| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2008 11:44:51 AM · #726 |
The issue of incest is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't deny a legitimate right to some people just because some other people may try to use that argument to extend similar rights to others.
While there may be a genetic rationale for limiting reproduction among closely-related individuals, I believe the legal basis for the restriction is that someone in a close family relationship cannot be considered competent to offer consent, much the same way minors are considered too immature to be considered to have freely consented to having sex, signing a contract, voting, or many of the other privileges and duties of adults.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 11:45:39. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:48:50 AM · #727 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And that's my point. Incest should be no more stigmatized than gay marriage on either moral grounds or state's interest if one ( or both ) of the parties are sterile and both are consenting adults. Did I change your mind about certain incestuous relationships? If not, why not? The arguments are the same as for gay couples. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I am just so astounded that someone could possibly take this stance.
As well as being radically flawed thinking, it just doesn't make sense.
There are documented genetic problems associated with incest!
It is NOT comparable on any level with homosexuality and the inference is completely reprehensible! |
Originally posted by RonB:
Jeb, put your emotional hat aside for a moment and don your logical hat instead - then please re-read the post of mine that you quoted just above. I have bolded the part that you are obviously ignoring, as can be seen from your bolded reply.
My post specifically stipulates the requirement that one or both of the parties are sterile. If one or both of them are sterile, there can be NO genetic problem associated with incest between the two, period.
It is NOT radically flawed thinking. It is completely logical. |
My bad, I missed that.
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the remark about the inference being "reprehensible", please consider that not that many years ago, a majority of people in the Americas also considered homosexuality to be reprehensible. Many cultures still do. Take India, for example. On Oct 21, The Hindu newspaper reported that "The Centre on Monday concluded its submission on the petition for legalisation of homosexuality, saying that it was a disease and morally reprehensible." On Nov 8th, the Delhi High Court entertained arguments from The Centre, and others, on the legalization of homosexuality and reserved judgment. A decision is expected soon.
Culture changes - with your approval or without it - and the same for mine. |
My reprehensible comment was in the context of comparing homosexuality with incest.
Personally, I think that's obfuscation and nit-picking to offer up the example of sterile incest as comparable as it's a very remote, obtuse example that you want to use to try to validate your point.
It's just not germaine.
Yes, culture changes, my approval was not in question, and yes, it *IS* something I value, especially when there's common sense being applied and arcane beliefs being kicked to the curb.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:51:17 AM · #728 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
How does a posi-track rear end work? It Just Does. |
That's just crap!
Which Posi?
Locker? Clutch type limited slip? Cone style? Torque sensing?
How is this relevant?
That can be explained......deep-rooted illogical fears cannot be explained.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 11:53:15.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:52:57 AM · #729 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As for the remark about the inference being "reprehensible", please consider that not that many years ago, a majority of people in the Americas also considered homosexuality to be reprehensible. Many cultures still do. Take India, for example. On Oct 21, The Hindu newspaper reported that "The Centre on Monday concluded its submission on the petition for legalisation of homosexuality, saying that it was a disease and morally reprehensible." On Nov 8th, the Delhi High Court entertained arguments from The Centre, and others, on the legalization of homosexuality and reserved judgment. A decision is expected soon.
Culture changes - with your approval or without it - and the same for mine. |
I think this is the crux of the argument. Ought homosexuality be legal? If we decide to make acts of homosexuality illegal, then it makes the subject of gay marriage go away. If we recriminalize the overt actions of homosexual behavior, then we can put gays in jail, and strip them of any rights we decide is a fit punishment. Not long ago homosexuality was held to be a disease by the American Psychiatric Association, and a crime against nature, with full legal punishment.
But today, we have repealed these laws. It is legal to be homosexual. Given that this subset of Americans are breaking no laws, are we as a society entitled to strip them of certain rights that are available to any other legally autonomous (no minors, must be able to enter into a contract) person. Is it OK if we say no homosexual can take out a loan? Get a drivers license? Own property?
In America, a citizen is either a criminal, or they are entitled to all the rights that the state grants any citizen.
This does not mean that churches are not free to discriminate against gays, they still are, as a Temple is free to exclude non-jews or a priest does not have to give communion to those who are apostate, religious institutions are free to act in accord with their faiths; But civic, publicly funded governmental organizations are not.
The difficulty of using history as a guide on this matter is that for the last few thousand years, western culture has tried to make homosexuality go away, by shunning and punishing them. You don't have to consider the marital rights of anyone who, if caught, will be bunt alive. And of course in the good old days, every person from serf to king had different sets of rights depending on your station in society, with limited access legal redress determined by where you stood on the social ladder.
Today in America we hold that all men are created equal, heck we have even expanded that to include women and people who's skin isn't white. The United States is a radical experiment in the expansion of rights, from the few to the many. This question of gay marriage is the first time (unless you count prohibition, which I think is a different kettle of fish) that we are amending our constitution to limit a groups franchise rather than expand it.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:00:02 PM · #730 |
You know, on some level Bear is probably not far from the truth. I appreciate his attempt at distilling the feeling.
Marriage IS sacred to me. I expect to be married once to the same woman. I "waited" for her (but let's not turn this into an after school special). In my whole extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins) there are 16 marriages between my aunts and uncles and at least as many among cousins (my mom had a BIG family). Divorce has affected three. I take pride in that and often sheepishly describe my extended family as "Normal Rockwell". I love movies and watch a ton of independent film each year. I cannot, however, watch a movie where the protagonist has an affair because I just cannot identify with him and it ruins the film for me. At the moment the affair begins I'm always screaming at the screen "You idiot!!! What are you doing?!?" (That's weird, I know. But it's true.)
Anyway, I ramble. The only thing I will add to Bear's essay is that I struggle with juxtaposing tolerance with principle. I am called to love everybody. I am, however, called to adhere to the principles of my faith. While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". That is a mature (ie. difficult and complex) idea to try to carry out.
But as I said, I have tried to keep religion and faith out of this thread because I know not everybody shares it and therefore it has little persuasive power for them. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:05:23 PM · #731 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, on some level Bear is probably not far from the truth. I appreciate his attempt at distilling the feeling. |
Well that's a relief :-) Thanks for saying this.
R. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:52:22 PM · #732 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I ramble. The only thing I will add to Bear's essay is that I struggle with juxtaposing tolerance with principle. I am called to love everybody. I am, however, called to adhere to the principles of my faith. While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
Yet, other people are called to adhere to different principles that may, as in this instance, conflict with yours. If you were denied the right to follow your principles because someone sought to impose on you their principles that were contradictory to yours, I expect you'd be upset too.
Does your faith call for you to follow your principles personally or to impose them on others as well? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:05:08 PM · #733 |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:10:33 PM · #734 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
You could have said that a long time ago and saved a lot of argumentation. You think homosexuality is a sin. That position is invulnerable to any logical refutation. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:20:11 PM · #735 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
You could have said that a long time ago and saved a lot of argumentation. You think homosexuality is a sin. That position is invulnerable to any logical refutation. |
I can argue long and far without even bringing this up. It's not the be-all of my position. Don't flatten me into a 2D version of my real 3D self. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:22:04 PM · #736 |
How sad is this... Denying a child full time parents because they are not married. This is truly regressive, and reminds me of the laws in place when I was born. A mother of 13 children, recently widowed, could not have one of her eldest daughters tend to a newborn... no sir that simply was not done.
Much better that the child be placed in an orphanage and be eventually adopted by a family from a different ethnic group and speaking a totally different language.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"...(Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr)
Ray |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:23:20 PM · #737 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I ramble. The only thing I will add to Bear's essay is that I struggle with juxtaposing tolerance with principle. I am called to love everybody. I am, however, called to adhere to the principles of my faith. While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
Yet, other people are called to adhere to different principles that may, as in this instance, conflict with yours. If you were denied the right to follow your principles because someone sought to impose on you their principles that were contradictory to yours, I expect you'd be upset too.
Does your faith call for you to follow your principles personally or to impose them on others as well? |
I've taken quite seriously the words of Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (who were dealing with the very same issues)..."What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?"
I'm sure I'd be upset if someone was trying to impose their principles on me. That's natural. However, that's life. We are never going to get to some utopia where everybody agrees with everybody about everything.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 13:24:41. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:23:33 PM · #738 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
You could have said that a long time ago and saved a lot of argumentation. You think homosexuality is a sin. That position is invulnerable to any logical refutation. |
I can argue long and far without even bringing this up. It's not the be-all of my position. Don't flatten me into a 2D version of my real 3D self. |
Your 3D self was looking a little flopsy-mopsy without this 2D base to stand on. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:27:04 PM · #739 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
You could have said that a long time ago and saved a lot of argumentation. You think homosexuality is a sin. That position is invulnerable to any logical refutation. |
I can argue long and far without even bringing this up. It's not the be-all of my position. Don't flatten me into a 2D version of my real 3D self. |
Your 3D self was looking a little flopsy-mopsy without this 2D base to stand on. |
It isn't. Please look at this new topic as being totally separate. Bear started to relate to the personal aspect of the dilemma and I was willing to share some of me in another attempt at trying to show people what may make the other side tick. It can be divorced from the philosophical arguments I have posted and as I've stated before my views on homosexuality are quite complex and even incomplete so I would really ask for you to give me the benefit of the doubt and not boil me down to some bumper sticker ideology. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:33:00 PM · #740 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
You could have said that a long time ago and saved a lot of argumentation. You think homosexuality is a sin. That position is invulnerable to any logical refutation. |
I can argue long and far without even bringing this up. It's not the be-all of my position. Don't flatten me into a 2D version of my real 3D self. |
Your 3D self was looking a little flopsy-mopsy without this 2D base to stand on. |
Must be in the eye of the beholder.
I didn't view him as being flopsy-mopsy at all.
Well, perhaps just a wee bit off in the hunting analogies, but then he was by no means alone in being a bit off in trying to make hunting analogies work. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:43:11 PM · #741 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, on some level Bear is probably not far from the truth. I appreciate his attempt at distilling the feeling.
Marriage IS sacred to me. I expect to be married once to the same woman. I "waited" for her (but let's not turn this into an after school special). In my whole extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins) there are 16 marriages between my aunts and uncles and at least as many among cousins (my mom had a BIG family). Divorce has affected three. I take pride in that and often sheepishly describe my extended family as "Normal Rockwell". I love movies and watch a ton of independent film each year. I cannot, however, watch a movie where the protagonist has an affair because I just cannot identify with him and it ruins the film for me. At the moment the affair begins I'm always screaming at the screen "You idiot!!! What are you doing?!?" (That's weird, I know. But it's true.)
Anyway, I ramble. The only thing I will add to Bear's essay is that I struggle with juxtaposing tolerance with principle. I am called to love everybody. I am, however, called to adhere to the principles of my faith. While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". That is a mature (ie. difficult and complex) idea to try to carry out.
But as I said, I have tried to keep religion and faith out of this thread because I know not everybody shares it and therefore it has little persuasive power for them. |
Hello!!!
Marriage is sacred to me! I expect to be married once to the same man. I tried to impart that in my last post. Those vows were important to me. More important to me than any law of man.
Sacred:
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
Why do you think I waited for thirteen years just for the chance to marry Eric? Why do you think I didn't run off to Canada or Massachusetts to tie the knot? Because it's sacred! I wanted to do it once, just once, in my home, for one man. A sacred bond, to be respected by my family, state, and country. To venerate my relationship, not to cheapen it with legal end-runs by travelling away from my home to return with something... contested and unrecognized.
So, now that DrAchoo has pinppointed exactly why it is so important in a clear way that everyone seems to be able to identify with...
Why can't conservatives believe that I, or gays, can feel this way too? Why is society telling me that my sacred isn't as worthy as DrAchoo's sacred?
And if it's so darn sacred... why would anyone think that a civil alternative would ever be good enough? Would it be good enough for you? Is this not just an attempt to deny that my relationship could even BE sacred, just because some people don't like it?
And if it's so darn sacred... nobody has addressed this from my last post, I would really appreciae it if someone against gay marriage would... does that sacred vow I made evaporate just because most other people don't like it? If it does, why does public opinion trump sacred vows? If it doesn't, what responsibility to that vow do I still have, and why? If you answer one issue raised by this post, please let this be the one!
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 14:00:23. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:44:12 PM · #742 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, I ramble. The only thing I will add to Bear's essay is that I struggle with juxtaposing tolerance with principle. I am called to love everybody. I am, however, called to adhere to the principles of my faith. While trying to not sound cliche or judgemental it's "love the sinner, hate the sin". |
Yet, other people are called to adhere to different principles that may, as in this instance, conflict with yours. If you were denied the right to follow your principles because someone sought to impose on you their principles that were contradictory to yours, I expect you'd be upset too.
Does your faith call for you to follow your principles personally or to impose them on others as well? |
I've taken quite seriously the words of Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (who were dealing with the very same issues)..."What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?"
I'm sure I'd be upset if someone was trying to impose their principles on me. That's natural. However, that's life. We are never going to get to some utopia where everybody agrees with everybody about everything. |
No, we'll never have a "utopia" as you describe it. There's a huge difference between not agreeing with someone and interfering with their life.
You could use that same "That's life" argument with respect to civil rights or women's rights or any other minority subjected to discrimination. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:46:03 PM · #743 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bear started to relate to the personal aspect of the dilemma and I was willing to share some of me in another attempt at trying to show people what may make the other side tick. |
This isn't directed at you DrAchooo, but you're the proxy.
I am frankly distressed that the 'other side' could believe that this isn't what makes ME tick.
That they could be so blind to my belief that they devalue and deconstitutionalize my ability to share in it.
Empathy people! EMPATHY!!!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:49:47 PM · #744 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
...Empathy people! EMPATHY!!! |
I called it compassion, in an earlier post.
Those who are less inclined to have any for their fellow men (and women), have probably not suffered enough. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:49:57 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bear started to relate to the personal aspect of the dilemma and I was willing to share some of me in another attempt at trying to show people what may make the other side tick. |
This isn't directed at you DrAchooo, but you're the proxy.
I am frankly distressed that the 'other side' could believe that this isn't what makes ME tick.
That they could be so blind to my belief that they devalue and deconstitutionalize my ability to share in it.
Empathy people! EMPATHY!!! |
I totally 100% hear ya Mousie. It's the old "rock and a hard place" scenario. I am conflicted by it as is the entire country (well, some may be less conflicted than others). Anyway, there is no easy answer or it would have been implemented. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:59:02 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I totally 100% hear ya Mousie. It's the old "rock and a hard place" scenario. I am conflicted by it as is the entire country (well, some may be less conflicted than others). Anyway, there is no easy answer or it would have been implemented. |
Don't you recognize that you've backed into the corner of "no, our needs are different, and more important, and you can't have it because you're not the same as us, you're not human like us"?
If marriage is truly sacred, then it's too important not to share. To say otherwise is pure selfishness and greed, and denies the sacred nature of 'the other' in direct opposition to 'do unto others', expressly dehumanizing them in the process. Which, I think, is the true goal of this battle.
If marriage is not sacred, then conservatives have no claim on it, and there's no point in not sharing it.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:12:54 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
If marriage is truly sacred, then it's too important not to share. |
You see. I disagree with this. If "sacred" has value, then protection and preservation of tradition may be the "too important" aspect. It's not that I don't see your view, but the two views are in conflict with each other that isn't easily resolved. Marriage may be too important not to share, but it may also be too important not to protect and preserve its tradition.
A westerner may be very well meaning in wanting to spread the message of Islam. He goes around handing out pamphlets with a picture of Mohammed talking about the values of the religion. To him, it's too important not to share. However, the strict Muslim will be offended because the picture of Mohammed represents idolatry. We aren't supposed to have picture of Mohammed. To him, Islam is too important not to fight to preseve the traditions and ideals. They both love Islam, but they are in conflict with each other.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 14:13:53. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:13:06 PM · #748 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Your 3D self was looking a little flopsy-mopsy without this 2D base to stand on. |
It isn't. Please look at this new topic as being totally separate. Bear started to relate to the personal aspect of the dilemma and I was willing to share some of me in another attempt at trying to show people what may make the other side tick. It can be divorced from the philosophical arguments I have posted and as I've stated before my views on homosexuality are quite complex and even incomplete so I would really ask for you to give me the benefit of the doubt and not boil me down to some bumper sticker ideology. |
I've already addressed your 3-D arguments. At least hypothetically, I've conceded the liberty argument. I've explained why historical precedent is unnecessary. I've basically tried to make my argument on cultural grounds, but you haven't engaged me. I explained your underlying assumption, categorical difference, which I deduced from your philosophical arguments and that you now confirm with your statement of personal belief. It's not so easy to divorce personal from philosophical. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:15:13 PM · #749 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've basically tried to make my argument on cultural grounds, but you haven't engaged me. |
If I haven't engaged you, it's my bad. Can you either restate your cultural argument or point me to the appropriate threads? |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:22:05 PM · #750 |
I get the feeling that my marriage is probably being put in with Mousie's in terms of not being sacred enough. It wasn't in a church after all. We aren't married before [G|g]od[s]. 'Just' our friends and family and most importantly each other. We are committed to each other. I hope my partner and I will be together for the rest of our lives. Our vows and promises to each other are important and fundamental to me.
Nobody is voting to annul my marriage, yet (it is Texas...) but I'm sure there are plenty who probably consider it sinful and not respectful enough or sacred enough of their traditions and view of what a marriage is or should be. Maybe it cheapens the concept in their eyes, too. |
|
