Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/13/2007 08:05:20 PM · #526

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I believe that the model you describe (other than in regard to polygamy) is broadly what we already have: a civil marriage/partnership system and a religious marriage/blessing system.

We are far from it. The fact that we need a license from the government to be married clearly states to me that we are not.

Co-habitation is no longer a crime (in most states anyway), so a license from the government is not necessary to live in exactly the same manner as a "married" couple. What the license does is confer certain rights and privileges (as have been detailed here before) in the areas of taxes, property, and legal decision-making, and it is restrictions on that which makes the current laws discriminatory.

Your post implies ( or at least I infer from what you say ) that you believe that discriminatory laws are inherently bad when they do not confer the same rights and privileges to all citizens.
I respectfully disagree. Gun laws prohibit convicted felons from obtaining a license to purchase a firearm. Voter registration laws prohibit convicted felons from casting a ballot. Predator laws prohibit convicted sex offenders from living withing a prescribed distance of schools, playgrounds, etc. These laws exist for the benefit of society. And I am in favor of such laws, when properly formulated, and properly applied.
That being said, let me repeat that I support legislation to recognize civil unions ( homosexual or otherwise ) - though I still do not support calling them "marriages".

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/13/2007 08:19:12 PM · #527

Originally posted by RonB:

I don't know. If it does, then was he always Bi-Sexual? Or did he "convert" from heterosexual to bi-sexual and then back to heterosexual? Or is he still bi-sexual? Or was he always homosexual, but living a heterosexual lifestyle, and now is only pretending to be heterosexual? Or, if we are to believe him, he was always heterosexual, but engaged in homosexual acts? How can we know? The answer, of course, is we can't.

Someone who is attracted to both sexes is bisexual. No "conversion" is required. People may repress elements of their personality, usually - in order to appear more "normal" - either homsexuality or the homosexual element of bisexuality.

We can reasonably disbelieve Mr Haggard's claim of being heterosexual but engaged in homosexual acts. Heterosexual people do not generally engage in homosexual acts - certainly not repeatedly over a significant period of time with multiple partners.

Originally posted by RonB:

To remain semantical, "intolerant" is an adjective meaning unwilling to tolerate or support, and "intolerance" is a noun meaning the condition of being intolerant. Neither are transitive verbs - thus neither connotes action. One can be intolerant of ( unwilling to tolerate or support ) a position taken by a person, or one can be intolerant of ( unwilling to tolerate ) the person himself/herself.
Again, Matthew stated that he was "intolerant of people preaching intolerance". While he could be intolerant of preaching, that would be viewed as being hypocritical, because that is just communicating one's opinions on an issue, which he, himself, does in these fora on many occasions. But the fact of the matter is that he says that he is intolerant of people - people who are just doing what he is doing, though expressing a different viewpoint - and I view that as being hypocritical.

Does it make it better if I simply say that I am largely tolerant, the only intolerance that I preach is intolerance for people who are themselves intolerant on issues other than intolerance itself. This is quite a mouthful, and I think that most people would take this as read from the original statement, but I see that it may be necessary to spell it out here.

02/13/2007 09:30:00 PM · #528

Originally posted by Matthew:

Ron - others have said quite a bit already.

Yes, they have. I accept it as the cost of keeping it real.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I would say that completely heterosexually oriented men are very unlikely to commit homosexual acts (eg personally, I find it sexually very unattractive - physically a complete turn-off - though I consider it, as with other sexual practices, very much a matter of "each to his own"). By committing homosexual acts, Mr Haggard has indicated a homosexual or bisexual orientation. To say that he is now "completely heterosexual" indicates some conversion of his orientation.

See my response to Robert in my earlier post. If one can "convert" that easily then the common argument of gay supporters that "they were born that way" loses all of its power. I wouldn't argue against an opinion that Haggard might be bisexual, but I would argue that if orientation is a function of behaviour, AND if you can't "change" your orientation, because you are born that way, then he is not just homosexual, and never was.

Originally posted by Matthew:

In a society that discriminates heavily against homosexuality, it is far more probable that you would find repressed gay men leading straight lives, than repressed straight men leading homosexual lives.

If one is to subscribe to the belief that sexual behaviour is a function of sexual orientation, as you seem to do, then there is no such thing as a repressed gay man. According to that position, if he is not, or was not, acting gay, then he isn't, or wasn't ( though he may be bisexual ).

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
To admit that you are intolerant, while yet condemning intolerance, is, to me, hypocritical.

No - I only said that I was intolerant of intolerance. I tried to explain why the allegation of "hypocrisy" is purely a matter of semantics, but obviously failed.

Your statement of what you said is not what you said. You said "I agree that I am intolerant of people preaching intolerance". Saying that you are intolerant of people is a lot different from saying that you are intolerant of intolerance.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I am broadly a tolerant person. I don't object to people based on their skin colour, nationality or race, colour, creed, or sexual preference. I object to people who do wish to discriminate against people on these bases (I think that I have a fairly consistent track record on this forum).

Do you agree that some discrimination is not only appropriate but necessary to preserve institutions and organizations that are formed by groups of like-minded people for the purposes of social gatherings and actions that support their causes. As in, would you object to a women's group discriminating against men wanting to join?
For what it's worth, I am also a broadly tolerant person. I don't object to people based on their skin color, nationality, or race, colour, creed, or sexual preference.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Various people on this forum are intolerant of, say, muslims, people from various specific countries, arabic people, people with liberal political beliefs, people with certain sexual orientations - they tend to use derogatory language and ad hominems criticising others who do not share their view.

I agree, there are some. I might even err and make a statement that someone might infer as being intolerant of people, myself, on occasion. If I ever do, I hope that someone let's me know, so that I can make amends.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Hopefully, I manage to steer a good course disagreeing, presenting arguments against and seeking to persuade people that my views are correct without giving being intolerant of the existence of those people: I wholeheartedly support the right of people to hold opposing views (even if I try to point out their fallibility!).

FWIW, you seem to be a tolerant man in most respects, though less so in the issue of gay rights - it seems to me that this is on religious grounds, rather than reasoned grounds (one of my objections to religion is the promotion of these arbitrary rules).

According to our friend BearMusic, it is not intolerant to believe that something is immoral. Nor, do I believe that it is intolerant to support discrimination against those whose attributes are contrary to an organizations purpose for being. And I have scrupulously avoided religious arguments vis-a-vis gay rights. My ONLY religious posts have been in direct response to religious questions, comments about the bible, or, just recently as a response to why your pschyoanalysis of Haggards state of mind is probably not correct.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
What? Denying sexuality is a "religious mainstay"? How did you come to that conclusion? ...

Sorry - maybe I should have expanded. I presumed that your suggestion that people could make a choice about whether to indulge in homosexual behaviour meant that for a gay man the choice is to indulge, or to be celibate. In terms of religion, celibacy is a religious mainstay - it is celebrated in various religions (including Catholicism, I believe).

That is correct. And, for a married heterosexual man or woman whose spouse is either unwilling or incapable of engaging in sexual relations, or for an unmarried heterosexual man or woman, his/her choice is also to indulge, or to abstain. Societal views of adultery and fornication are not solely "religious mainstays".

Message edited by author 2007-02-13 21:32:19.

02/13/2007 09:45:55 PM · #529

Originally posted by Matthew:

Sorry, Matthew, but you are the one who started the whole "conversion" sub-debate by putting the "conversion" label on the hyperlink to the article in which it was said that Ted Haggard determined that he was 100% heterosexual.
I am curious, though. How do you know that Ted Haggard engaged in homosexual acts with multiple partners?

02/14/2007 08:52:41 AM · #530

Originally posted by RonB:

For example, I don't believe that either Genghis Kahn or the Adolph Hitler was "religious", unless you call Secular Humanism a "religion" as I do - but then that would make YOU "religious".
T

Unfortunately for your argument, and your penchant for associating "Secular Humanism" with immorality, Hitler was indeed a practicing Christian.

"Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work.""

From February, 1933:

"A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces. ...

A campaign against the "godless movement" was announced by Bernard Rust, nazi commissioner for education and culture in Prussia, in an address Tuesday night before students at the technical university here. He said the details would be revealed in the next few days. In his speech opening the campaign for the reichstag and Prussian diet elections, Hitler attacked communists for the spread of atheism."

In fact, RonB, Hitler appears to have much the same ideas about religion, morality, ans secularism as you! :

from SOMA:

Hitler was famous as a world leader with high moral values and a distinctly Christian vision.

In fact, no present politician has more blatantly declared his Christianity than Hitler, or has had his faith so widely accepted. Millions of Christians around the world admired the savvy tyrant; a couple of his more recognizable fans included Britainâ��s Lloyd George and that all-American idol of idols, Charles Lindbergh. The most appealing of Hitlerâ��s â��Christianâ�� attributes included:

â�¢His morality. He did not smoke or drink and he abhorred pornography and homosexuality.

â�¢His call for his nation to repent. â��Providence withdrew its protection and our people fellâ�¦ And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that He may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God.â�� (March 1936)

*His stand against secularism: â��Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faithâ�¦.â�� (April 1933)

*His war on atheism: â��We were convinced that the people need and require [the Christian] faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.â�� (October 1933)

*His blending of church and state: â��National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianityâ�¦ For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national lifeâ�¦These are Christian principles!â�� (August 1934)

â�¢His faith-based charity: â��With a tenth of our budget for religion, we would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty.â�� (January 1939)

â�¢His God-given mission to cleanse Germany of evil as personified by the Jews, liberals, homosexuals, labor leaders, homeless people, immigrants from inferior cultures, and the weak and sick. â��Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.â�� And, â��We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spiritâ�¦ We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the pressâ��in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excessâ�¦â�� (March 1936)

02/14/2007 11:58:44 AM · #531

Sorry Gingerbaker. Nice try, though.

From the same article in SOMA that you quote:

"Though Hitler talked a lot about being a Christian, the million-dollar question is: did he actually consider himself one? The answer isnâ��t simple. True, he was born and died a Roman Catholic; in fact, he was confirmed as a 'soldier of Christ' in the church and served as an altar boy. And in 1941, the year he rolled into Russia, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.' The Vatican, for its part, considered Hitler Christian enough; they certainly didnâ��t excommunicate him.

On the other hand, Hitler privately loathed Christianity, calling it 'a drug' and 'senseless', the 'invention of sick brains'. He also perceived it as a potential threat to his leadership, and intended to abolish the church. And letâ��s not forget: He did make Nazism the official state religion and he replaced school and church Bibles with copies of 'Mein Kampf'.

And from the last paragraph of that same article:

"[Note: If you believe this piece argues that Hitler was a Christian, i.e., that he walked the walk, exemplified the teachings of Jesus, then either you did not read the piece, or you did not understand it.]"

For what it's worth,

* Though I do not smoke, I do have an alcoholic drink on occasion

* I do abhor pornography and homosexual behaviour, but I do not seek to impose my view of such on others by attempting to enact laws against such for consenting adults in privacy ( note: I do not believe that the public library is a place of privacy ).

* I do believe that our nation should be in a constant state of repentence

* I am not opposed to secular schools

* I do not wage war against atheism

* I do not insist on a blending of church and state, though I do believe that individuals and groups not employed by the state ought to have the right to engage in religious dialogue at state sponsored events ( e.g. graduation ceremonies ).

* I do not support a mandated government contribution to religion

* I do not condone the elimination of Jews, liberals, homosexuals, labor leaders, homeless people, immigrants from inferior cultures, and the weak and sick, or any other persons for that matter.

* I do not condone censorship of literature, theater, or the press, though I do support limiting access to those who are mature enough to understand and effectively deal with it ( e.g. I would not condone giving 3rd graders The Tropic of Cancer as a reading assignment. )

I find it curious that you would claim that I agreed with Hitler in those areas. And I'd be grateful if you could provide any evidence to support your accusations that I do agree with those positions. I won't be holding my breath while I wait, though. Because accusations are easy, but supporting those accusations is not.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 11:59:30.

02/14/2007 12:34:39 PM · #532

Sorry for the off-topic, but it isn't possible to characterize Hitler as devoutly Christian, or in any way executing a mission that he innately believed to be "God's work", or related to finishing up the affairs of Jesus. Word and deed were not at all synchronous when it came to Hitler. Privately, Hitler referred to some popular moral opinions of the day to be "priest's twaddle".

Also, interpreting anything Hitler said as being supportive of Catholics, especially in 1933, is to misunderstand completely the politics of Nazism, which was essentially to assuage opponents by word while simultaneously taking action to annhilate them. This was essentially how the huge Catholic centrist party was completely eliminated.

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

02/14/2007 01:31:21 PM · #533

Louis, I think you are correct. What Hitler practiced was nothing like Christianity.

But what Hitler DID, was to use Biblical piety as a basis for governmental intolerance.

His catchwords are eerily reminiscent of the catchwords and ideas of todays right-wing theocrats, who belive that their religious tenets should affect everybody, as they believe it is impossible to be be moral if one is not religious. As RonB has argued here.

And I reiterate:

* Hitler was not a "secular humanist" as RonB claimed - he was a Christian moralist, whether or not he used that stance honestly.

* I do find much the same about Hitler's theocratic mission and that espoused by RonB.

And in regard to this thread, no, Ron - I don't think you want to kill homosexuals. But I do think that you do not want to allow them to marry legally, and that your basis for this are your Biblical beliefs.

(If you are honest enough to admit that, then I wonder why you do not think that the abomination of homosexuality deserves the prescribed punishment set forth by the true word of G_d? Or do you think that they should just be let off with a "warning" - ie, no marriage rights, no adoption rights, visitation rights, fiduciary rights?)

Using Christian dogma to deny a group of citizens equal rights under the law, and the idea that Christian piety should be the standard for all Americans are all part and parcel of Nazi, and modern right-wing Christian intolerance. Or does your religious dogma encourage tolerance as a moral ideal, after all?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2007 02:00:46 PM · #534

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Using Christian dogma to deny a group of citizens equal rights under the law, and the idea that Christian piety should be the standard for all Americans are all part and parcel of Nazi, and modern right-wing Christian intolerance. Or does your religious dogma encourage tolerance as a moral ideal, after all?

To be fair, while RonB happens to be a Christian, I'm not aware of any major religion that "sanctions" homosexuality, or "immorality" in general, for that matter. So it's helpful to make this argument more secular, as in:

Does the government itself, do the body politic themselves, the people, have a valid stake in the legislation of morality? And if so, whose morality? How do we even DEFINE what's moral and immoral?

The religious overtones that are everywhere in this thread are there, largely, because the definition of "moral" seems to be, by some sort of default, a religious issue. But it's NOT an exclusively Christian issue. Look, the USA was basically founded by Christian Fundamentalists, and for a long, long time it was their views that shaped us as a nation, in the moral sense. So it is only to be expected that whatever moral overtones still reside within our government are essentially Christian ones. But a society shaped by, say, Islamic fundamentalists would be equally intolerant of homosexual issues, I believe.

What am I saying? I don't like how this is devolving into a battle between "Christians" and "Liberals", with the implication that "pro-gay" = "liberal". I don't accept any of that. It's a debate between two different moral codes/outlooks, basically.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 14:01:39.

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

02/14/2007 02:21:31 PM · #535

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

To be fair, while RonB happens to be a Christian, I'm not aware of any major religion that "sanctions" homosexuality, or "immorality" in general, for that matter.

While the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, it also says that eating shellfish and wearing garments made of two types of threads are an abomination also.

But I don't see right-wing christians or republicans trying to take away marriage rights of Red Lobster patrons or cotton/poly blend wearers.

To single out homosexuals to this day as second-class citizens is the last remaining large-scale bigotry accepted by so-called enlightened people.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So it's helpful to make this argument more secular, as in:

Does the government itself, do the body politic themselves, the people, have a valid stake in the legislation of morality? And if so, whose morality? How do we even DEFINE what's moral and immoral?

The religious overtones that are everywhere in this thread are there, largely, because the definition of "moral" seems to be, by some sort of default, a religious issue. But it's NOT an exclusively Christian issue.

I agree wholeheartedly. :)

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Look, the USA was basically founded by Christian Fundamentalists, and for a long, long time it was their views that shaped us as a nation, in the moral sense.

This is wrong. So very wrong! :)

The Founding Fathers were anything BUT fundamentalists. Our Contitution and Bill of Rights is the furthest thing from a religious document the world had ever seen up to that point. Most of the Founders were Deists, not Christians. And they took great pains to separate the Church and The State as a direct rebellion against King George and the influence of his theocracy. The Pigrims were basically run out of town. Literally.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So it is only to be expected that whatever moral overtones still reside within our government are essentially Christian ones.

Any christian moral overtones of our government are a relatively new development. The Founders would have nothing but contempt for this.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But a society shaped by, say, Islamic fundamentalists would be equally intolerant of homosexual issues, I believe.

Interestingly, I have read that there is some evidence of preNicean intrasex marriage - among the clergy!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What am I saying? I don't like how this is devolving into a battle between "Christians" and "Liberals", with the implication that "pro-gay" = "liberal".

And yet, I think it would be a fair asessment to say that homosexual equal rights is anethema to our Republican party, and the opposite to our Democratic party, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't accept any of that. It's a debate between two different moral codes/outlooks, basically.

The difference is that one side believes morality is Biblically-based and will not tolerate others viewpoints - they call it "Moral Relativism". The other side recognizes that different people have different viewpoints, and wants to maximize people's individual liberty to do as they wish.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 14:30:18.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2007 02:46:49 PM · #536

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, the USA was basically founded by Christian Fundamentalists, and for a long, long time it was their views that shaped us as a nation, in the moral sense.

This is wrong. So very wrong! :)

The Founding Fathers were anything BUT fundamentalists. Our Contitution and Bill of Rights is the furthest thing from a religious document the world had ever seen up to that point. Most of the Founders were Deists, not Christians. And they took great pains to separate the Church and The State as a direct rebellion against King George and the influence of his theocracy. The Pigrims were basically run out of town. Literally.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I didn't express myself very well. I'm not saying that Jefferson et al were Christian fundamentalists. The original settlers, the core group that founded/populated the original colonies, basically were. "Fundamentalists" is probably the wrong word anyway. But what these various colonial groups has in common was that they practiced a religion that was at odds with the state-sponsored religion of the time, and was more fundamentally based on the strict Word of the Bible.

The Founding Fathers (very wisely) were at pains to NOT have the government established on the basis of a particular set of religious beliefs, but this didn't change the fact that the core values of the sects/denominations that established the colonies were fundamental and protestant. So in a very real sense the nation, as founded, WAS a "Christian" nation, and so, to this day, there's an undercurrent of Christian values informing our loose, collective sense of morality as a nation.

I'm not saying this is "right" or "wrong", just that it IS. But it's my sense that MOST moral codes with any real following in the world ARE religious, and that MOST of these do demonize homosexuality, so I don't see the collective issue as a "Christian" one, particularly.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2007 02:54:11 PM · #537

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...I'm not aware of any major religion that "sanctions" homosexuality, or "immorality" in general...

That's an unfortunate juxtaposition of phrasing. :(

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The religious overtones that are everywhere in this thread are there, largely, because the definition of "moral" seems to be, by some sort of default, a religious issue. But it's NOT an exclusively Christian issue.

And some, like me, would argue that morality in a larger sense is not the pervue of the religious or the Christian, and that in fact, the only true morality is larger in scope, and thus, is humanist.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2007 03:12:30 PM · #538

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...I'm not aware of any major religion that "sanctions" homosexuality, or "immorality" in general...

That's an unfortunate juxtaposition of phrasing. :(

"Sanction" is one of my "favorite" words, since it can mean both "to sponsor" and "to prohibit" -- few words exhibit such flexibility in definition. : )

02/14/2007 03:25:23 PM · #539

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Yet another accusation against me. Can you provide one shred of evidence in which I argued that it is impossible to be moral if one is not religious?

I didn't think so.

Please cease and desist in making such unfounded accusations against me.
The next time it happens, I will click on the "Report Post" button.

02/14/2007 03:25:24 PM · #540

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...I'm not aware of any major religion that "sanctions" homosexuality, or "immorality" in general...

That's an unfortunate juxtaposition of phrasing. :(

"Sanction" is one of my "favorite" words, since it can mean both "to sponsor" and "to prohibit" -- few words exhibit such flexibility in definition. : )

Wow, a bona fide "contronym"... (I just learned that word. :P)

02/14/2007 03:40:34 PM · #541

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not saying this is "right" or "wrong", just that it IS. But it's my sense that MOST moral codes with any real following in the world ARE religious, and that MOST of these do demonize homosexuality, so I don't see the collective issue as a "Christian" one, particularly.

R.

True. But any of these "moral codes" are a matter of interpretation. How can a code be a code, when some but not all of its strictures are ignored?

And, since these scriptures are 1500-3000 years old, there comes the inevitable question of what do we as modern people decide is more moral in this day and age?

Is it moral to deny individual liberty to people because a preacher says one out of many verses is to be taken at face value, but others are to be ignored because society will not put up with them?

One would think that in this country, with a Constitution which guarantees liberty and equal treatment under the law, that discrimination against homosexuals should be as morally repugnant as child sacrifice.

If a devout Christian were to adamantly claim his religious right to sacrifice his child, or to have slaves, the State would rightfully step in and deny him that action. Why does it not also do this when it comes to the rights of homosexuals?

Answer - because homophobia is a learned behavior deeply entrenched in our society. Just as is antisemitism, racism, ageism.

The best way to "unlearn" this bias is to change the law.

02/14/2007 03:42:41 PM · #542

Originally posted by RonB:

You made just such a statement several months ago in this forum, RonB.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/14/2007 03:47:31 PM · #543

Originally posted by Louis:

Wow, a bona fide "contronym"... (I just learned that word. :P)

I think I prefer antagonym

02/14/2007 04:02:52 PM · #544

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

* I do find much the same about Hitler's theocratic mission and that espoused by RonB.

I'm still waiting for the evidence to support those accusations, and still not holding my breath while doing so ( good thing ).

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And in regard to this thread, no, Ron - I don't think you want to kill homosexuals. But I do think that you do not want to allow them to marry legally, and that your basis for this are your Biblical beliefs.

You are correct, I do not want to allow them to marry legally. I want them to enter into civil unions legally. If legal rights are the issue, and civil unions would provide those rights, what difference does it make what the basis of argument is? Is the goal win-lose? Why not win-win?

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

(If you are honest enough to admit that, then I wonder why you do not think that the abomination of homosexuality deserves the prescribed punishment set forth by the true word of G_d? Or do you think that they should just be let off with a "warning" - ie, no marriage rights, no adoption rights, visitation rights, fiduciary rights?)

Because the prescribed punishment set forth by the true word of G_d is what Christ said to those accompanying the adulterous woman at the well - "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." and when none did so, told the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Why is it that a majority of those who deride Christians love to quote the Old Testament, but refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament supersedes it?

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Perhaps you could explain just what equal rights under the law right-wing Christians using Christian dogma are trying to deny a group of citizens?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2007 04:05:04 PM · #545

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

Yet another accusation against me. Can you provide one shred of evidence in which I argued that it is impossible to be moral if one is not religious?

I didn't think so.

Please cease and desist in making such unfounded accusations against me.
The next time it happens, I will click on the "Report Post" button.

You made just such a statement several months ago in this forum, RonB.

If I did, then you should be able to find it, and prove your point. If you cannot, or will not, then I and others must conclude that you are making false accusations.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2007 04:07:22 PM · #546

Originally posted by RonB:

Perhaps you could explain just what equal rights under the law right-wing Christians using Christian dogma are trying to deny a group of citizens?

Filing joint income taxes, inheritance, adoption, and medical visitation/decision-making come to mind.

If a civil union and "marriage" are to be exactly equivalent under civil law, then let's just get the term "marriage" out of the law completely and refer only to civil unions, and leave the term "marriage" to the various religious groups.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 16:09:24.

02/14/2007 04:16:31 PM · #547

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Perhaps you could explain just what equal rights under the law right-wing Christians using Christian dogma are trying to deny a group of citizens?

Filing joint income taxes, inheritance, adoption, and medical visitation/decision-making come to mind.

And the scientific data to support that charge is...? ( e.g. was there a survey taken in which people were classified as right-wing Christians or otherwise, and what their stand was on those issues? )

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If a civil union and "marriage" are to be exactly equivalent under civil law, then let's just get the term "marriage" out of the law completely and refer only to civil unions, and leave the term "marriage" to the various religious groups.

I agree.

02/14/2007 04:37:20 PM · #548

RonB

Here are some quotes from you, taken from a single thread here in the Rant forum. I believe that they speak for themselves.

"Likewise, if you refuse to consider that there IS a God, that HE decided long ago what is morally righteous and morally unrighteous, and that those determinations NEVER change, then you have absolutely NO basis for determining what is right or wrong except for what society says, AT THE TIME."

"No, the moral system that is not mine is NOT the bible. The moral system is God's. True, much of God's moral system is known because it was recorded in the bible, but the bible is not THE moral authority. As brother Bear_music pointed out earlier, you can't legislate morality, ergo the law cannot enforce morality, it can only hope to articulate what degree of immorality is to be prosecuted. And it is, unfortunately, subject to change.

However, to say that the moral code recorded in the bible is not "the right way" is presumptive. God's moral code, as recorded in the bible, hasn't changed in thousands of years. But if you maintain that God's moral code is not "the right way", then you are left in a quandry - because obviously, the current societal view of what is moral or immoral cannot be considered "the right way", either. If it were, then why is it different than it was 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Did the meaning of "right" change over time? Did the meaning of "wrong"? If so, then how can one fairly judge anothers actions, ANY actions, as "wrong" at any point in time? Wouldn't one have to hold off judgement until one could be certain that a "wrong" action at one time would not become a "right" action at some time in the future? It's interesting that it is only secular society that creates that dilemma. God's people do not face such a dilemma, because God's moral code hasn't changed from day one. Neither has His definition of what is "right" and "wrong" ( morally speaking ).

You say "Just because it is in a book and it's really old and a lot of people followed it for a long time does not make it right.".

I say, "Just because the legislature codifies what is legal or illegal, and a lot of people agree those laws, does not make the permitted activities right". And I have more proof of that than you do - because if the law DID make it "right" then the law wouldn't have to change over time."

"You do not know me. I do not judge others. As a sinner myself, I have no right to judge them. But I am under no prohibition from calling that sin which is sin. And no, I do not take my morality only from the old testament...

I cannot prove whether someone else's idea of something corresponds to the absolute universal "right". I do not know the complete absolute universal "right". But I do know some of it, and can judge that portion accordingly. Part of what I know is this:
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." ( Galatians 6:7-8 )"

"Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses...

immorality by whose standards?

By the standards of that society consisting of "people of faith", as I thought I implied.

Are there activities that YOU consider to be immoral? If so, who sets YOUR standards?

People of faith can point to the foundational teaching that establishes their standards - and it never changes from year to year. Can you do the same?"

"Originally posted by Riponlady:
To take the view that pre-marital sex or homosexuality are sins in this day and age demonstrates the worst side of religions.

It is not I who determined that these activities were sins. It was God who made that determination. For me, it is not a matter of "religion". Rather it is a matter of fact."

"Originally posted by gibun:
Be aware of the yin and yang in every aspect of life... the good and the evil and the fact that in the good there is evil and in the evil there is good.

Perhaps in this life, because we are only human, what you say has some basis in truth. But in the heavens, good and evil are as black and white, there is no blending.
Matthew 19:16-17 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God"

And in God there is no evil. Likewise, in SATAN, there is no good."

"Even Christ, himself, warned against emulating the "religion" of the pharisees - He called them "white-washed tombs" and "hypocrites". However, an increased sense of "morality" IS the answer, but it would appear that many, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world, prefer to bend the definition of "morality" to include only those "sins" that they, themselves, do not indulge in regularly. Ergo, abortion, adultery, pre-marital sex, fornication, homosexual behaviour, internet pornography, cheating on one's income taxes, dealing drugs, using drugs, looting when there is little chance of getting caught, stealing paperclips from one's employer, etc. are no longer considered immoral, as they once were.
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide."