Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/18/2008 10:46:46 PM · #1126

Originally posted by posthumous:

But as an individual you should be reconciled by now with the fact that the United States has a secular government, allowing all sorts of things that your religion doesn't allow. In fact, you should be protesting Proposition 8 on the grounds that the government should not be defining marriage AT ALL.

That's actually a pretty interesting take Don. :) I like it.

Perhaps it's clearer to say that as a citizen of a democracy, the individual IS the government. Our hypothetical judeo-christian happens to be about one three hundred millionth of it. As mentioned in #4, this hypothetical citizen has every right to advocate his position and if his position from #1 and #2 state "gay marriage" is a non sequitur he should be able to advance that position.

Another question would be, if the hypothetical judeo-christian citizen must accept that his government allows all sorts of things he is against, why shouldn't other groups, including homosexuals, accept the same reality? Are we discriminating against a moral framework merely because it is religious in origin? Why are secular moral frameworks superior to religious ones and based on what authority?

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 22:47:30.

FireBird

11/18/2008 11:33:07 PM · #1127

Originally posted by Mousie:

I am waiting with bated breath for DrAchoo to concede that his 'constancy of marriage' argument is completely false. If he can't bring himself to do it, I'm no longer going to debate him, and that's a shame, because all the other conservatives seem to have been run off.

I don't think you can label DrAchoo as a conservative. Unless you mean the long past meaning of conservative, which is kinda like the difference between electron current flow and conventional current flow. In any event I don't think you can label him as either conservative or liberal. Maybe chimera....

11/18/2008 11:34:51 PM · #1128

Originally posted by dahkota:

Regardless of this morality diversion, I still think the two sides of this discussion are arguing different points. Until we can agree on the main issue, we will never agree on a solution.

For those against gay marriage, I'm getting the feeling that this is an issue of sexual morals in society. For those for gay marriage, I'm getting the feeling that it is a discrimination issue. Am I anywhere near correct in this?

One thing I'd like to know is how those who are against gay marriage, or gay people in general can reconcile themselves to those of us who are not gay and clearly see it as a rights violation.

I have yet to hear one iota of valid justification for this discriminatory behavior.

It's just wrong.

11/18/2008 11:45:49 PM · #1129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The judeo-christian moral framework
1) Homosexuality is forbidden. This is a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
2) Marriage is a sacred (devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.) covenant between two individuals and God. This is also a "self-evident" truth under this framework.
3) To institutionalize Gay Marriage would be to put an official stamp of approval on a juxtaposition that makes no sense under 1 and 2. (ie. you cannot have a forbidden act at the base of a sacred union.)
4) Judeo-Christians, like everybody, have the right to participate in self-government, advocate for themselves, and advance their positions.

I had agreed that if we could somehow divorce "civil marriage" from "religious marriage" then we could potentially have a solution. However, for too many, the term "marriage" is too sacred within their framework to apply to gay couples.

How would you respond?

Well, for starters, I have a serious problem with the whole cherry-picking that fundamentalists do with that publication in the first place.

Slavery, the "rights" of a husband over his wife, and many other things that were moral axioms and accepted behavior at the time that have long since been kicked to the curb.....out of necessity and evolution.

Yet they cling to the ideas and practices that they like to justify the persecution of those who do things they don't like.

That practice, in and of itself I find abhorrent.

You may find someone else's behavior to be morally wrong, but if it does NOT affect you, who the Hell are you to persecute that person?

"Judge not lest ye be judged" I belive the axiom goes.

11/18/2008 11:49:53 PM · #1130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If it comes down to following God or loving your neighbor and the two are in direct conflict, the first trumps.

Yes, but the God of my understanding wants me first and foremost to be a gpood m,an while I walk this earth, and to do that, I have to learn to love my neighbor first, no matter how much of an asshole I think he is.

11/18/2008 11:55:23 PM · #1131

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why are secular moral frameworks superior to religious ones and based on what authority?

Because they change and grow as necessary.

11/18/2008 11:58:25 PM · #1132

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it comes down to following God or loving your neighbor and the two are in direct conflict, the first trumps.

Yes, but the God of my understanding wants me first and foremost to be a gpood m,an while I walk this earth, and to do that, I have to learn to love my neighbor first, no matter how much of an asshole I think he is.

Umm, didn't you just read? God wants you to first and foremost love Him. I'm not saying Love Your Neighbor isn't really, really important, because it is. But the passage clearly says that "Love the Lord your God" is utmost NOT "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself" (that's second). I'm just saying.

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 23:59:00.

11/18/2008 11:59:40 PM · #1133

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why are secular moral frameworks superior to religious ones and based on what authority?

Because they change and grow as necessary.

Change and growth is the sign of superior moral frameworks? What's this based on?

11/19/2008 12:02:14 AM · #1134

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If it comes down to following God or loving your neighbor and the two are in direct conflict, the first trumps.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's my point....."You're just saying" that Love the Lord your God is "IT".

God tells me how to be, and the love just is.

And God DEFINITELY tells me NOT to tell other people how to live their lives.

11/19/2008 12:07:21 AM · #1135

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And God DEFINITELY tells me NOT to tell other people how to live their lives.

Okey dokey.

Matthew 7
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

2 Cor 5
We are therefore Christâ��s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christâ��s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Certainly I agree we are not here to beat people over the head without love or compassion. However, if you think Christianity is not an outward facing faith, you are quite mistaken.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Message edited by author 2008-11-19 00:21:25.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/19/2008 05:37:07 AM · #1136

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And God DEFINITELY tells me NOT to tell other people how to live their lives.

Okey dokey.

Matthew 7
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

2 Cor 5
We are therefore Christâ��s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christâ��s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Certainly I agree we are not here to beat people over the head without love or compassion. However, if you think Christianity is not an outward facing faith, you are quite mistaken.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

...and that's exactly why I need the government to protect me from those pushy meddlers!

Hordes of religious fanatics of all stripes running around with a self-assigned mandate, forcing obedience to their version of god on everyone else! Telling us all how to live, without first addressing their own issues! Making our relationships and hobbies illegal!

Christianity is not really about acceptance and love of the other, that's just window dressing, an intro to get you hooked. We love you... just let us save/change you! Like most successful organized religions, it is about the conversion of the other, with an according compliance to their beliefs, in an attempt to build a unified global church under one God. No WONDER so many conservatives mistakenly think that gays 'recruit' to swell their ranks... that's how they do it themselves! It's written into the belief system, a fundamentally viral and invasive dogma. What surprises me is that they can't even get their various houses in order... yet they often focus on me, the agnostic gay, before all the people in the 'wrong' sects practicing the 'wrong' version of the truth.

It keeps me up at night.

Don't they have enough to do at home? Install a floor or something!

11/19/2008 06:06:05 AM · #1137

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why are secular moral frameworks superior to religious ones and based on what authority?

Because they change and grow as necessary.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Change and growth is the sign of superior moral frameworks? What's this based on?

Because we don't do things like own other people, hit a potential mate over the head and drag tem off because we want them regardless of what they think, we don't just squat and defecate wherever we are when the need strikes, we actually sit down and discuss these issues as opposed to acting like animals.

C'mon, Doc, you're being deliberately obtuse here.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/19/2008 06:57:20 AM · #1138

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And God DEFINITELY tells me NOT to tell other people how to live their lives.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Okey dokey
Matthew 7
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

2 Cor 5
We are therefore Christâ��s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christâ��s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Certainly I agree we are not here to beat people over the head without love or compassion. However, if you think Christianity is not an outward facing faith, you are quite mistaken.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

That's your version.

I don't happen to have a lot of use for a 2000 year old publication with total human spin on it filled with a lot of useless information, traditions, and values that have no place in today's society.

I think there is much good teaching and thinking to a certain extent, but it's in no way to be used as a rigid primer for daily life as far as I can see.

I hate the way people cherry pick what they want, and conveniently overlook the inconsistencies that help to cancel out the parts that are being used for peoples' agendas.

So quoting scripture at me won't do anything for me but make me question your sense in this age.

That's just my take on it.

BUT.....I also respect your right to have your faith and take your guidance in life as you see fit with NO interference from me.

See, I feel that God communicates his wishes for me in His way.....and it certainly isn't through the writings of 2000 years ago.....it's in the signs and guidance that I sense.

Yes, I believe what I consider to be a good Christian ethic isn't a bad way to live, but I adamantly draw the line at the interference in others' lives.

Yet all too many Christians think they have a God-given right to tell others how to live.

My God doesn't work like that.

Religion and faith to me are very personal, and I think should be to everyone whpo wants them.....not used as a weapon to cow others into your way of seeing things.

That's just wrong.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

11/19/2008 07:03:13 AM · #1139

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by dahkota:
However, you run into the problem that nothing is good and nothing is bad. ever. My taking of your life is not wrong or bad or immoral if I believe so. Additionally, if you look at from a societal point of view rather than an individual one, then killing you today might be wrong but killing you tomorrow might not be, depending on the consensus of society at that given point in time.

It is possibly worth pointing out that this isn't actually an argument for or against moral relativism.

Actually, they both are.

Simplistically, moral relativism is the idea that morals are relative to time and place and that there is no universal morality, no moral truths (as I hold), no divine command theory (as Achoo holds), no natural law.

Because morality is relative to place, what is considered immoral by one group of people is not considered immoral by another group of people. This allows that while it might be immoral for DrAchoo to kill me, it is possible that it is not immoral for me to kill him. This is proven by the immorality of stoning someone to death here, but the morality of stoning a woman in Iran.

Additionally, because morality is relative to time, what is considered immoral today might be moral tomorrow. this allows that while it might be immoral for me to kill DrAchoo today, it might not be immoral for me to kill him tomorrow. This is proven by the moral acceptance of slavery in this country 300 years ago vs. the immorality of it today.

If all morality is relative, it is acceptable to hold amorality as a 'moral framework.' Moral Relativism runs into the slippery slope of allowing individual members of a society to construct their own moral frameworks so morality is different from person to person and moment to moment - in essence, moral chaos. Not saying it exists, just saying it is possible.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/19/2008 07:05:07 AM · #1140

Originally posted by Mousie:

Christianity is not really about acceptance and love of the other, that's just window dressing, an intro to get you hooked. We love you... just let us save/change you! Like most successful organized religions, it is about the conversion of the other, with an according compliance to their beliefs, in an attempt to build a unified global church under one God. No WONDER so many conservatives mistakenly think that gays 'recruit' to swell their ranks... that's how they do it themselves! It's written into the belief system, a fundamentally viral and invasive dogma.

This reminds me of a recent benefit dinner I covered as an event photographer. One of the keynote speakers was a prominent leader of the religious right. He spoke about how religous conservatives were growing in numbers. He didn't mention anything about conversion rates from spreading the word, instead he bragged about how they was creating more babies and their opponents too busy killing theirs. It's not the first time I've heard this actually spoken out loud as if it were a strategy.

Message edited by author 2008-11-19 07:05:57.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/19/2008 08:01:04 AM · #1141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A) On a housekeeping front. You are going to have to show me biblical passages forbidding interracial marriage. I can find passage discouraging interreligious marraige (but not forbidding it) and I can see passages forbidding intercultural marriage (although my guess is technically speaking the Israelites and say Phillistines were probably the same ethnic race). OTOH I'd hardly say that gambling and prostitution are "accepted in society" given the first has regulation and the second is still illegal in most parts. You probably haven't visited many Southern Baptist churches if you think they don't have feelings about such activities.

Genesis 24:3-4 - I'll give you inter-religious if that's what you prefer, though I don't know if the Canaanites were of the same race. In the same sentence, God also proclaim that they should marry relatives, or at least Isaac should. there are many others, depending on your interpretation. I'm assuming you believe your interpretation is more correct than one who believes interracial rather than inter-religious; both are opinion though.

Gambling is legal in most states. Prostitution is legal in one. I believe christians have feeling about such matters, but I also believe many are hypocrites (but that is another discussion). My point in mentioning these is that both exist in society and I see no harm you, as a person, has suffered. The point here is that there exist in our society, things that many would find immoral. These things are allowed by the state, and yet, society still exists; it hasn't been destroyed by all the 'immorality.'

One thing I greatly admire about a sub-set of christians, is their willingness to accept people so different from themselves without a desire to change them. I worked with one church for a while, a catholic church, whose members were openly accepting of anyone, whose desire was to learn not to convert. they held to their faith, but they understood that not everyone held their faith. they might have secretly hoped to influence them, but they never judged, preached, or denounced; they only embraced. their golden rule was, "treat others as if you were in their shoes."

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/19/2008 08:09:01 AM · #1142

Originally posted by dahkota:

If all morality is relative, it is acceptable to hold amorality as a 'moral framework.' Moral Relativism runs into the slippery slope of allowing individual members of a society to construct their own moral frameworks so morality is different from person to person and moment to moment - in essence, moral chaos.

Right - again - not an argument for or against it, just stating the consequences.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/19/2008 08:10:52 AM · #1143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Perhaps it's clearer to say that as a citizen of a democracy, the individual IS the government. Our hypothetical judeo-christian happens to be about one three hundred millionth of it. As mentioned in #4, this hypothetical citizen has every right to advocate his position and if his position from #1 and #2 state "gay marriage" is a non sequitur he should be able to advance that position.

Yes he does, but a simple majority of voters is insufficient grounds to make a position into law. Our government was designed to not be a pure democracy. That's why it has three branches. That's why it has a Constitution, which by the way, has been the primary thing protecting homosexuals, just as it led the way in the Civil Rights movement.

Isn't Christianity based on voluntary participation? Just how much of your religion do you want to legislate? Remember, it's dangerous to legislate Christianity because there are many flavors of Christianity. Once government starts defining and enforcing the "sacredness" of marriage, where will it end? Will they ban the breaking of glass at wedding ceremonies? Will they insist that a Mass be delivered as part of the ceremony?

Don't vote for Proposition 8 because it happens to align with your idea of marriage. Vote against it on principle, because you don't want government to have any say over what marriage means to you.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Another question would be, if the hypothetical judeo-christian citizen must accept that his government allows all sorts of things he is against, why shouldn't other groups, including homosexuals, accept the same reality? Are we discriminating against a moral framework merely because it is religious in origin? Why are secular moral frameworks superior to religious ones and based on what authority?

Homosexuals do accept that heterosexual marriage is allowed, even though on a visceral level they don't understand it.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/19/2008 11:19:10 AM · #1144

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I don't happen to have a lot of use for a 2000 year old publication with total human spin on it filled with a lot of useless information, traditions, and values that have no place in today's society.

See, I feel that God communicates his wishes for me in His way.....and it certainly isn't through the writings of 2000 years ago.....it's in the signs and guidance that I sense.

You don't believe in a publication that's been around for 2000 years? You believe God communicates to you with signs and guidance?

I'm impressed. The God I know hasn't said a word to me at all. Thus, I can only go off what the church interprets of the bible. I'm not talking about a 2,000 year old book. I'm talking about 2,000 years of learned people discussing/debating these same topics.

Anybody can read the bible and take snippets and twist them into signs and guidance. I'd rather go with the church teachings that have already been debated and researched.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/19/2008 11:25:59 AM · #1145

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I don't happen to have a lot of use for a 2000 year old publication with total human spin on it filled with a lot of useless information, traditions, and values that have no place in today's society.

See, I feel that God communicates his wishes for me in His way.....and it certainly isn't through the writings of 2000 years ago.....it's in the signs and guidance that I sense.

You don't believe in a publication that's been around for 2000 years? You believe God communicates to you with signs and guidance?

I'm impressed. The God I know hasn't said a word to me at all. Thus, I can only go off what the church interprets of the bible. I'm not talking about a 2,000 year old book. I'm talking about 2,000 years of learned people discussing/debating these same topics.

Anybody can read the bible and take snippets and twist them into signs and guidance. I'd rather go with the church teachings that have already been debated and researched.

I'd rather study those 2000 years of debate and see how they came to their conclusions.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/19/2008 11:34:58 AM · #1146

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OK. Thanks. I will not judge your moral framework but I will say it's hardly a robust position to only be able to reiterate your position in the face of disagreement. "Well, that's the way it is."

It is an untenable position, yes, and it seems almost everyone does so at some point, as Gordon has pointed out (especially believers in the supernatural), but let me answer with a quote from Harris, since you are given to quoting from Lewis. I suggest that it's axiomatic that moral behaviour derives from an acute awareness of the happiness and well-being of others, and I don't believe anyone can seriously refute that. Harris says:

"As in any other field, there will be room for intelligent dissent on questions of right and wrong, but intelligent dissent has its limits. People who believe that the earth is flat are not dissenting geographers... the fact that good ideas are intuitively cashed does not make bad ideas any more respectable....

To treat others ethically is to act out of concern for their happiness and suffering. It is, as Kant observed, to treat them as ends in themselves rather than as a means to some further end. Many ethical injunctions converge here -- Kant's categorical imperative, Jesus' golden rule -- but the basic facts are these: we experience happiness and suffering ourselves; we encounter others in the world and recognize that they experience happiness and suffering as well; we soon discover that 'love' is largely a matter of wishing that others experience happiness rather than suffering... [T]he social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness... The fact that we want the people we love to be happy, and are made happy by love in turn, is an empirical observation."

11/19/2008 11:47:04 AM · #1147

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK. Thanks. I will not judge your moral framework but I will say it's hardly a robust position to only be able to reiterate your position in the face of disagreement. "Well, that's the way it is."

It is an untenable position, yes, and it seems almost everyone does so at some point, as Gordon has pointed out (especially believers in the supernatural), but let me answer with a quote from Harris, since you are given to quoting from Lewis. I suggest that it's axiomatic that moral behaviour derives from an acute awareness of the happiness and well-being of others, and I don't believe anyone can seriously refute that. Harris says:

"As in any other field, there will be room for intelligent dissent on questions of right and wrong, but intelligent dissent has its limits. People who believe that the earth is flat are not dissenting geographers... the fact that good ideas are intuitively cashed does not make bad ideas any more respectable....

To treat others ethically is to act out of concern for their happiness and suffering. It is, as Kant observed, to treat them as ends in themselves rather than as a means to some further end. Many ethical injunctions converge here -- Kant's categorical imperative, Jesus' golden rule -- but the basic facts are these: we experience happiness and suffering ourselves; we encounter others in the world and recognize that they experience happiness and suffering as well; we soon discover that 'love' is largely a matter of wishing that others experience happiness rather than suffering... [T]he social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness... The fact that we want the people we love to be happy, and are made happy by love in turn, is an empirical observation."

Decent passage. I'm not arguing this is not a valid and even attractive moral framework. I'm merely saying that someone who believes the world is flat is wrong in a different way than someone who doesn't believe the root of morality is others happiness and suffering. The first person is wrong out of scientific necessity. The second person is wrong because the vast majority of the world disagrees with him. Perhaps the difference can be illustrated by asking if things would change if a hypothetical person were one of two people remaining on earth. It's clear he would still be wrong about the earth being flat, but if he didn't believe in this moral framework, would he likewise still be wrong? (I made it two people on earth because obviously to have one person on earth means you don't have to worry about others.) If your answer hinges on the beliefs of the second person, what if that person ALSO did not believe in the moral framework?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/19/2008 11:54:15 AM · #1148

I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. The most you can do is disagree and advocate your own position. There is no "logical fallacy" being committed since the truth is "self-evident" and taken as an axiom (as Gordon puts it). It is no "more right" or "more wrong" than any other position unless you have an independent measure of moral frameworks which is used as a gold standard. I firmly believe the secular philosopher has no such measure available to them. (Well, weak standards may be possible calling on evolutionary goals. The problem is a standard as simple as "cooperation" or "advancement of the species" is really no standard at all as it is open to wide and vast interpretation.) Hence, an impasse.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/19/2008 11:57:03 AM · #1149

Regarding this maximization of happiness as a moral imperative (act in such a way as to increase the sum of happiness in those around you, yourself, and the world), it occurs to me that the imperative stems from the impulse/condition we call "empathy". That is to say, the more empathetic you are, the more unhappy you become when others around you are unhappy, and the happier you become when they are happy. And one of the distinguishing traits of sociopaths is that to one degree or another they are incapable of feeling empathy, meaning that (at least by society's standards) they are emotionally crippled, morally crippled, or both.

So it is at least conceivable that the "root cause" of "morality" (leaving the religious argument out of it for now, dealing only with the secular) is the development/evolution within a species, in this case humans, the facility of empathy. And this may be a path we can explore in trying to validate a universal, secular morality.

R.