriage since there will be children regardless.

So in other words though, if possible, we should have procreation licenses, and regulate who should legally have kids. That's an interesting viewpoint. You make it sound like the only reason we don't do this, is because it wouldn't actually stop some couples from having kids anyhow. I think this line of thinking is so full of problems personally.

The other problem is you continue to equate marriage with raising children. I'll cover this in a bit, but just wanted to point it out for now.

Spoiler Alert!

However, homosexual couples cannot naturally have children and instead have to find a surrogate father or use artificial insemination. This often takes quite a bit of money or planning and the government could more easily regulate this, if it was shown that the homosexual-headed family structure was more violent or unstable. If marriage rates in Europe have increased long-term relationships than the stability probably isn't a good argument. However, the domestic violence argument is additional.

I will give you that it would appear that the domestic violence rates for LGBT individuals are slightly higher. The site you sourced earlier quotes some real numbers, but then distorts them by using statistics and unfairly comparing them. For example, comparing the numbers of LGBT relationships that have domestic abuse to the number of married straight couples is not a fair relationship to explore. After trying to find the real number, it does seem that the rates are slightly higher, but I would just like to make it clear that the site you quote is not viable. It skews the statistics, does improper comparisons, and does quote unfair and questionable studies among good ones. It's also difficult again to figure out if this increased aggression in LGBT relationships may partially stem from the added psychological effects society puts on LGBT individuals. As long as we continue to demonize homosexuals and have such hate and vitriol out there, it will be difficult to figure out if these are not issues that are influencing their behavior, and leading to increased aggression.

Even assuming though that LGBT individuals are slightly more aggressive, do you think it is fair to the couples that aren't? And do you support the idea that we should then look at stats by race and ethnicity to figure out who should be allowed to marry? I would suggest this would be ridiculous. The problem here is domestic abuse, which should be worked on for all couples. To deny two individuals the right to marry because you tell them they are more predisposed to future violence because of a group they were born into, is not a valid reason to prevent them from marrying. (Now again we come to the issue if homosexuality is a choice, which I will repeat all science and respected medical and psychological organizations will tell you homosexulaity is NOT a choice.)

Spoiler Alert!

For the record I am completely for interracial marriage. I don't have any sort of problem with it. It's a great thing.

Now you are just avoiding the question as I asked it. I'll be nice and repeat for you though:

--Considering that most of the arguments you are using can be directly pulled up from the discussions surrounding interracial marriage, and the incredible similarities between these discussions, why do you think that homosexuals having the right to marry is different from interracial marriage? Why do you think that history here will not repeat itself, and bear out the support for homosexual marriage?

Spoiler Alert!

A lot of people misconstrue the Constitutional clauses about religion. The Constitution says that government cannot establish religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Basically, they can't set up a state church or try to eliminate churches. It does not mean that people's moral beliefs that people derive from their religious beliefs are off the table when it comes to deciding which actions should be deemed allowable by the state. I think everyone makes moral judgments about what is allowable in society. To say that my view of the morality of an action, is not an acceptable basis for policy because it is partially derived from my religious beliefs is much more restrictive than what the Constitution says.

Largely correct. Your beliefs for morality are perfectly viable to bring up and discuss. Regardless of whether you think they come from God, yourself, Darth Vader, or Princess Peach.

The real issue though is that you can't state that we shouldn't allow something because your religion believes it. You're allowed to state that you don't support homosexual marriage. But our government should NOT deny a group a right because of religious reasoning. I think on this the constitution is pretty clear, and at the very least by reading the writings of the founders, it is more than apparent what they intended for religion in our government--which is basically the less the better.

Now then the real point comes down to what we've largely been trying to do the whole time: What non-biblical reasons are there for denying LGBT individuals the right to marry? I think we've largely stayed on this line of thought. You individually can continue all day to not accept homosexuals having the right to marry, but the government should not if it cannot show how it harms our society.

Spoiler Alert!

I don't think it is necessary or practical to ban homosexuality outright. It would be impossible to enforce and wouldn't really prevent anything. I do think it is a different matter, however, when the government takes a substantively different behavior and elevates it to the same level as something else by saying essentially, "These things are of equal value." That's the line that's crossed.

Alright first off, that first sentence is really interesting to me. You would suggest that if we could, we should ban homosexuality? That's what that makes it sound like, and if that's your opinion, maybe it is utterly pointless for me to argue about this here and attempt not to attack the root of the problem for you, the biblical reasoning you believe you have.

Well sure, the line that is crossed is to state that homosexual couples can form lasting unions that are deserving of the legal status of other couples. Why should that line not be crossed here? Because crossing lines isn't nice? I mean I really do not understand how this is a serious argument. I mean I'm assuming that you would suggest that homosexual unions are not of equal value, but again, you need to show that.

In the meantime, I would suggest that yes, celebrating two individuals who have agreed to bond together out of love for one another should be celebrated whether they be gay, straight, black, white, interracial, or what have you. Love is a beatiful thing and we shouldn't tell LGBT individuals that their love cannot be of the same level or the special nature that straights can love each other.


Of course you will bring up children again. And this is what I will discuss here: I do not think marriage is a union formed to produce children. I think many do do that, sure. But when I attend weddings I don't remember celebrating the great bond two people have made so they can safely and effectively raise kids, whereas otherwise they could not.

I would suggest to you the reasons for individuals to marry are numerous. I would suggest that while some, certainly not all who marry do so with the intention of ever having children. There are plenty of married people out there who do not want kids. People marry for reasons of love, financial security, emotional needs, spiritual reasons, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. LGBT individuals have just as many reasons to want marriage as other peoples.

To state then though that LGBT individuals should not be allowed to marry because they will not form a solid basis for raising kids...yikes. First off let's begin with the fact that in the US, currently there are very few restrictions on who can adopt. Basically if you have an income, and some type of residence you can adopt. You can be single or in a couple or married. You can live in a great house, or an apartment. You can be gay or straight. You can be a man or a woman.

Perhaps you mean that you would like to change a lot of these rules. But for now we will move on knowing that this is the current law in the US.

Would you then think that providing marriage to an LGBT couple would benefit the child adopted by these two individuals? Or would the child be better off being adopted by a couple out of marriage?

Still though, you are still assuming that marriages will eventually provide a foundation for children. You are confusing the issues of gay adoption and gay marriage. You seem to think marriage and kids go hand in hand, but they certainly don't have to or don't need to.


But to continue on with your thoughts on kids, you seem to think that homosexuals should not be allowed to raise children at all, as we should strive to ensure that kids wind up in households with the greatest chance for happiness and success. Does that mean only married individuals should be allowed to adopt and have kids?

I mean, your argments thus far extend far beyond just denying LGBT individuals the right to marry. Anyone with a higher change of domestic violence too should be blocked. Any groups with higher divorce rates should be denied the right to marriage and kids.


Overall, I would suggest you have already made up your mind that homosexuality is impermissible, and that homosexuality is impermissible. You have latched on to any arguements you can find to suggest that homosexuals cannot handle marriage. You then use those to make this point. The problem is your arguments extend far past homosexual relationships. The other big problem thus far is that even if your stats are correct, you have only shown that homosexual relationships are not as ideal, but you have not been able to show that two LGBT individuals cannot have just as successful of a marriage and a relationship and a spot to raise children. Should we really deny any LGBT individuals the right to marry and have a shot at a successful long term union, just because many of their peers cannot? Especially when the union of these two individuals does not hurt society, only hurts themselves potentially.

As to the theology of homosexuality's moral permissibility in Christianity, that's another issue that would take a long time to discuss. But the bible's pretty clear about it.

I'd be more than willing to take it up with you if you're genuinely interested in exploring your convictions. I will tell you however that there are serious biblical arguments where homosexuality is not a sin. There are numerous religious arguments to be had on the whole issue, and I will suggest to you that your stance that homosexuality is immoral, impermissible, and something that we should try to enact legal action against is a stance that is not shared by all Christians, as you know. Many theologians and Christians have different viewpoints, and are just as learned and staunch in their faith as you, if not more so. I'm merely trying to make it obvious to you that even if you think you know that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, not all agree with you, which should make you think that you might be wrong and have more to learn on the issue. (For example I would suggest to you if you would read a theologian's argument for why homosexuality is not explicitly prohibited by the bible, and understood it, you would not state that the bible makes it pretty clear, you would instead state that your interpretation of the bible leads you to believe homosexuality is wrong.)




Finally though, I thank you for taking the time to discuss this, but I may soon stop. It's taking me quite a while every day to discuss it, and thus far it does not seem like you are actually taking any of the opposing arguments seriously, or even accepting that they may be correct. You seem to think that you know what you know, and are just fine with that.

To anyone out there who is still learning from our conversations and thinking they are valuable to you, please speak up though. I'm more than willing to keep at this if I think it's helping individuals grow in their understanding of an issue. I'm just not convinced that Anonymous is actually discussing this with an open mind.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

As for legally whether preachers can talk about political issues there are rules. Churches can talk about issues but not endorse candidates. Otherwise they can lose their tax exempt status.

Anonymous, to the best of my knowledge, that is actually a myth, and inconsistent with the Constitution and all of its amendments related to that matter. There are, in fact, numerous pastors who recorded their endorsements of certain political candidates and sent them to the IRS, daring them to try it.

Whether it is prudent for pastors to endorse political candidates is a different discussion entirely, but it is fully within their rights.

First, I'd like to close the discussion of the homosexuality issue (at least, insofar as the involved Christians) with two comments from upstanding members of this community the last time this subject was discussed here. If others want to continue to discuss it they obviously can, but I don't see the point and I will not participate.

Originally Posted by mad_wookiee

Man, I can't believe I'm about to step into this. To my knowledge, I've never discussed my religious beliefs on this site and I certainly don't intend to make a habit of doing so in the future - but I'm making an exception, just this once, because I think this statement, right here, needs a response. And I guess I'm as qualified as anyone to say what I'm going to say, or at least, I have a paper hanging on my wall from a seminary that says I put in enough hours of study to earn the right to say what I'm going to say.

Look, I know what you're getting at here. And in some sense you're right in that there is a fundamental statement that Christianity makes vis-a-vis other theologies or religions or what have you, and yes, there are some fundamental statements about right and wrong that aren't negotiable. But I'm going to say that, when you look at the big rocks, the things that Christian scripture repeatedly burns a lot of ink on, this isn't one of them. The statements that you think are so black and white are really not all that black and white, and there are a great many folks who hold to the Christian faith that would say that you're out of line here. I'm one of them. I would counsel you to do more reading about this from people who know Greek and Hebrew, and do some reading about the first century ancient Near East culture, and try to understand the context before you decide this is one that you should go to the mat for. Because I don't think, at the end of the day, it really is.

Here's the ugly secret of American conservative Christianity: it's a theological approach that's based on fear. And my New Testament tells me a lot of things about fear, none of them particularly complimentary. I don't know what it is about this particular topic that makes certain segments of American Christianity so rabidly fearful, but I'm strongly concerned that what's getting lost in the shuffle is that you would likely claim to be about grace, but you're talking law here, and I think you need to consider whether that's an approach you're comfortable with. Please bear in mind that the New Testament that I've studied shows a Christ who is far, far more often telling religious conservatives that their proclamations of judgment on everyone else was going to land themselves in hot water some day. I would honestly tell you - please, take some time to read through the book of Luke and think about whether you represent your religion well by taking this approach. (Here's a hint: I don't think so.)

Let me make a final suggestion: drop the part of the line that says "hate the sin". D_S is right on - you can't do that without putting yourself in a position where you are damaging the person. I don't have a problem with trying to help people in areas where they need to be challenged, but you need to earn the right to do that, and you haven't earned that right with people that you don't know and love personally. And I suspect that if you actually got to know any GLBT persons - especially ones that have suffered at the hands of Christians - you might find yourself thinking about this whole subject rather differently.

Originally Posted by Aldin

Since you tried to troll me with this a few weeks ago () I figured you wanted me to offer my own particular perspective here. I know several reasonably well adjusted GLBTQ persons and like most of them. I have had several as close friends and I still think the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Which for me is equivalent to saying I know prideful people and gluttonous people and, and, and. It also carries with it the tacit acknowledgement that I, myself, sin.

~Aldin, curious as to whether there was some unresolved items anyone wanted to discuss with the owner of a more mature opposed perspective on the subject

Now, I'd like to discuss the much more important assumptions that Ranior is insistent on making.

Originally Posted by Ranior

Largely correct. Your beliefs for morality are perfectly viable to bring up and discuss. Regardless of whether you think they come from God, yourself, Darth Vader, or Princess Peach.

The real issue though is that you can't state that we shouldn't allow something because your religion believes it. You're allowed to state that you don't support homosexual marriage. But our government should NOT deny a group a right because of religious reasoning. I think on this the constitution is pretty clear, and at the very least by reading the writings of the founders, it is more than apparent what they intended for religion in our government--which is basically the less the better.

1. We do not live in a Theocracy. We do not live in a Dictatorship. We do not live under some Absolute Central Committee.
2. We do live in a form of government that is supposed to be representative.
3. Citizens of this country are free to support politicians, laws, etc. that reflect their own worldview and their own ideas of what is right and wrong. Ex. Americans believe murder is morally wrong and detrimental to society, so there are laws making murder illegal and punishing murder. Americans believe that we should take care of old people when they're too old to work, so we have a support system in place for them. Etc. (not trying to debate the validity of these beliefs, just holding them up as something that most Americans accept)
4. Example 1: Progressives hold to a meleoristic worldview; a worldview that "progress" and change are inherently good; a worldview that says the government is absolute and should help those who can't help themselves to better "pursue happiness." Etc. So, progressives push for laws that reflect that worldview. They are within their rights as Americans to do so. We can argue about where their worldview has got it right or wrong, but they are within their rights as Americans to push for laws that reflect their worldview.
5. Example 2: Christians hold to a worldview that clings to the idea of a central, constant, absolute Good. They cling to the idea of Virtue that transcends the centuries. American Christians seek to make their nation a virtuous one, which means that they seek to align it with their ideal of Virtue. We can argue about where their worldview has got it right or wrong, or even about where their worldview fails to reflect the Bible they believe in, but they are within their rights as Americans to push for laws that reflect their worldview.

In conclusion:

1. You cannot convince me that you do not have a worldview that shades your "objective" discussions of what the government should or should not allow.
2. You can no more get a Christian to set aside their worldview than you can set aside your own.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Now, I'd like to discuss the much more important assumptions that Ranior is insistent on making.

1. We do not live in a Theocracy. We do not live in a Dictatorship. We do not live under some Absolute Central Committee.
2. We do live in a form of government that is supposed to be representative.
3. Citizens of this country are free to support politicians, laws, etc. that reflect their own worldview and their own ideas of what is right and wrong. Ex. Americans believe murder is morally wrong and detrimental to society, so there are laws making murder illegal and punishing murder. Americans believe that we should take care of old people when they're too old to work, so we have a support system in place for them. Etc. (not trying to debate the validity of these beliefs, just holding them up as something that most Americans except)
4. Example 1: Progressives hold to a meleoristic worldview; a worldview that "progress" and change are inherently good; a worldview that says the government is absolute and should help those who can't help themselves to better "pursue happiness." Etc. So, progressives push for laws that reflect that worldview. They are within their rights as Americans to do so. We can argue about where their worldview has got it right or wrong, but they are within their rights as Americans to push for laws that reflect their worldview.
5. Example 2: Christians hold to a worldview that clings to the idea of a central, constant, absolute Good. They cling to the idea of Virtue that transcends the centuries. American Christians seek to make their nation a virtuous one, which means that they seek to align it with their ideal of Virtue. We can argue about where their worldview has got it right or wrong, or even about where their worldview fails to reflect the Bible they believe in, but they are within their rights as Americans to push for laws that reflect their worldview.

In conclusion:

1. You cannot convince me that you do not have a worldview that shades your "objective" discussions of what the government should or should not allow.
2. You can no more get a Christian to set aside their worldview than you can set aside your own.

1. Correct. We do not live in any of those. We live in a secular representative democracy.

2. Correct.

3. Correct. You are free to vote for whomever you would like.

4. You obviously are biased in some ways, by using language I doubt a progressive would make, but so be it, largely you are correct.

5. Correct. They are allowed to have those opinions and push for laws that support their views.


Conclusions:

1. Correct. I opened this discussion by explaining I am in some way biased. We all are, yes. That is why we try to objectively discuss and debate policy matters, try to come to and understanding of each other and the truth, and arrive at a path forward that seems fair and virtuous. (Although I would actually suggest to you I can set aside my specific views. I hold several thoughts about how I think things would best be, but what would actually make sense as legislation. They are different at times. I can set aside some of what I believe, realizing not everyone shares my views and experiences, and know that it is not ethically correct or morally permissible for me to force my views onto others.)

2. Correct. I do not expect that a Christian must set aside their worldview. They are perfectly allowed to have it aid them in their interpretation of the world.



Frankly I don't think I've gone against any of this thus far. My point follows though;

This nation is secular. We are not going to recognize a state religion, or any religion through our laws.This similarly means we should not and cannot establish laws based on religion. We cannot use religious reasoning to enact legislation. (So I have said before, Anonymous and others can have the opinion all they want that gay people are immoral, and they can even as much as they like try and support those laws, but legally they should not be enacted, and according to our constitution will not hold up.)

I think it's fairly obvious why it should be this way.

So my point still stands. Christians can proclaim all day that homosexuals are sinners, but in the secular government we are supposed to have in our society, if you want to enact legislation against homosexuals, you must be able to make the secular reason we should do so. This is what I'm asking for. This is what was originally stated that started this discussion. (That there is no non-religious reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry) It is what will be required to have a constitutional piece of legislation. You can go ahead and support all day a bill to ban homosexual marriage because your religion tells you it's immoral, but it shouldn't and hopefully won't stand.


Finally, the other part we should cover is the other problem with your earlier statement. You seem to link progressivism with Christianity as being equivalent--as in they are both on equal footing. Yet we know they are different. See progressivism is not a religion. Christianity is. Christians know what they know. Their religion or religious book, their scripture guides and tells them certain things are good and bad.

But to a secular society, that doesn't really matter. You need to be able to explain and show why that is good or bad.


Progressivism would attempt to do this. (And is probably largely what I have been doing, although I haven't often self-associated as a progressive and certainly would not agree with your definition.)

Christianity on the other hand would tell you it knows homosexuality is wrong, and would try to legislate that. But what about a homosexual who doesn't believe in Christianity? What about the individuals who aren't Christians who think gay marriage is fine? To them they have no reasons to deny these homosexuals that right.


Therefore I think the main flaw is your argument seems to be based on the idea or concept that Christianity and progressivism are equivalent world views to be talking about secular policy we should promote. Yet we shouldn't.


Now you can argue from a conservative prospective. That may be also founded upon the worldview you have as a Christian. Again, you are allowed to have your beliefs all you want. It just is morally wrong to force your beliefs on others, particularly through law.

We should avoid a tyranny of the majority in this nation. A problem of democracies is that minority issues and rights can get overlooked. I again would suggest that history in this nation has shown that most laws that single out ethnic, racial, or gender specific groups and deny them the right to be free, to vote, to marry, we have been wrong. I think history shows that these laws are wrong. I think history has shown that we as a nation, as a majority, can ignore minority rights for far too long, and deny individuals rights they deserve. I suggest to you we just are repeating some of the same mistakes of the past right now.

[Hive Lord 1233]

Ah. So we are having the Homosexual marriage debate again?

I'm not going to get involved in this; seriously outgunned as I am.

I would just like to throw out my opinion however-

If there is no solid scientific evidence that gay marriage is inferior, then I think it should be legal. I think everyone has the right to be happy,and I don't think it is right for any one group to impose their view on the whole. I mean, if an extremely orthodox Jewish sect somehow gained the majority, should they be allowed to outlaw pork?

[caps]

Rather than quote all the places you addressed it... our nation is no more secular than it is Christian, which is related to the points I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by Ranior

This nation is secular. We are not going to recognize a state religion, or any religion through our laws.This similarly means we should not and cannot establish laws based on religion. We cannot use religious reasoning to enact legislation. (So I have said before, Anonymous and others can have the opinion all they want that gay people are immoral, and they can even as much as they like try and support those laws, but legally they should not be enacted, and according to our constitution will not hold up.)

I think it's fairly obvious why it should be this way.

So my point still stands. Christians can proclaim all day that homosexuals are sinners, but in the secular government we are supposed to have in our society, if you want to enact legislation against homosexuals, you must be able to make the secular reason we should do so. This is what I'm asking for. This is what was originally stated that started this discussion. (That there is no non-religious reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry) It is what will be required to have a constitutional piece of legislation. You can go ahead and support all day a bill to ban homosexual marriage because your religion tells you it's immoral, but it shouldn't and hopefully won't stand.

I imagine you think of yourself as open-minded, but there is a lens (more than one, in fact) so different from yours...

Originally Posted by Ranior

Finally, the other part we should cover is the other problem with your earlier statement. You seem to link progressivism with Christianity as being equivalent--as in they are both on equal footing.

Christianity stands on much stronger, more ancient, more true footing.

Originally Posted by Ranior

See progressivism is not a religion. Christianity is.

I didn't claim it was. I claimed it was a worldview. I also did not mean to ascribe it to you.

Originally Posted by Ranior

Christians know what they know. Their religion or religious book, their scripture guides and tells them certain things are good and bad.

You mean, in the same way that your reason and observation tells you that something is good or bad?

Your worldview runs deep, deep, deep into the way you think, just as mine runs in the way I think. You cannot convince me, at this point, that you do not ascribe to the Modern worldview--the worldview that the Absolute State and Scientific Theory, among other things, are built on.

I picked Progressivism as an example; as a sub-set of the Modern worldview, but that is the one that I guarantee everyone on this forum has been affected by growing up in the Modern West.

Originally Posted by Ranior

But to a secular society, that doesn't really matter. You need to be able to explain and show why that is good or bad. Progressivism would attempt to do this.

This. This is the secular modernist worldview that you cannot set aside.

Originally Posted by Ranior

I haven't often self-associated as a progressive and certainly would not agree with your definition.

I'm curious how/why you dislike that definition (I admit it is broad and generalistic), but I was not trying to pigeon-hole you as one.

Originally Posted by Ranior

Christianity on the other hand would tell you it knows homosexuality is wrong, and would try to legislate that. But what about a homosexual who doesn't believe in Christianity? What about the individuals who aren't Christians who think gay marriage is fine? To them they have no reasons to deny these homosexuals that right.

What about an Atheist who believes homosexuality is objectively immoral? Are you going to legislate against his beliefs by making homosexual marriage legal?

Originally Posted by Ranior

Now you can argue from a conservative prospective. That may be also founded upon the worldview you have as a Christian. Again, you are allowed to have your beliefs all you want. It just is morally wrong to force your beliefs on others, particularly through law.

Who decides what is morally wrong to force on others and what is? Why can voters force their beliefs on others on other topics (like Public Healthcare, Sex Ed. in schools, the Death Penalty, etc.), but not on Homosexual Marriage?

[All Your Pie]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Who decides what is morally wrong to force on others and what is? Why can voters force their beliefs on others on other topics (like Public Healthcare, Sex Ed. in schools, the Death Penalty, etc.), but not on Homosexual Marriage?

Because they have logical arguments (it keeps costs down, it reduces teen pregnancy, it's less criminals that need to be reliant on tax revenue) that have been presented in favor of them? Notice none of the little snippets I just listed say "because the bible said so any everyone in the country just has to accept that."

I'm terribly sorry but your argument here is patently ridiculous. The idea that your faith empowers you to restrict and limit the rights of others is just absurd. Yes, perhaps you would feel unrepresented in our political system if gays could marry, and many people feel unrepresented because they cannot. The difference is, this is a matter of equality. If you win, you are restricting certain people from doing certain things for purely ideological reasons. There are no ifs ands or buts about that. And while even if the majority holds those views, which I don't think they do, then I don't believe that they should be or are empowered to impose their views on others.

Hmm. I think I worded that weirdly. Whatever my point was probably made.

[Dunedain]

From what I can see this is turning into a debate on Religion.

As a Christian, I really don't want to come of as judgmental or nasty to those who don't believe as me, but, Christianity isn't an open-minded religion really. There's good and bad, black and white, no grey area. So, I can't really side with the view that Homosexuality should be allowed, simply because people don't see the same as I do. It's how I live my life, and to go against it would be to go against everything I believe in. What y'all are saying (Rainor and Caps mainly) seems legit, that we shouldn't enforce homosexuality because it's not wrong in all religions. However, I can't side with that view because I whole heartedly believe it to be wrong. It's not politically correct, it's how I'm choosing to live my life though. And as for Prometheus's statement about Christianity being judgemental, and that there's no grey areas, he's dead right. You really have to be willing to let the Bible and God tell you what's right and wrong. And it doesn't mean I don't have struggles. I do. It's just how I see them and how I deal with them. It really comes down to what are you willing to believe and live by?

Anyway, there's my thoughts. This really seems more like talk on Religion now though, so maybe open a new thread?

I'm also terribly sorry if I offended someone, it's not my goal. I'm simply trying to state my case and offer up an idea of why me (and fellow Christians) are so against homosexuality and other issues.

EDIT: Also Caps, on your post on pg 4, I do agree with that. The church as a whole focuses way too much sometimes on calling people out on what they're doing wrong, on homosexuality and other similar matters. I try not to be that stereotyped Christian, but those kinds of "you're going to hell and I want you to know it" Christians are out there. I also think they get to much focus though, cause I'm pretty sure Christians aren't the only people who are against Gay rights.

[Dysole]

I have debated long and hard about posting on this particular topic because it's one that I have really had a hard time dealing with especially since it is not an issue that would make or break an election for me.

That said we get into an interesting situation when we say "We can't force our beliefs on others." and yet interestingly enough SOMEONE'S beliefs will get forced on others through the law so it becomes tricky. The logical thing to do is the one which will produce the most good for the most people which again becomes tricky to figure out because we all have our worldviews shaped by our experiences and personalities coloring our perceptions of what is the most good. It is impossible to be truly objective. Some people happen to be better at it (and it isn't inclusive to any particular worldview, it just happens to be the way some people are built).

That's about all I really feel comfortable saying at this point.

~Dysole, who if anyone wants to know his thoughts on homosexuality, the legality/illegality thereof, or what his particular worldview is and how he thinks it colors his thinking feel free to PM him since otherwise we'll probably be going off topic

[Anonymous]

In response to Ranior there are efforts to enact government licensing of parents similar to the adoption criteria. I don't know if it would be practical. That's the line I was drawing between race and homosexuality. I think such a measure, which has interesting merits, isn't really practical with heterosexuals but would be practical for homosexuals.

Again, the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage is that a man and a woman marrying who are white is essentially the same action as a man and a woman marrying one of whom is white and the other is black. The race doesn't substantively affect the action or the institution. I think there is a significant, substantive difference between a man and a woman marrying and a man and a man marrying.

Like it or not race is not a biological determinant of action. Your sex is a biological determinant of action. Which is why I think to equate the interracial marriage and racial marriage debate with the traditional marriage versus gay marriage debate is a gross oversimplification of the issue.

I think there is a danger, and you probably don't agree with me, in fundamentally redefining an institution that has been around for a very long time, by elevating and equating a substantially different institution that has not been proven to be its equal.

I would love to discuss the theology at length, but I don't think this is the place. I will say though that supporters of gay marriage have to seriously twist and manipulate passages of the Bible while ignoring others to come to the conclusion that gay marriage is permissible. Or you have to reject the authority of Scripture.

Again, like you, I've been spending a substantial amount of time each day discussing this and I'm fine with ending this discussion. I hope there haven't been any hard feelings created. I hope I haven't offended everyone. I probably have. If so, I apologize.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Dysole

That said we get into an interesting situation when we say "We can't force our beliefs on others." and yet interestingly enough SOMEONE'S beliefs will get forced on others through the law so it becomes tricky.....

Actually, the opposite of this is true. Currently, gays must conform to a worldview that is not their own and marry a member of the opposite sex in order to receive the benefits and recognition that they are asking for.

If gay marriage is legalized, straight couples will be able to keep right on doing what they have always done.

By legalizing gay marriage you will "stop" forcing beliefs on others.

Bannister

PS Did anyone else giggle over the "gay marriage...if's, and's, or but's comment? No? Just me, gotcha.

[Dysole]

Originally Posted by Bannister

Actually, the opposite of this is true. Currently, gays must conform to a worldview that is not their own and marry a member of the opposite sex in order to receive the benefits and recognition that they are asking for.

If gay marriage is legalized, straight couples will be able to keep right on doing what they have always done.

By legalizing gay marriage you will "stop" forcing beliefs on others.

Bannister

PS Did anyone else giggle over the "gay marriage...if's, and's, or but's comment? No? Just me, gotcha.

Well...while true with a legalization then you're forcing the worldview of it's okay on those who believe otherwise. I'm not saying they're equal positions. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong. I'm simply saying someone's worldview becomes law and we all have our own idea of which worldview is the "correct" one and I think oftentimes we forget the perspective of the other side.

~Dysole, who really wishes he had all the answers

[Bannister]

I hear what you are saying, I just meant that the issue isn't a certain worldview "becoming" law, because a certain worldview "is" law.

If you are currently opposed to homosexuality now, you can continue to be opposed to it, even if they are allowed to marry. Allowing them to marry does nothing to challenge your worldview.

Bannister

I don't have all the answers, but I do have some really interesting questions.