|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 1, 2010 0:19:56 GMT -5
Lighthorse and Valsa, the "keep your religion out of my civil rights" argument goes only so far. Because humans are moral creatures, and because humans make laws for our society, those laws reflect the values certainly of the creators of the laws and supposedly of that community. I'm not saying that any one religion's laws should be THE law of the land, rather I'm saying that legislation reflects somebody's convictions. One religion places a high value on sexual purity and marital sancity while another religion may be less restricitive. If you have those two apparently conflicting value systems in the people of that community, in some cases, only one viewpoint will be reflected in a particular piece of legislation. Now, the proper thing to do would reach some sort of consensus for both sides, but that's not always possible. In the final resolving of this issue, somebody's value system clearly is going to win out. Its fine to make laws on morality when breaches of the collective idea of moral behaviour lead to a clear detriment to society. OK? So "don't murder" is fine as a law, because killing people clearly is detrimental and causes severe negative impacts on the rest of society, so you get to impose your morality on that issue onto others who may not agree with it. But since homosexual marriage does not negatively impact society, you don't get to enforce your morality onto others. See the difference?
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 1, 2010 8:30:17 GMT -5
Lighthorse and Valsa, the "keep your religion out of my civil rights" argument goes only so far. Because humans are moral creatures, and because humans make laws for our society, those laws reflect the values certainly of the creators of the laws and supposedly of that community. I'm not saying that any one religion's laws should be THE law of the land, rather I'm saying that legislation reflects somebody's convictions. One religion places a high value on sexual purity and marital sancity while another religion may be less restricitive. If you have those two apparently conflicting value systems in the people of that community, in some cases, only one viewpoint will be reflected in a particular piece of legislation. Now, the proper thing to do would reach some sort of consensus for both sides, but that's not always possible. In the final resolving of this issue, somebody's value system clearly is going to win out. Ok. It was cute for a minute but it's time for a few things to be explained to you. "The 'keep your religion out of my civil rights' argument only goes so far." I disagree. I think that argument can't really go far enough. I am not a christian. Why should I follow your rules at all? They do not apply to me. There are a lot of Hindus where I live. Should they vote to make eating and selling beef illegal? There would be a majority consensus for that and it would pass easily? No, they shouldn't. Because it infringes on my non Hindu rights. "Because humans are moral creatures, and because humans make laws for our society, those laws reflect the values certainly of the creators of the laws and supposedly of that community." But that does not make them not the laws they pass right or just. Some people want to abridge the rights of others because, um, well, because it's easy. Homosexuals are an easy group to demonize. "I'm not saying that any one religion's laws should be THE law of the land, rather I'm saying that legislation reflects somebody's convictions." Are you sure? Because it really sounds like that's what you want. But be careful what you (and those who think this) wish for. There are other religions in the world and yours might not win. "One religion places a high value on sexual purity and marital sanctity while another religion may be less restrictive. If you have those two apparently conflicting value systems in the people of that community, in some cases, only one viewpoint will be reflected in a particular piece of legislation." Well, in that case, I'm glad we have separation of church and state. But why do we have to choose? Why can't those who believe in sexual purity practice it and those who don't not? And while we're on the subject, what about those who are supposed to believe in the sanctity of marriage but don't practice it? I'm looking at you, christians who get divorced several times. Yes, they may not be true christians, but they call themselves that. With every christian divorce, the sanctity of marriage argument is cheapened a little bit. " Now, the proper thing to do would reach some sort of consensus for both sides, but that's not always possible. " This sounds nice, but it's complete and utter bullshit. The law should work to protect the rights of all citizens. A consensus on gay marriage? What would that look like? How can you be sorta married? How can someone be kinda wed? No, they should be able to be married. Done. And there is no good reason younger than 1000 years old for it not to happen. No consensus.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 8, 2010 3:59:59 GMT -5
And while we're on the subject, what about those who are supposed to believe in the sanctity of marriage but don't practice it? I'm looking at you, christians who get divorced several times. Yes, they may not be true christians, but they call themselves that. With every christian divorce, the sanctity of marriage argument is cheapened a little bit. You are correct. Christians' collective record on marriage longevity and harmony within the marriage has been less than admirable.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 8, 2010 4:10:52 GMT -5
My point, Rookie, is that laws are not morally neutral. Even in a secular country where secular values presumably are reflected in the laws, these laws ultimately have their source with a person or people with deep convictions regardless of respective religion or worldview. It's impossible to have a truly value-neutral society when it's composed of moral beings. Every human religion/worldview is a reflection of somebody's notions of right and wrong and what'd be best for society. In a sense, we're all idealists, whether atheist, Christian, Communist, or Nazi.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 8, 2010 4:54:24 GMT -5
Right, but when we:
A) Have identified a law that does not reflect the values of a significant portion of the population, B) Know that the actions or 'lifestyle' banned by the law will not harm anyone if legalized (beyond offending a few people), and C) Know that keeping the ban in place WILL harm people via disallowing them to do what makes them happy
... then it's about time we did something to change the law.
Yes, it's impossible to have a 100% value-neutral legal system, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an effort to improve the current legislation, and work towards getting it as close to being value-neutral as possible. I don't get why people think that "it can never be perfect" is justification for putting up with an obvious inequality, especially when there's a just-as-obvious remedy for it...
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 8, 2010 4:56:25 GMT -5
Rookie, even the point you made about your having the right to eat and sell beef, though contrary to Hindu teachings, is itself a value statement---one I personally agree with. Where did this particular belief we share come from--English common law? Before that---Greco/Roman philosophy and/or Anglo Saxon paganism and/or Christianity? It came from somebody's beliefs.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 8, 2010 5:01:48 GMT -5
Yeah, Mrs. A, I know what you're saying. It may be that the best thing for a conservative Christian to do is to respect whatever law is ultimately passed. No, it wouldn't be the end of the world should same sex marriage become the law of the land. All I can do is give my opinion and see what happens.
As a Christian, my "marching orders" aren't to become politically active, anyway. Rather, it's to spread the message of Christ. Anything else is a distance second, third, or beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 8, 2010 5:20:13 GMT -5
Yeah, Mrs. A, I know what you're saying. It may be that the best thing for a conservative Christian to do is to respect whatever law is ultimately passed. No, it wouldn't be the end of the world should same sex marriage become the law of the land. All I can do is give my opinion and see what happens. As a Christian, my "marching orders" aren't to become politically active, anyway. Rather, it's to spread the message of Christ. Anything else is a distance second, third, or beyond that. You should really look up the history of Christian thought on abortion and conception. For example, from here.I quote: The Alexandrian school, with a minority in the Palestinian school, held that the fetus acquired the juridical status of a human person at one particular point in time, while the Palestinian majority held that the fetus and the mother were one, so that the fetus on its own had no legal existence. The latter point of view entailed that abortion was allowed, or indeed even demanded, in certain situations. We must, however, emphasize that the Palestinian school discussed abortion almost exclusively in relation to "the problem of the legal and cultic status of the fetus, especially in relation to miscarriages and certain necessary (and usually late) abortions. Abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, 'on demand' or as a means of birth control 'is very likely not even contemplated in the Mishnaic law.'"
...
Under the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, there was a relaxation of attitudes toward abortion. Bakke writes, "Since an increasing number of Christian parents were poor and found it difficult to look after their children, the theologians were forced to take into account this situation and reflect anew on the question. This made is possible to take a more tolerant attitude toward poor people who exposed their children." Augustine of Hippo believed that an early abortion is not murder because the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present. Augustine reversed earlier Christian teaching by returning to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." This belief passed into canon law.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Oct 8, 2010 7:03:14 GMT -5
You should really look up the history of Christian thought on abortion and conception. For example, from here.I quote: The Alexandrian school, with a minority in the Palestinian school, held that the fetus acquired the juridical status of a human person at one particular point in time, while the Palestinian majority held that the fetus and the mother were one, so that the fetus on its own had no legal existence. The latter point of view entailed that abortion was allowed, or indeed even demanded, in certain situations. We must, however, emphasize that the Palestinian school discussed abortion almost exclusively in relation to "the problem of the legal and cultic status of the fetus, especially in relation to miscarriages and certain necessary (and usually late) abortions. Abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, 'on demand' or as a means of birth control 'is very likely not even contemplated in the Mishnaic law.'"
...
Under the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, there was a relaxation of attitudes toward abortion. Bakke writes, "Since an increasing number of Christian parents were poor and found it difficult to look after their children, the theologians were forced to take into account this situation and reflect anew on the question. This made is possible to take a more tolerant attitude toward poor people who exposed their children." Augustine of Hippo believed that an early abortion is not murder because the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present. Augustine reversed earlier Christian teaching by returning to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." This belief passed into canon law. "Objective, unchanging morality", see?
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Oct 8, 2010 7:33:49 GMT -5
Not to mention that until modern times, when we discovered egg cells and sperm cells and what happens when they meet, the beginning of life was generally defined as "quickening," i.e., the time at which the mother could feel the fetus's movements (about 4 1/2 months in).
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Oct 8, 2010 8:59:28 GMT -5
My point, Rookie, is that laws are not morally neutral. Even in a secular country where secular values presumably are reflected in the laws, these laws ultimately have their source with a person or people with deep convictions regardless of respective religion or worldview. It's impossible to have a truly value-neutral society when it's composed of moral beings. Every human religion/worldview is a reflection of somebody's notions of right and wrong and what'd be best for society. In a sense, we're all idealists, whether atheist, Christian, Communist, or Nazi. Before you go any further on morality and laws, look up the Code of Hammurabi. Pay particular attention to the date and resemblance to the supposed "Christian" laws.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 8, 2010 19:07:12 GMT -5
My point, Rookie, is that laws are not morally neutral. Even in a secular country where secular values presumably are reflected in the laws, these laws ultimately have their source with a person or people with deep convictions regardless of respective religion or worldview. It's impossible to have a truly value-neutral society when it's composed of moral beings. Every human religion/worldview is a reflection of somebody's notions of right and wrong and what'd be best for society. In a sense, we're all idealists, whether atheist, Christian, Communist, or Nazi. This is all very meta, and noticeably avoiding any arguments beyond "that's just what I believe". Values don't form in a vacuum, and part of that foundation (the human brain) is universal. You must have a reason for holding the beliefs you do, so what are those reasons?
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 9, 2010 5:26:46 GMT -5
Values don't form in a vacuum, and part of that foundation (the human brain) is universal. You must have a reason for holding the beliefs you do, so what are those reasons? Admittedly, my culture and environment were significant influences regarding my stand on these issues, as was my family. I didn't really understand the biblical position (or what I believe it to be) until post-conversion in my early 30s. While I've felt that homosexuality was "somehow not right" for the longest time, I also had a live and let live attitude towards those involved in it. It never occurred to me that the practice or whatever should be outlawed nor did I ever think that humiliating or hurting any of them was cool. Laissez faire was my motto--no pun intended. My biology teacher even gave his students a different perspective on them since there was a gay couple whom he was friends with. I'd come to believe that while I may not agree with what they do, there was no reason I couldn't live in peace with them or even be friends with someone in the lifestyle. Well, it seems that nowadays, even that attitude is wrong. If I don't want to be labeled a bigot or homophobe, then I have to say that what they do is ok and am not allowed any personal moral objections. Now, if my assessment is wrong, then I have to say that I'm not seeing a different message in the media. I hope I've sort of answered your question.
|
|
Phys
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by Phys on Oct 9, 2010 7:01:26 GMT -5
I, obviously, have no objection to homosexuality (I am bisexual), but I have two friends who are actually opposed to it. One has religious objections to homosexuality in others, and has said that when he read the Kinsey report he was extremely disappointed, but he has opinions on sexuality which are pretty extreme (he was upset about his weakness because he kissed his girlfriend, once, on the cheek).
The other is homophobic, in the sense that he is afraid of homosexuality: any talk of homosexual activity, even simply talking about who is dating whom, is enough to make him uncomfortable. Several people have tried to find out why, but the problem doesn't seem to be religious (he's a member of the atheist society) or cultural. It seems his problem is just an ingrained prejudice, but he has never explained the reason.
Of course, I know plenty of people who think that homosexual activity is a sin, but they don't really preach against it or anything (I have heard only one sermon which was against homosexuality, and that was about sexual immorality in general). I also know a few people who find the idea of gay activity disgusting, but don't make a fuss about it provided they don't have to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 9, 2010 16:21:57 GMT -5
I'd come to believe that while I may not agree with what they do, there was no reason I couldn't live in peace with them or even be friends with someone in the lifestyle. Well, it seems that nowadays, even that attitude is wrong. If I don't want to be labeled a bigot or homophobe, then I have to say that what they do is ok and am not allowed any personal moral objections. Now, if my assessment is wrong, then I have to say that I'm not seeing a different message in the media. I don't quite get your point. Some people say you have to agree with their opinions instead of just tolerating them. So? Did that shape your beliefs, or is it just a gripe you have with the LGBT rights movement? Is it actually relevant to the question, or are you simply venting? Actually, no, you didn't. You've elaborated on what you beliefs are. What I asked you was the reasons behind those beliefs, i.e. the actual thoughts in your head that cause you to conclude that "homosexuality is somehow not right". Is it just that your religion says it's wrong? Would you consider any activity, no matter what, as wrong if your religion said it was? Is it an innate disgust at it? Is it some notion of natural order? Do you think it harms people?
|
|