| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2008 09:57:28 PM · #976 |
OK, I'm back from an awesome weekend shooting. I'll tell you I had a number of hours in the car to myself which I devoted to thinking about this issue. A few thoughts:
First, Mousie, I am big enough to say I'm somewhat impressed with the examples you gave. Some are stronger than others, but overall it is not a body of evidence to be simply discounted. This particular argument has been weakened substantially. That's not to say it's completely irrelevant, but whenever one can debate that something NEVER happens one argues from a point of strength. In this case that is no longer possible.
But however many examples you gave me...I asked for one more than that. ;)
I also did a lot of thinking on why these conversations are so hard to begin with. I think the answer is everybody comes to the table (usually) with a different moral framework to be used to solve the problem. Perhaps it's Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism, or a religious moral framework. Perhaps it's a framework that has no official name. This is where the problem lies and why exasperation results so often. Under one moral framework the answer may be fairly straightforward and obvious. People arriving with this framework get frustrated with others because the answer is plain and obvious and their opponent simply can't see it. Under another framework the answer may be complex and difficult. That person gets upset because the first person just can't see the nuance of the issue. A third person enters and to him the answer is also plain and obvious, but his answer is completely different than the first one. At the end of the day I just can't come up with a measuring stick that allows the three participants to judge the correctness of their solution. Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me.
It does look like the tension of the thread has lowered a bit and I think that's good. A number of the people on the thread are "regulars" to rant and I'm not worried that they are offended by my participation. Louis, Shannon, Gordon etc know how I function and know I mean no ill will. "Whatever happens in Rant, stays in Rant" or something like that. I have worried a bit about a few people I haven't engaged with much before. Mousie obviously has a personal interest in the matter and Posthumous seems to me to be offended with me on more than just an intellectual level. I hope that's not the case and would be more than happy to mend any fences via PM if necessary.
My position on this issue continues to be complex and nuanced. I may bounce it off a few people within my own moral framework to see where they have taken their thoughts. I'll close by reminding people I argue to test the strengths and weaknesses of positions, flex my debating muscles, and potentially stimulate others by revealing a little of the humanity behind a position they may not agree with. I'll be back in Rant sooner or later (probably on some slow day at the office when I can't help myself), but feel relieved a bit to have had the last two days to free myself. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 12:43:16 AM · #977 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I'm back from an awesome weekend shooting. I'll tell you I had a number of hours in the car to myself which I devoted to thinking about this issue. A few thoughts:
First, Mousie, I am big enough to say I'm somewhat impressed with the examples you gave. Some are stronger than others, but overall it is not a body of evidence to be simply discounted. This particular argument has been weakened substantially. That's not to say it's completely irrelevant, but whenever one can debate that something NEVER happens one argues from a point of strength. In this case that is no longer possible.
But however many examples you gave me...I asked for one more than that. ;)
I also did a lot of thinking on why these conversations are so hard to begin with. I think the answer is everybody comes to the table (usually) with a different moral framework to be used to solve the problem. Perhaps it's Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism, or a religious moral framework. Perhaps it's a framework that has no official name. This is where the problem lies and why exasperation results so often. Under one moral framework the answer may be fairly straightforward and obvious. People arriving with this framework get frustrated with others because the answer is plain and obvious and their opponent simply can't see it. Under another framework the answer may be complex and difficult. That person gets upset because the first person just can't see the nuance of the issue. A third person enters and to him the answer is also plain and obvious, but his answer is completely different than the first one. At the end of the day I just can't come up with a measuring stick that allows the three participants to judge the correctness of their solution. Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me.
It does look like the tension of the thread has lowered a bit and I think that's good. A number of the people on the thread are "regulars" to rant and I'm not worried that they are offended by my participation. Louis, Shannon, Gordon etc know how I function and know I mean no ill will. "Whatever happens in Rant, stays in Rant" or something like that. I have worried a bit about a few people I haven't engaged with much before. Mousie obviously has a personal interest in the matter and Posthumous seems to me to be offended with me on more than just an intellectual level. I hope that's not the case and would be more than happy to mend any fences via PM if necessary.
My position on this issue continues to be complex and nuanced. I may bounce it off a few people within my own moral framework to see where they have taken their thoughts. I'll close by reminding people I argue to test the strengths and weaknesses of positions, flex my debating muscles, and potentially stimulate others by revealing a little of the humanity behind a position they may not agree with. I'll be back in Rant sooner or later (probably on some slow day at the office when I can't help myself), but feel relieved a bit to have had the last two days to free myself. |
I'd have to say that you are nothing if not fair and are always intellectually honest in your posts. I on the other hand tend to get carried away with myself sometimes. I like to post on here to have people challenge my thinking. Sometimes I'll post things that even I am not completely sure of but simply tend towards to see the opposite side of the argument. I know I take a lot of abuse (for lack of a better word) for some of my posts but If I don't put things out there then who will tell me I am wrong? I almost never enter a post that I am not expecting to be challenged in some way and I think that is good. Some points that I don't think will be challenged are and then I get a whole new perspective on my opinions and assumptions.
I am man enough to admit that if it weren't for these forums I might have been cheering on the prop 8 matter. As it is I am firmly in the other camp.
I don't argue to be right but to gain a greater view in order to determine what is right... look at all the nuances as it were... also to gain a more human perspective on the issues. Mousie in particular has been that for the gay marriage issue.
I think we will all do each other a great service if we argue from a point of not thinking that opinions and arguments are meant in an uncivil manner (though I myself take offense at times). If we respect one another then we can discuss any topic without it becoming too emotionally charged to the point that nothing is accomplished.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 04:07:22 AM · #978 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also did a lot of thinking on why these conversations are so hard to begin with. I think the answer is everybody comes to the table (usually) with a different moral framework to be used to solve the problem. Perhaps it's Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism, or a religious moral framework. Perhaps it's a framework that has no official name. This is where the problem lies and why exasperation results so often. Under one moral framework the answer may be fairly straightforward and obvious. People arriving with this framework get frustrated with others because the answer is plain and obvious and their opponent simply can't see it. Under another framework the answer may be complex and difficult. That person gets upset because the first person just can't see the nuance of the issue. A third person enters and to him the answer is also plain and obvious, but his answer is completely different than the first one. At the end of the day I just can't come up with a measuring stick that allows the three participants to judge the correctness of their solution. Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
The answer should be obvious. You acknowledge that we all bring different moral frameworks to the table. The next step would be to respect that. Prop 8 surely didn't. If the roles were reversed I doubt you would be treating this as some kind of academic excerise. You'd probably just call the whole thing preposterous and that would be on a good day. I guess maybe I'm in that group who thinks everyone should be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit so long as they don't harm others in the process. A very simple solution and the only one that should ever be considered.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 04:10:20.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:03:00 AM · #979 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also did a lot of thinking on why these conversations are so hard to begin with. I think the answer is everybody comes to the table (usually) with a different moral framework to be used to solve the problem. Perhaps it's Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism, or a religious moral framework. Perhaps it's a framework that has no official name. This is where the problem lies and why exasperation results so often. Under one moral framework the answer may be fairly straightforward and obvious. People arriving with this framework get frustrated with others because the answer is plain and obvious and their opponent simply can't see it. Under another framework the answer may be complex and difficult. That person gets upset because the first person just can't see the nuance of the issue. A third person enters and to him the answer is also plain and obvious, but his answer is completely different than the first one. At the end of the day I just can't come up with a measuring stick that allows the three participants to judge the correctness of their solution. Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
The answer should be obvious. You acknowledge that we all bring different moral frameworks to the table. The next step would be to respect that. Prop 8 surely didn't. If the roles were reversed I doubt you would be treating this as some kind of academic excerise. You'd probably just call the whole thing preposterous and that would be on a good day. I guess maybe I'm in that group who thinks everyone should be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit so long as they don't harm others in the process. A very simple solution and the only one that should ever be considered. |
I would point out that not everyone agrees that allowing homosexual marriage will be without a negative impact on our society. That's the macro view of things a lot of people obviously have. Something that is considered sinful by a large number of people is being proposed to be sanctioned by the government. Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. The question is whether society should be forced to accept gay marriage as a legally protected norm. If California is any example then people are not willing currently to do this.
When you say that your solution is the only one that 'should' ever be considered you do nothing to further the cause of gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:35:55 AM · #980 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
That's an outrageous statement. The exact opposite is true. The history of the persecution of homosexuals by "western society" (let alone any other societies) is long and storied. Why do you think we HAVE the phrase "coming out of the closet" anyway?
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:46:02 AM · #981 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
Tell that to Matthew Shepherd
Oh wait, you can't.
Try Googling "Briggs Initiative" AKA Californis's Prop 6 from 1978. Had it become law, it would have mandated the firing of any gay schoolteachers and any other school employees simply over their orientation.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 12:10:29. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:53:22 AM · #982 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Posthumous seems to me to be offended with me on more than just an intellectual level. |
Not true. I'm offended with you on a purely intellectual level. :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 11:01:39 AM · #983 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also did a lot of thinking on why these conversations are so hard to begin with. I think the answer is everybody comes to the table (usually) with a different moral framework to be used to solve the problem. Perhaps it's Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism, or a religious moral framework. Perhaps it's a framework that has no official name. This is where the problem lies and why exasperation results so often. Under one moral framework the answer may be fairly straightforward and obvious. People arriving with this framework get frustrated with others because the answer is plain and obvious and their opponent simply can't see it. Under another framework the answer may be complex and difficult. That person gets upset because the first person just can't see the nuance of the issue. A third person enters and to him the answer is also plain and obvious, but his answer is completely different than the first one. At the end of the day I just can't come up with a measuring stick that allows the three participants to judge the correctness of their solution. Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
The answer should be obvious. You acknowledge that we all bring different moral frameworks to the table. The next step would be to respect that. Prop 8 surely didn't. If the roles were reversed I doubt you would be treating this as some kind of academic excerise. You'd probably just call the whole thing preposterous and that would be on a good day. I guess maybe I'm in that group who thinks everyone should be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit so long as they don't harm others in the process. A very simple solution and the only one that should ever be considered. |
I would point out that not everyone agrees that allowing homosexual marriage will be without a negative impact on our society. That's the macro view of things a lot of people obviously have. Something that is considered sinful by a large number of people is being proposed to be sanctioned by the government. Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. The question is whether society should be forced to accept gay marriage as a legally protected norm. If California is any example then people are not willing currently to do this.
When you say that your solution is the only one that 'should' ever be considered you do nothing to further the cause of gay marriage. |
Can you list out those negative impacts?
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit.
|
This is a ridiculous statement. Prop 8 was just the most recent in a long long line of laws that have curtailed gay people's freedoms. Did you see my post earlier about trying to ban gays from working in public schools (i.e. Prop 6)? Those are just two examples of restricting rights just to gays.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 11:49:18 AM · #984 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Posthumous seems to me to be offended with me on more than just an intellectual level. |
Not true. I'm offended with you on a purely intellectual level. :) |
Phew. Well, I can live with that. :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 12:09:37 PM · #985 |
OOps
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 12:10:05. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 12:09:49 PM · #986 |
| A solution to the "gay marriage" problem would be to make all marriage a civil union. Any religious ceremonies would be separate and have no legal significance. It's kinda that way now except for not allowing gays. So a quick change in the law and you can marry anything you want. Your car, your dog, a street sign. Whatever. Prop 8 is evidence of a legislature that can't make a decision. The founding fathers never intended to have mob rule. The proposition paradigm is just that. A minority has been disenfranchised by the majority. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 12:25:22 PM · #987 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
... Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
 dponlymeI also take exception to the words you posted here. Some people in this thread know that like Matthew Shephard, my brother was targeted and killed because he was a homosexual.
Through history groups of people have been targeted for discrimination and annihilation. Some because of their ethnicity, or their pigmentation, some for cultural reasons.
Don't you think it's about time to end inequality on all levels?
To give complete rights to everyone?
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 01:02:54 PM · #988 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
I don't think each arguer is correct within their own framework (or I don't understand what you mean). You seem to be arguing for moral relativism, which I think is a mistake. There must be some moral absolute in this issue. Otherwise, to take an hyperbolic and extreme example, the actions of the 911 hijackers were correct within their own moral framework. But their actions were not correct.
If one has seriously considered this particular issue and wonders where to go from here, I would suggest the only answer lies in the application of the golden rule. At the risk of sounding morally arrogant, and with the understanding that I am not advocating for one side or the other, consideration of how one can lessen the suffering of other people while respecting their dignity is a good place to start. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 01:28:02 PM · #989 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would point out that not everyone agrees that allowing homosexual marriage will be without a negative impact on our society. |
That may be true, but it would be nice to have some intelligent, reasoned input on that instead of the same old rhetoric which has been proven over and over to be misinformation, fear, and ignorance talking.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
Allow me to offer up this.....my straight, socially conscious 13 year old daughter got slapped in the head by a high school boy on the school bus and called a lesbian like it was a dirty word just because she had a "Freedom to Marry" button on her bookbag.
My straight middle school daughter was gay bashed by some pinhead on a school bus!
So as to your above comment, you're full of sh*t!
Offering that up with the utmost of respect at the same time that I express my horror at the statement......8>)
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The question is whether society should be forced to accept gay marriage as a legally protected norm. If California is any example then people are not willing currently to do this. |
FORCED???????
Discrimination is unconstitional and abhorrent.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
When you say that your solution is the only one that 'should' ever be considered you do nothing to further the cause of gay marriage. |
You forgot to say "In my opinion".
I, and many other people see nothing worng with that verbiage.
This is a very black and white situation.......either you're in favor of the harassment and discrimination, or you're not.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 13:33:14.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:32:24 PM · #990 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
From Wikipedia (emphasis added):
"The Ballad of Reading Gaol is a poem by Oscar Wilde written after his release from Reading prison on 19 May 1897. Its main theme is the death penalty. Wilde was incarcerated in HMP Reading, in Reading, Berkshire, after being convicted of homosexual offences in 1895 and sentenced to two years' hard labour in prison." |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:43:35 PM · #991 |
| ...and he eventually died of ill health complicated by a head injury sustained whilst in prison. So not only was his freedom curtailed because of his homosexuality, he was indirectly killed because of it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 04:36:23 PM · #992 |
I was watching the latest Real Time with Bill Maher the other day, and they discussed Proposition 8. Dan Savage was one of the guests, and he made an excellent point about the definition of marriage and its evolution. For centuries, marriage was a transaction between two families in which the female was a commodity traded along with land and other chattel. Consider the dowry and the bride price. In all but the most misogynous cultures, this degrading practice is gone because marriage has evolved.
Yes, there's no denying that these unions were still based on a male and female, but their primary characteristic had financial overtones, not loving ones. One might even be able theorize that the current institution of marriage actually had its roots in commerce, and the religious or sanctimonious overtones were incidental.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 05:17:31 PM · #993 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Each is correct in their own framework (hopefully) and each could be incorrect in their opponents. Where does one go from there? The answer is not obvious to me. |
I don't think each arguer is correct within their own framework (or I don't understand what you mean). You seem to be arguing for moral relativism, which I think is a mistake. There must be some moral absolute in this issue. Otherwise, to take an hyperbolic and extreme example, the actions of the 911 hijackers were correct within their own moral framework. But their actions were not correct.
If one has seriously considered this particular issue and wonders where to go from here, I would suggest the only answer lies in the application of the golden rule. At the risk of sounding morally arrogant, and with the understanding that I am not advocating for one side or the other, consideration of how one can lessen the suffering of other people while respecting their dignity is a good place to start. |
This is an interesting topic so I'm happy to keep talking about it. I'll try to divorce it from the current one so perhaps if we get too far down the rabbit hole we'll need to start our own thread.
I AM arguing for moral relativism because I don't know how it isn't true. You offer the measure of "lessening the suffering of other people while respecting their dignity" as a method of judging the robustness or "correctness" of each participant's moral framework, but doesn't that sentence amount to a moral framework of it's own? I'm not sure if it has a name or not, but it sounds similar enough to Humanitarianism to me. So I guess I want to know why THIS framework has been elevated to the status of being the absolute used to judge other frameworks? It may be the one you like the best, but that's just your opinion and there's lots of people who would submit their own framework as "judge".
And while the important part of this post is the paragraph above, I would say the 9/11 bombing seems so wrong because of our position as victim. However, even our own apparent societal framework has allowed similar actions within the last 75 years. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did certainly achieve an end (ending the war), but at what moral cost (killing many, many civillians)? I think parallels could be drawn between 9/11 and the bomb. Probably within my own framework BOTH actions are wrong, but it is interesting to see we may not be able to claim the moral high ground as easily as we would like. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 05:32:14 PM · #994 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Nobody has ever curtailed the freedom of gay people to live their lives as they see fit. |
Oh man... oh man oh man...
You could not be more wrong. Socially, legally, personally... we are denied and threatened all the time, in innumerable ways you might not even be able to see. I was a Boy Scout. I loved it. I kept my mouth shut that I was gay. I HAD to violate the oath about honesty just to participate (which every kid should have the chance to do) or face getting booted. I had to make a choice to either opt out, or lie in order to play along. I lied about being an athiest as well. Was I taking advantage of the Boy Scouts? I don't think so... it was just an ugly little compromise I had to make to be treated like all my friends, who were Scouts themselves, or stay home alone and unwanted.
The very real fear of retaliation I feel on an almost daily basis directly modifies how I express myself in almost every public situation, taking me away from how I want to live and making my day-to-day an exercise in how to conveniently live. Don't act too gay. Keep up a front of normalized if subdued masculinity. Choose your clothes carefully based on environment. Don't hold hands. Watch for certain words and don't speak them. Don't go into any unfriendly places, beer & sports fans are often a good indicator. God forbid, don't marry your husband! Being gay is an endless parade of second-guessing and warily looking over shoulders.
It's not like being black... you can't hide your blackness. You can hide your gayness. We're practically forced to make ourselves over by our apparent near-normality... we can slightly, continuously tweak our behavior and presentation to pass undetected, or risk getting the shit kicked out of us by someone who thinks it's practically their duty, a right of passage, even. Doing anything else is signing up for a world of hurt. It's sensible to compromise yourself this way. Sensible, but not good. It comes at a real cost. It can feel like living a lie.
When courts use getting hit on by a gay man as a legitimate defense for murder (gay panic!) you BET gays modify their actions, sacrificing short-term freedoms, like the ability to express romantic interest, for long-term freedoms, like the one to breathe.
I ran a rainbow flag up the pole in front of my house on Saturday... and there was a considerable part of me second-guessing even the simple freedom to express myself on my own property, for fear of the negative attention it may bring. A chilling efect, you might say... imposed on me by those who would rather not know I exist. To do what I want is to invite hostile attention, and that is not true freedom. I had to buck that pressure to do what I know is right.
Gay life is a daily exercise in curtailed freedoms.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 17:36:37. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 05:46:29 PM · #995 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, Mousie, I am big enough to say I'm somewhat impressed with the examples you gave. Some are stronger than others, but overall it is not a body of evidence to be simply discounted. This particular argument has been weakened substantially. That's not to say it's completely irrelevant, but whenever one can debate that something NEVER happens one argues from a point of strength. In this case that is no longer possible.
But however many examples you gave me...I asked for one more than that. ;) |
Thank you for stepping back from an impossible to defend position. I appreciate it. I'm a little confused by your comment about 'one more', though...
I believe you are correct, some views can not be reconciled. But that is not the issue here. The issue is people taking their beliefs and telling me what I can and can not do, for no other reason than "we don't like it, so you can't."
The problem is taking those beliefs and demanding the rest of the world conform to them.
I do not demand that conservatives get married to same-sex partners. They demand that I model my relationship after theirs, or I can't have one. There is a real difference between agreeing to disagree, and enforcing one viewpoint at the expense of another.
I can't accept that living my life and marying my husband does ANYTHING tangible to some LDS dude living in Utah! Yet they do stuff that is VERY tangible to me. THAT is where the imbalance lies, and that is why I know we will win this fight.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 06:14:32 PM · #996 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, Mousie, I am big enough to say I'm somewhat impressed with the examples you gave. Some are stronger than others, but overall it is not a body of evidence to be simply discounted. This particular argument has been weakened substantially. That's not to say it's completely irrelevant, but whenever one can debate that something NEVER happens one argues from a point of strength. In this case that is no longer possible.
But however many examples you gave me...I asked for one more than that. ;) |
Thank you for stepping back from an impossible to defend position. I appreciate it. I'm a little confused by your comment about 'one more', though... |
It was an attempt at humor. Since I had conceded you had some valid examples and I remember you asking me to provide you with the specific number I would require to be impressed I jokingly told you I was asking for one more example than however many you had. That way I would not need to be impressed. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 06:20:45 PM · #997 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I can't accept that living my life and marying my husband does ANYTHING tangible to some LDS dude living in Utah! Yet they do stuff that is VERY tangible to me. THAT is where the imbalance lies, and that is why I know we will win this fight. |
You know, the following just struck me. What % of the country do we think can be considered "devout" in their faith? The people that go to church regularly, apply the principles of their faith to their life purposefully and consider it the foundation of their worldview. My guess is somewhere like 3-10%? So while these people (like the LDS dude in Utah) are among your opponents, the truth of the matter is there is apparently a large body of people who do not fit that mold and yet disagree with gay marriage for some reason. I feel the devout believer is being made into the scapegoat here when the majority of the population of people who are against gay marraige happen to go to church on Easter and Christmas (if it works in their schedule), have a bible on the shelf collecting dust, and don't think twice about what Romans 1 says and whether it applies to modern day life.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 06:57:20 PM · #998 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I can't accept that living my life and marying my husband does ANYTHING tangible to some LDS dude living in Utah! Yet they do stuff that is VERY tangible to me. THAT is where the imbalance lies, and that is why I know we will win this fight. |
You know, the following just struck me. What % of the country do we think can be considered "devout" in their faith? The people that go to church regularly, apply the principles of their faith to their life purposefully and consider it the foundation of their worldview. My guess is somewhere like 3-10%? So while these people (like the LDS dude in Utah) are among your opponents, the truth of the matter is there is apparently a large body of people who do not fit that mold and yet disagree with gay marriage for some reason. I feel the devout believer is being made into the scapegoat here when the majority of the population of people who are against gay marraige happen to go to church on Easter and Christmas (if it works in their schedule), have a bible on the shelf collecting dust, and don't think twice about what Romans 1 says and whether it applies to modern day life.
Just a thought. |
I think you're completely right. Many who were raised with religion, whether still devout or not, cling to the threads they grew up with, often from custom as much as anything. Those are often the most dangerous because they have no logical reason for their beliefs and sometimes don't even realise just what they are or where they came from, but they're not about to let go. It's something comfortable to them, something that's always been there. These are the people that, somehow, need to be reached.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 18:58:18. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:16:58 PM · #999 |
Moral relativism is really only valid in cases of situational ethics. To say that it is sometimes okay to kill someone and sometimes its not ok to kill someone is incorrect. It is always not ok to kill someone but sometimes certain situations evolve where it is the lesser of two evils.
In the case of discrimination, it is not ok to discriminate against anyone, based on sex or race (or handicap, hair color, number of toes, age, favorite color...). Not allowing someone to enter into a contract with another person based on their sex is discrimination (yes, I know, a woman can marry a man so they aren't discriminated against - but two women can't enter a marriage contract so there is sex discrimination). Years ago, people of different races were not allowed to marry in the US and could be jailed for doing so. That is no longer the case, though there are people that wish otherwise. Someday, a person's sex won't matter with regard to marriage contracts. there will always be people against it, but they will live, and life will go on.
I find it sad that so many people are so concerned about what every one else is doing, feel a need to dictate and control the lives of others. I often wonder what is missing in their life that they need to make people miserable.
I finally watched the 20/20 interview with the man who carried a baby. The phone calls and threatening letters from strangers who didn't even know these people was just so very sad. The anger these people display at something they have no business sticking their noses in is astounding. If they spent that much time and energy on their own lives, maybe they wouldn't be so angry. And for those that call on the bible and Jesus to 'back them up' in their hate, they need to remember that Jesus preached love, tolerance, forgiveness and peace. He believed that only God could judge what was in men/women's hearts, and everyone should just love and respect one another.
I'm not a christian, but I hear the bible and Jesus used as justification for so much hate that I can no longer swallow it... |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:36:50 PM · #1000 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Moral relativism is really only valid in cases of situational ethics. To say that it is sometimes okay to kill someone and sometimes its not ok to kill someone is incorrect. It is always not ok to kill someone but sometimes certain situations evolve where it is the lesser of two evils. |
Ummm, aren't you just saying it's not okay to kill someone until there is a good reason for killing someone? That's not very helpful...
I think you are missing my point anyway. Moral relativism is more concerned with there being more than one method of judging the correctness of an action. One could judge an action under Utilitarianism, under Islamic Sharia, under Humanitarianism, etc. Each framework could possibly give you a different answer for the correctness of the action in question. It has less to do with the simplicity or complexity of the rules invoked and more to do with the fact there are many frameworks that can be used in the first place and that no single framework can claim authority over the other.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 21:47:07. |
|
