Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/24/2008 12:43:21 PM · #1376

Originally posted by tnun:

Whoo. Here I go again. Louis, I am not so sure I agree that these are "reasonable people with reasonable arguments," though I am sure they are well intentioned and have a training of some sort.

We appear to have our wires crossed. My post was about those sources that some of us like to cite here while discussing things. I like to quote whole texts from the likes of Sam Harris, Michel Onfray and others, as they represent my views very well. I was reacting to what seemed to be your mistrust of such usage.

11/24/2008 12:49:21 PM · #1377

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Cute anecdotes aside, basing a law on "Well, the bible says..." is wrong and does amount to the state endorsing one religion over another. Citing the bible as one source among many as the basis for a law is another thing. The sad thing about the bible is that people use it far more to justify terrible things than they do to justify good. For me, any moral justification based in it is automatically suspect.

You need to be clear on whether you are making a legal argument or a moral one. It's silly to point to the separation of church and state as the basis for a moral argument, but it's clear it could be a legal one. My point is that as a legal argument it's pretty easy to discredit. Which specific religion is being sponsored again? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Mormonism? They all seem to be generally for the "man and woman" idea.

I understand your personal revulsion of using faith to come to moral conclusions (shudder), but you may be mixing up personal feelings with what you think are valid legal arguments. If not, then you'd best get in line to get Christmas taken off the federal holiday list. And while you are at it, if you live in the northeast you might add Yom Kippur and a few other Jewish holidays as well.

11/24/2008 12:51:30 PM · #1378

Incidentally, I may be slow on the uptake, but it occurs to me that it's the height of irony that tnun continually equates my trust in academia with the dogmatism of the religious fundamentalists, when in fact his denigration and suspicion of the academics' methods places him firmly in the bible-thumping camp.

Message edited by author 2008-11-24 12:52:24.

11/24/2008 12:53:38 PM · #1379

A disappointing usage:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...but the Sikh's are devout enough...

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/24/2008 01:13:48 PM · #1380

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If not, then you'd best get in line to get Christmas taken off the federal holiday list.

Awww... let it stay! Christmas is a charming Pagan festival.

11/24/2008 01:13:54 PM · #1381

Originally posted by Louis:

A disappointing usage:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...but the Sikh's are devout enough...

You'll have to explain. My point is every Sikh I've met has had his/her faith as a central part of their life. I wouldn't be surprised then, if the song was religious in nature. How did you think I meant it?

Message edited by author 2008-11-24 13:15:58.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/24/2008 01:14:27 PM · #1382

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If not, then you'd best get in line to get Christmas taken off the federal holiday list.

Awww... let it stay! Christmas is a charming Pagan festival.

Well we'd hate to sponsor those Druids now... ;)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/24/2008 01:15:30 PM · #1383

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My point is that as a legal argument it's pretty easy to discredit. Which specific religion is being sponsored again? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Mormonism? They all seem to be generally for the "man and woman" idea.

I understand your personal revulsion of using faith to come to moral conclusions (shudder), but you may be mixing up personal feelings with what you think are valid legal arguments.

With the exception of Judaism, weren't they all in favor of slavery until a few two hundred years ago? Interpretation of religious faiths are no more immutable than any other laws. They shift more slowly than other laws, but they do shift in accord with what society holds most sacred.

In the middle east Mullas dispense ruling based on sharia law, but in the west, we have to filter our legislation of faith through a civil code which is intended to shelter those of other faiths.

11/24/2008 01:15:47 PM · #1384

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
A disappointing usage:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...but the Sikh's are devout enough...

You'll have to explain. My point is every Sikh I've met has had his/her faith as a central part of their life. I wouldn't be surprised then, if the song wasn't religious in nature. How did you think I meant it?

I think you meant to say "Sikhs are devout enough", leaving off the apostrophe for a word clearly not in the genitive case.

11/24/2008 01:16:42 PM · #1385

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
A disappointing usage:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...but the Sikh's are devout enough...

You'll have to explain. My point is every Sikh I've met has had his/her faith as a central part of their life. I wouldn't be surprised then, if the song wasn't religious in nature. How did you think I meant it?

I think you meant to say "Sikhs are devout enough", leaving off the apostrophe for a word clearly not in the genitive case.

Ah, yes, grammar. I agree, quite lame.

11/24/2008 01:18:52 PM · #1386

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is that as a legal argument it's pretty easy to discredit. Which specific religion is being sponsored again? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Mormonism? They all seem to be generally for the "man and woman" idea.

I understand your personal revulsion of using faith to come to moral conclusions (shudder), but you may be mixing up personal feelings with what you think are valid legal arguments.

With the exception of Judaism, weren't they all in favor of slavery until a few two hundred years ago?

My point was simply that nobody argued that slavery should be banned because of the separation of church and state. The actual moral argument for/against gay marriage had been dealt with for many posts. Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state.

Message edited by author 2008-11-24 13:19:23.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/24/2008 01:27:49 PM · #1387

An aside, but it really is bothering me -

tnun is not a "he". Please refer to her with the proper pronouns. Thank you. Please continue.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/24/2008 01:28:58 PM · #1388

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state.

No I wasn't. My point was and is that no laws should be based solely on what's written in an old book, regardless of its status as a holy text within some faction of the religious community. In other words, "God" ain't enough. Or, just because someone interprets some verses in the bible as condemning some act doesn't justify laws that restrict others from doing the same or according them the same advantages afforded others..

Message edited by author 2008-11-24 13:31:57.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/24/2008 01:32:38 PM · #1389

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Interpretation of religious faiths are no more immutable than any other laws. They shift more slowly than other laws, but they do shift in accord with what society holds most sacred.

Unfortunately, sometimes that slow shift comes only when the civil law decrees an accepted religious practice illegal.

Funny thing.....what is now immoral is the discrimination, yet it will soon be illegal; that which was considered immoral will be protected, as it should be.]

I'm sure the irony will be lost on some, and a bitter irony to others, but I'm just glad the change is coming.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/24/2008 01:35:07 PM · #1390

Originally posted by Melethia:

An aside, but it really is bothering me - tnun is not a "he". Please refer to her with the proper pronouns. Thank you. Please continue.

Well....she's a big girl, she should be able to speak for herself......and she does with eloquence that I've seen I might add.

HOWEVER.......I must admit a certain amount of confusion myself at the name Timothy as a female name.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/24/2008 01:35:11 PM · #1391

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state.

You should be smart enough to know that Christmas is irrelevant in this context. The holiday is inclusive, and does not infringe upon the rights of others to enjoy their own holidays. Banning gay marriage is exclusive, and designed solely for the purpose of preventing others from following their own private beliefs. Such marriages have been willingly conducted in Christian churches, and while you might claim that major religions are generally for the "man and woman" idea, you still can't impose that concept on others based on your religious principles. Major religions have generally been for the "submission and obedience of women" idea, too. Good luck with that.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/24/2008 01:39:10 PM · #1392

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state.

Originally posted by scalvert:

I've never understood the positively reprehensible idea of one human being being submissive and obedient to another on any level.

It makes me ill.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/24/2008 01:40:35 PM · #1393

I will add this totally non-reference based, unsubstantiated tidbit (with no proper regard to formal discourse) - I find it interesting that the LDS church campaigned rather vehemently for Prop 8 yet it wasn't so very long ago that they believed it was OK to have more than one wife. So they still had the man/woman thing, but also included the man/woman/woman/woman thing.... Until, of course, it didn't suit the law of the land, then they relented and said "no more". Or something like that.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

11/24/2008 01:43:41 PM · #1394

Slavery was promoted by christian churches in the south with the rationale that it was allowed according to the bible (that is why there now exists Southern Baptists, though other religious groups also fractured along the slavery issue).

So, we see that the bible finds moral something we presently think immoral. Is it too much to assume that maybe the bible finds some things immoral that we can find moral? I'm sure if I looked, there would be at least one example...

11/24/2008 02:01:02 PM · #1395

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state.

No I wasn't. My point was and is that no laws should be based solely on what's written in an old book, regardless of its status as a holy text within some faction of the religious community. In other words, "God" ain't enough. Or, just because someone interprets some verses in the bible as condemning some act doesn't justify laws that restrict others from doing the same or according them the same advantages afforded others..

Let the backpedal begin. Forgive me for being distracted by your big, bold separation of church and state. How again does the separation fit into your rephrase above? I didn't see it listed there at all. Can you state it again, but include "separation of church and state" in the appropriate part so us dense people can understand what you meant?