Gay Marriage page 128

3421 posts

Flag Post

I would admit if I thought I was off topic, but after rereading I really don’t feel it’s off topic. I do not think that it is constitutional and objective. I’m not really sure it was unrelated, and welcome a correction. I’m disputing the statement that “Judeo-Christian values” is even a coherent statement that means one thing that we could apply in law. Do all Christians hate Gays? Then we can’t slap the label “Christian Values” onto everything and pretend it means what we think that means.

 
Flag Post

Your last paragraph was off-topic in that you didn’t address the Constitutionality of it at all. There wasn’t even a vague attempt. And being objective isn’t a prerequisite for something being Constitutional. If you’re unconvinced, read the Fourth Amendment and tell me how things like ‘unreasonable’ and ‘probable cause’ are objective.

EDIT

Looks like I was ninja’d.

I’m disputing the statement that “Judeo-Christian values” is even a coherent statement that means one thing that we could apply in law.

Newsflash: almost the entire Constitution is open to different interpretations. It blends right in, in that it gives legal scholars something else to bicker about for centuries.

Do all Christians hate Gays? Then we can’t slap the label “Christian Values” onto everything and pretend it means what we think that means.

I mention my interpretation of the values. Go back and read it big guy and you’ll see I said nothing about homosexuality. Likewise, I’m fine with gay marriage, but I guess that doesn’t fit your agenda of shitting on religion whenever you possibly can.

 
Flag Post

… That was just an example… and also what the thread is about. You’re just being defensive. And my point with objectivity has more to do with agree-ability than irrefutable objectivity. When no one in a given religion agrees on values, you can’t use the term “judeo-christian” to mean anything more than “my specific set of interpretations.” Religious interpretations that are acceptable and argued rationally to those who don’t follow that religion would just be values. Hence I do not think that a Judeo Christian state is a democratic, constitutional thing. Considering it separates the two explicitly is another nail in that coffin. I just don’t understand why you’d want the state to define what Judeo Christian meant.

 
Flag Post
You’re just being defensive.

I’m really not – more irritated that you’re Constitutional argument is ’It’s vague!!!!’ I expected something a bit more substantial, but I guess I’ll have to live with the disappointment that you don’t actually have an argument.

When no one in a given religion agrees on values, you can’t use the term “judeo-christian” to mean anything more than “my specific set of interpretations.”

You must have missed it when I said:

My personal interpretation of the values…
 
Flag Post

I edit sniped you again, sorry. I have bad habits. Edit: I seriously know how annoying it is for me to keep editing my posts. I suck.

You’re hostile so I don’t really care anymore.

(I like how I consistently defend the concept of religion against atheists on these forums and in my personal life as being misused or abused by its followers, I defend against the expectation of literal consistency, I extrapolate on the value both ethically and evolutionarily regarding beliefs, and I correct misunderstandings of seemingly brutal parables in both Christianity and Islam. When I point out the mythical unified doctrine that all religious people seem to claim yet none actually have (and even a majority of them specifically denounce claiming), I am looking for an opportunity to shit on religion. I was trying to point out a palpable logical flaw that anyone who is rational wouldn’t take as an insult but a challenge to be more humble about the universality of their beliefs.)

PPS: I didn’t particularly catch that, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have made my point about the problem with personal interpretation and how separation of church and state protects beliefs from being made democratic. I can see how the angle I took it from seems unrelated. In fact I was going to make that same point whether you had posted or not, so it was really more in response to the original question.

 
Flag Post
You’re hostile so I don’t really care anymore.

The problem I have, in addition to my irritation of the lack of a Constitutional legal argument, is that I essentially the exact same things you said – that it’s open to interpretation and even though we agree, you still have to stick in there that my beliefs are ‘generic’ (because one paragraph where I write in the broadest of strokes about Judeo-Christian values is clearly the sum total of my religious beliefs).

I don’t read every thread here and you’ve posted longer than I, so it’s impossible for me to know your history of defending religion. I’ve never seen it and it seems whenever I make some inference to my own spirituality, you have to throw in your little barbs. If you want to take my annoyance that you’re going to consistently criticize my beliefs, even when it’s off topic and my comments aren’t even directed to you, as hostility, fine. Carry that chip on your shoulder if that makes you happy. I’ve made it perfectly clear that discussing religion doesn’t particularly interest me. My conversation with Ung was solely about the Constitutionality of federalizing some religious values. If you want to argue that point, fine. But, you didn’t. You didn’t even make an attempt at arguing that and then you bristle when I call you out for being off topic.

If I agree with you, then I don’t agree well enough. If I disagree, I’m a hostile meanie. There’s no winning with you.

And apparently I’m just as good at ninjaing threads : /

 
Flag Post

I guess I initially tried to point out that I wasn’t trying to be hostile and that you’re taking words like generic to mean “stupid” and not literally what I mean in that very little of the Bible is original and that’s hardly even an opinion many theologians would debate, and many theists argue this plurality as the objectivity of their religion. It’s not an argument against Christianity, it’s an argument against Christianity as a set of laws that should be applied to everyone in a country regardless of their spirituality. I may have somewhat misinterpreted your response to Karma’s question, but my intention was to relate and negate the idea that religion is suitable as law, which even if it’s your personal interpretation of that religion, still seemed to be something you advocated?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Do all Christians hate Gays? Then we can’t slap the label “Christian Values” onto everything and pretend it means what we think that means.

No, they don’t, and there are even gay Christians (I’m sure you know this). In the broadest interpretation, I think applying the label “Christian Values” generally means those in accordance with the Bible. So yes, it might not preclude a civil union, but it would not sanctify marriage in a church setting.

Unless we just want to split hairs as to what Christian Values really means, in which case, carry on.

 
Flag Post

I think you can have Judeo-Christian values as a framework without church and state arising. Church and state separation was largely implemented into the Constitution because the Framers never wanted a national church to arise here as there was (is the Church of England still a thing?) in England. My personal interpretation of the values is one that calls on people to live morally towards yourself and to others. That seems pretty nondenominational to me. I think in secular nations, people are more focused on their own personal well-being and everyone else’s plights are ignored.

How do you feel the state should justify those values to the people? Altruism, state agency, popular appeal, religious appeal? Also yup Church Of England is still kicking about, my understanding is that it’s fairly progressive amongst the Christian heavy weights now a days.

I think applying the label “Christian Values” generally means those in accordance with the Bible. So yes, it might not preclude a civil union, but it would not sanctify marriage in a church setting. Unless we just want to split hairs as to what Christian Values really means, in which case, carry on

Well, to my understanding, I believe that is what BSG is getting out. Although I think ‘splitting hairs’ might be a little dismissive. I, and I believe he, is suggesting that there are no “Christian values”. Which is not to say that Christians, individually, do not have various values – but as a collective, a large set, that those values are quite myriad and contradictory. What is ‘in accordance with The Bible’ can move around a lot depending on whom you talk to.

Also I think the problem of “Christian Values” as being specifically, exactly that is also a fair venture. As soon as Christian Values cannot make their appeal as General Values, then they are representing a select exclusive power. One might suggest values that the two (Christian/nonChristian) have in common, but then it becomes almost redundant except to where we assign authority.

 
Flag Post

I think you’ve yet again said what I meant better than I did. Thanks.

 
Flag Post
How do you feel the state should justify those values to the people? Altruism, state agency, popular appeal, religious appeal?

Altruism, absolutely. Least controversial of the four you mention, most universally likely to connect with the citizenry, and it speaks most people’s desires to be a good person to their fellow man. Being a good person, while built in with religious afterlife, isn’t dependent on religion. I know atheists and agnostics who are really good people – they just aren’t quite into deities.

 
Flag Post
I know atheists and agnostics who are really good people – they just aren’t quite into deities.

Did you know that atheists make up the least part of prison populations here in the USA, even after accounting for statistical representation of the entire population (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/29/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-pew-forum-offers-an-answer/)? And that Christians comprise the most? Atheists often have much more developed morals (*Kohlberg’s stage’s of moral development) because we aren’t acting out of fear or self gain (fear of hell/wanting to get into heaven). Most Christians never move past level 1 from my experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg

 
Flag Post

2 things pop out to me about that point. One is that a measurement that says outside forces is less than internal forces is kind of a predisposed measurement, and second that true philosophical following of a given religious texts ascription to morals is on a more self actualized level anyway. Sure, you can be an idiot who thinks the only reason you don’t hurt others is because you can get caught, or you can also be the person who doesn’t hurt other people because others might expect you to. In fact they’re the same things. Religious pseudo morals aren’t any different than pseudo morals, and isn’t that the problem we outspoken intellectual atheists have with religion, that it’s vulgar, not that it’s the root of all illogical thinking?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

2 things pop out to me about that point. One is that a measurement that says outside forces is less than internal forces is kind of a predisposed measurement, and second that true philosophical following of a given religious texts ascription to morals is on a more self actualized level anyway. Sure, you can be an idiot who thinks the only reason you don’t hurt others is because you can get caught, or you can also be the person who doesn’t hurt other people because others might expect you to. In fact they’re the same things. Religious pseudo morals aren’t any different than pseudo morals, and isn’t that the problem we outspoken intellectual atheists have with religion, that it’s vulgar, not that it’s the root of all illogical thinking?

I was only addressing issendorf’s implication that atheists/those who do not follow a religion do not have morals. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by having a problem with religion because it’s “vulgar” but I do not think religion is the root of all illogical thinking. Anyways, we’re kind of off topic.

The justification of values should be determined by three things: how it impacts others, how it impacts the self, and some kind of rational (logical) explanation on why it is held.

For example, with gay marriage. We can break this down into several different values/morals: equality, sexual freedom, and personal choice. Equality, because the two persuasions in context (homosexuals/heterosexuals) are not granted the same options as the other. Sexual freedom, being the ability to practice homosexual acts without harassment/loss of privileges. Personal choice, a person’s right to live their life as they wish, barring it does not impede other’s right to personal choice.

Now we have three areas to evaluate.

Do you value equality, aka, having people treated the same way regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality and everything else? If so, allowing homosexual marriage (two consenting adults of the same gender) to have the same opportunities to be recognized as a couple would be the obvious conclusion.

Do you value sexual freedom, aka, the ability for a person to indulge in their sexual desires behind closed doors in a way that does not harm others or break any laws (child molestation, rape, bestiality, murder, theft, vandalizing and whatever else would go into the exception category). If so, the practice of homosexuality would be accepted.

Do you value personal choice, aka, a person’s having the right to live their life the way they want? If so, acknowledging that two adults of the same gender wishing to exert this by being recognized as together would be the logical follow through.

In the end, it boils down to your personal values/morals. Not valuing all three of those means that someone may be against homosexual marriage. People, like jhco, do NOT value sexual freedom in the slightest. They believe there is a strict set of tolerable actions that are “acceptable” and anything that deviates from the norm is to be shunned. There are nations, like North Korea, that do not value the individual’s right. There are religions, like Islam, which inherently teach that women are lesser and that non-believers are lesser than believers. We all have different morals and justifications from them, however, not all morals and values are substantiated or justified. Ironically, not holding certain values can itself be a justification. For example, without the value of personal freedom to some extent, there is nothing wrong with the idea of slavery.

I think of it as a check list. Some people have more boxes ticked than others (progressives) while others have less (conservatives). There are some, like libertarians, who have a great many checked to the extent of hypocrisy. There are others with few checked, such as racists, sexists, and your typical “bad” person. Then there are others who throw the list out in regards to certain areas of their life, such as radical terrorists who believe anything is justified to reach their goals. Note that I am talking about acts/beliefs, and not just what people profess to saying they are.

My strongest values in regards to society are perhaps equality, freedom, consideration, and compassion. I do not value tolerance; I will not tolerate what I view as hateful, bigoted, evil, or oppressive, regardless of whether that comes about due to personal choice in beliefs (Islam/Christianity, I’m talking about you). However, I do value personal choice, which means that even though I wholly disagree with religion, I accept that others believe what it teaches and do not make waves unless they start using it to justify their actions/beliefs, harm others, or promote ignorance/hatred. Long story short, I feel very strongly about two people being allowed to express their love in a non harmful/interfering way to anyone else, but who are constantly harassed and prevented from doing so by bigoted, ignorant homophobes.

 
Flag Post

Kasic, I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning this: one should not judge others by their gender, nationality, color of skin, sexual orientation or faith. My life experience has taught me that the percentage of selfish, “evil” people is the same in each social group. Unlike you, I value tolerance, but just like you, I don’t think that fanatism is right. Each living creature should have the right to live their live up to their own values as long as no one else is hurt.

Scientists have observed that one third (!) of animal couplings is homosexual. So homosexuality can be seen as something natural and normal.
(As for the Bible, the Quran and other Holy Books, we would have to read the original versions of them to find out whether there is any statement against two men or two women loving each other … which would be impossible, as these books have been changed over and over again … to keep people from thinking freely, because those who hold the power want to keep it, if you ask me … anyway, this doesn’t belong here, so back to the topic.)

And no, I am not homosexual myself. (I only state this to even give more credibility to my point.) I am a heterosexual woman (who even has had a Catholic education). I just have seen a lot during my life: there might be gay men and lesbian women who are selfish, mean and idiots (like there are a**holes in any social group), but there also are some very nice people.

Who are we to judge other people just by their sexual orientation? Don’t they deserve the same rights as everyone else? Like the right to marry?

 
Flag Post
I was only addressing issendorf’s implication that atheists/those who do not follow a religion do not have morals.

How do you get I implied that when I said, “Being a good person… isn’t dependent on religion?”

 
Flag Post

(As for the Bible, the Quran and other Holy Books, we would have to read the original versions of them to find out whether there is any statement against two men or two women loving each other … which would be impossible, as these books have been changed over and over again … to keep people from thinking freely, because those who hold the power want to keep it, if you ask me … anyway, this doesn’t belong here, so back to the topic.)

What? No. Literally just addressed this. We have original documentation of the OT, no it has not been changed over and over again. Same with the Koran really. You are worried about people thinking freely? We should teach them to think critically, not double-think apologist propaganda to justify every warm and fuzzy notion they get.

I am a heterosexual woman (who even has had a Catholic education).

Then why are you even questioning the legitimacy of the Torah as a virtually static text?

 
Flag Post

You are worried about people thinking freely? We should teach them to think critically, not double-think apologist propaganda to justify every warm and fuzzy notion they get.

As I understand it, she was criticizing biblical revisionists who are motivated by maintaining power rather than free-thinking.

lots of finger-pointing going on in this thread, which is odd because a) everyone basically agrees with each other and b) nobody here is particularly religious, or hell, even zealous about their beliefs.

 
Flag Post

As I understand it, she was criticizing biblical revisionists who are motivated by maintaining power rather than free-thinking.

Yes, but that is blame shifting to a phantom opponent, leaving biblical virtue intact. It’s not revisionists that are the problem, they barely even exist and certainly not significantly in this regard. It’s the core values within the text, which people would much rather chalk up to ‘others’ then dare to question biblical moral legitimacy.

 
Flag Post

About time this got bumped.

There’s a debate in Utah going on regarding gay marriage. The ban was overturned by a higher court, although it’s still up in the air at this point. I’m sure this is in opposition to the wishes of most of the Utah populace, since it’s predominantly Mormon and goes against their doctrine. How does everyone feel about this?

I know it’s not the first time a higher court has overturned stuff, since California had passed Proposition 8 as per the will of the voters before it was overturned.

 
Flag Post

Eventually, bigotry and inequality will not be permitted to legally exist within a populace after enough have come to their senses. We saw this with religious rights, we saw it with eliminating slavery, we saw it with women’s rights, and now we’re seeing it with homosexual rights. It’s the turning point where the movement has enough momentum to bulldoze opposition because they have the upperhand and the way has been set. Was England happy when the United States announced itself independent? No. Were the slaveholders happy when the Civil War began and they then lost? No. Were the misogynists happy when women got the right to education, voting, and jobs? No. Are the homophobes happy at what they see as an abuse of judicial power that their hatred will no longer be supported by the law? No.

It’s about time we stopped giving these idiots’ views a “legitimate” platform to stand on. Their religious beliefs and values are not our law. Their hatred is not what we should be legalizing.

 
Flag Post

Regardless of how inconvenient it is at times, the government must always obey the law. This is one of those situations. It is inconvenient to have to make gay marriage legal through the predominantly religious populous, but if we allow the government to circumvent the public vote and pass the bill within the establishment then they will be able to do the same to a bill that is destructive.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Regardless of how inconvenient it is at times, the government must always obey the law.

They also make the law.

This is one of those situations.

Well, shit, I didn’t know the government wanted to get married. Much less that it was gay.

It is inconvenient to have to make gay marriage legal through the predominantly religious populous,

Ehh, it might be kinda hard to do something, let’s just not do it.

but if we allow the government to circumvent the public vote and pass the bill within the establishment then they will be able to do the same to a bill that is destructive.

Okay, I’m confused, because I thought bills were made laws by the legislative branch (and approved by the others, but whatever), I’ve never heard of bills commonly having to be voted for by the populous before they are made law.

 
Flag Post

They also make the law

They can’t change laws overnight

Ehh, it might be kinda hard to do something, let’s just not do it.

you always fucking do this shit. You take things that I say out of context to make me look like an idiot. If you adressed the entire statement you would know that I said that it is inconvenient for politicians to convince an entire population that is against gay marriage to vote in favor of it. It would be much easier for politicians to pass the bill themselves.

Okay, I’m confused, because I thought bills were made laws by the legislative branch (and approved by the others, but whatever), I’ve never heard of bills commonly having to be voted for by the populous before they are made law.

I thought that if they pass it themselves without the puclic then it is a bill, if they ask the public to vote on it then it is a prop, but I may be wrong.

 
Flag Post

I agree, equality doesnt matter when a 2000 year old book says that someone is inferior.

lol remember the parts of the bible that support slavery.

also, people voted to keep gays oppressed. Tyranny of the majority is just a myth