Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Couple Elope to Canada

LGBT Canada same-sex marriage eloped

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#61 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:33 PM

^ Bravo Cardie, well said!

Yama, your arguments are logical, but logic isn't the only guiding principle in the human experience.  Faith, morality and the like aren't really logical as the vary from individual to individual even those with the same basic core beliefs.

Many cultures do endorse sexually intercourse between young men and older men (several in the Middle East).  Many of these men are married to women.  But since the gay marriage in question is something happening in this culture then what other cultures do or belief is okay is really not the issue.  To me the issue here is the fear that if gay marriage is accepted then the whole institution of marriage will be corrupted to the point that those who think pedophile is acceptable will be able to have their unions sanctioned as well.

Well, it could happened, but I seriously doubt it.  Society has it's own checks and balances it seems.  There does come a point when something is too far out and society slams the brakes on the behavior.  (I am talking about our Western, North American society)

Quote

That's what I was thinking, exactly. Which is why I asked the question. I don't see that the word "marriage" bestows any special rights, and therefore I'm not sure why there's a battle over this word--except for the perception that a union is somehow religiously as well as legally sanctioned.
Well put, I do agree with you about the word "marriage."  It is hard to avoid though, it is such a loaded word!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#62 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:41 PM

Kevin Street, on Dec 19 2003, 01:13 PM, said:

Perhaps the reason this topic generates so much controversy is because relgion and law are all tangled up, and seperating them might make things easier. A legal acceptance of same sex unions shouldn't be the same thing as a religious accceptance of the concept. That's something the individual religions should decide for themselves.
Well said, Kevin.

It comes down to separation of church and state. I can accept a legal definition of civil union, so long as that definition of civil union doesn't force me to concede that the sacrament of marriage is just the same thing. Because it isn't. There is a difference between the institution of marriage and the sacrament of marriage. It might be my institutional duty to live with, pay taxes with, and make various other arrangements pertaining to that institution (such as declaring my spouse's income, accommodating the government's census information, etc.), but my sacramental duty, as a Catholic (presuming that I marry a Catholic, which, let's say, I do), is to keep the faith, both for myself and for my wife. Whoever she is to be.

The Catholic model isn't the most perfect example to use, nor is it the most accommodating, but it's the only one I really know. Thus, my limitations in the discussion. While I'm certain that the sacrament should be defended from all attacks, I don't see the institution of civil union as endangering it, simply because civil union is a necessary part of the government's accommodating the chosen living arrangements of the people.

If, as is being argued, there was this sudden, explosive shift in the moral acceptability of pedophilia, and it became acceptable for people to have sex with minors, then my expectation would be that the government would legislate towards the general will. But that would require overturning a long-standing legal tradition of protecting the well-being of children by accepting the notion that they are minors. This is not something that would change simply after a fashion. So I find the comparison of gay marriage to "what pedophiles want" rather out of hand and completely off-topic, simply because while legal attitudes towards forms of civil union are taking a turn towards a more inclusive definition, legal attitudes towards pedophilia surely aren't shifting in any inclusive direction. If they were making such a shift, I'd be one of the first out on the barricades, in protest.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#63 Lina

Lina

    This too shall pass

  • Islander
  • 2,603 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 02:18 PM

Quote

Kevin Street:
On another related topic, the discussion of civil unions vs. marriage has brought up a very good point that never occured to me. There should be a seperation between the legal definition of marriage (or civil union, or whatever it's called) and the religious concept of marriage.

This puzzles me to no end - I realize that people often call themselves married whether they were married by the state, or by church, or both. What I want to know is - what business has the state recognising a marriage that church performs and vice a versa? :dontgetit: Can someone tell me in clear, easy words - if you marry in church in US, will the state recognize you as a married woman/man without any kind of legal paperwork you have to do to become legally married in the eyes of the state? Or it may be enough to be married in the church?

Lina

Edited by Lina, 19 December 2003 - 02:20 PM.


#64 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 02:55 PM

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 06:09 PM, said:

Yama, let me turn your argument around on you. I am assuming that as a Christian you consider rejection of the notion that Jesus Christ was the son of God a moral failing. A non-Christian rejects that notion.  You therefore argue on moral grounds that this non-Christian must be excluded from a secular practice, say voting. The non-Christian argues that your church does not have to accept non-believers as members, you don't have to socialize with non-believers or even like non-believers, but that your church has no business using its beliefs to determine eligibility to vote in a secular state. You counter that there is an excellent basis for denying the non-Christian the vote because these are the precise arguments used by NAMBLA to justify pedophilia.  Do you see why this sounds like a reductio ad absurdum to us now?

Cardie

Cardie, your example is fatally flawed in several respects and therefore the fallacy is all yours.

The first is an assumption in your argument that marriage is strictly a secular matter (such as voting): note, I hope you aren't arguing that a church does not have the right to oppose gay mariages as a religious or doctrinal matter.  But to illustrate a few of the other areas where your example fails, let's continue with the idea of voting.

My argument is not that "my church" has a right to deny non-Christians the right to vote.  I argue that as an individual I have the right to disagree with the idea that non-Christians have a right to vote.  And that I can base my opposition to the enfranchisement of non-Christians on any reason I whatsoever.  Yes, even religious reasons.  Even for the reasons you state above.

(Note: I don't oppose non-Christians voting.  I am only using this as an example that you gave.)

Because an idea or position is based upon a particular religious viewpoint does not in any way lessen its validity in the secular or political marketplace.

Indeed, opposition to slavery in the United States was based on religious reasons.  In fact, support of civil rights was based on religious principles.  Do you know how many civil rights leaders were ministers and pastors and how often they "rallied the troops", discussed strategy and carried out their plans in churches and on Sundays?  Beginning with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr.  Are you say that their goals and activities were somehow less legitimate because they were religiously inspired (and often carried out under the robe of their clothe)?

Next, when I am pointing out that supporters of gay marriage are using the same logic and arguments that supporters of pedophilia are using, I am not arguing that such is the basis of my opposition to gay marriages.  As I stated earlier, I oppose gay marriages because I think it degrades are concept of what it means to be human and ultimately does not work out to the best of society as a whole.  I know that you and a far number of people in this forum disagree with me.  But that is my opinion and I will argue and defend it when I must.

And notice, my opposition has nothing to do with NAMBLA, one way or the other.

But I am pointing out that, on principle and consistently, such an argument cannot be used to support gay marriage without also supporting the arguments of NAMBLA and other pederasts for there position.

The problem is with the "first principle" assumed in support of gay marriages and by NAMBLA in support of pedophilia (and many other issues, too).  Most people blindly accept it, even as they themselves constantly violate it.  I reject it outright.  And that "first principle" is:

No one has the right to enforce their moral standards on another, especially by using government law.

That may sound nice but in truth, that's a bunch of horse hockey.  Indeed, the only thing any law ever does is ENFORCE A MORAL STANDARD UPON THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH IT!

There are laws against rape.  Why?  Because the general society thinks rape is immoral.

There are laws against child abuse.  Why? Because the general society thinks child abuse is immoral.

There are laws against killing other people.  Why? Because the general society thinks killing other people is immoral.

There are laws against cruelty to animals because the general society thinks being cruel to animals is immoral.

Indeed, there are laws governing our current tax structure because many people think it is (a) immoral that the "rich don't pay their 'fair share'", (b) immoral that "the most productive in society must 'support the freeloaders'", or © a combination of the above.

In fact, I dare say that those in this forum who support gay marriage do so because they think denying gays the right to marry is IMMORAL.

Seriously, you show me the law and I'll show you the moral component of it.  Even if I may disagre with the moral conceptions behind a particular law.  Seriously.

And with the inavoidable moral foundation for any law, including the secular, why can't I and others like me base our political position against gay marriage on our moral beliefs, even if they are religiously-based.  Our opponents do.

And if you again say that moral positions cannot and/or should not be the bases of political positions, then again, on what bases do you oppose pedophilia and support laws that forbid it?

Edited by Yama, 21 December 2003 - 01:41 AM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#65 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 02:56 PM

Yama, on Dec 19 2003, 05:28 PM, said:

prolog, can you prove the logical fallacy?

I mean without you inserting your own personal opinions and/or moral or religious beliefs into the argument.

And since you also quote my reference to Dr. King, are you saying that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s involvement in the Civil Rights movement based on a logical fallacy?

Just curious.
Absolutely.  We don't know for a fact if a Christian God actually exists or not.  Christians believe so, non-Christians believe otherwise.  Appealing to an unbiased authority can work, provided that authority actually exists and is unbiased.  For example, I could say "Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm runs in O(n^2) time in the worst case, because Dijkstra himself proved it to be so."  The reason that is valid that this is not an untrue statement, it comes from an unbiased authority (Dijkstra's proof is based on mathematical axioms, and has been peer-reviewed and is correct), and most importantly, Dijkstra existed.  He died of cancer last year.

I don't know enough about the civil rights movement, honestly.  I'm Canadian, and while we study a bit of U.S. history, it's about as much as the amount of Canadian history that Americans would study in school.  However, if King was involved in the humans rights movement purely based on a "God says so!" argument, then yes, he was involved based on a logical fallacy.  If, however, he was involved at least partially because he felt that blacks were being oppressed and mistreated, then he wasn't involved due to a logical fallacy, because they were being oppressed and mistreated.

#66 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 02:59 PM

clone...

Sorry

Edited by Yama, 19 December 2003 - 02:59 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#67 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 03:00 PM

Allow civil union for gay couples with same benefits as marriage.

I suspect the reason why some people are against gay people having marriages is because marriage is a very... religious word. God anointed something and what not.

Avoid that, and everyone is happy. Maybe...
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#68 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,621 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 03:47 PM

Yama, on Dec 19 2003, 02:55 PM, said:

The first is an assumption in your argument that marriage is strictly a secular matter (such as voting)
I do argue that, because I am arguing about the state regulating domestic partnerships in the same way that it regulates business partnerships, hunting licenses, payment of taxes, or, yes, voting. If there are certain rights, obligations, and privileges associated with entering into a domestic partnership, then let everyone who wants to enter into that sort of partnership be treated equally.  Because I personally am talking about the issue of equal protection under the law for the secular aspects only of such a partnership. Who is sleeping with whom and whether or not some people feel that is immoral would not figure into things. I would note that children currently aren't allowed to enter into such contracts, not for moral reasons but because it is felt that they don't have the mature judgment to make such a commitment with true understanding of its ramifications.

Marriages are religious unions sanctified by whatever religious community the couple belongs to, and no one has any right to force on that community a religious practice it finds abhorrent.  If a community or an individual considers homosexual relationships immoral, that is also entirely their choice.  Yet, while morality underlies the establishment of laws by human beings, the law of any land will never criminalize or prevent every practice that at least some of its members find immoral. This is a delicate, ever-evolving negotiation in any given culture. I know I don't have to remind you that many people not so long ago felt that interracial marriages were every bit as much of an abomination against the Lord as you feel gay unions to be, and many of those people quoted Scripture as their justification.

I'm a Reform Jew, and my Orthodox co-religionists consider me sinful because I don't follow the dietary laws and go to the mall on Saturdays. That's their right, but since we don't live in an Orthodox Jewish theocracy, they can't ban pork sausages in the whole United States.  Of course other parts of their beliefs, such as prohibitions against theft and murder, have been deemed to be both moral and legal in our culture.  I happen to believe that laws should only sanction practices that clearly and directly deprive, harm or coerce other individuals, as long as all persons involved in the transaction are capable of informed consent. I may think that many of these practices are immoral.  I may avoid them and shun their practitioners.  But I don't think the state has a right to make them suffer criminal penalties or exclude them from secular rights granted to other individuals.  That's all I'm arguing. I don't require anyone else to abandon what they think about morality in religious terms on a personal basis.

Many positive developments in human history have had a religious impetus; many dreadful catastrophes have had as well.  I feel neither that faith-based social ideas are always bad, nor that they are always good.  But I don't privilege religious altruism as always superior to  altruism that arises from other philosophies or instincts.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#69 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 05:56 PM

prolog, on Dec 19 2003, 09:56 PM, said:

However, if King was involved in the humans rights movement purely based on a "God says so!" argument, then yes, he was involved based on a logical fallacy.
I don't think so. There's no logical fallacy in a sentence like "God knows all, God decides what's right and wrong, God said so therefore this is wrong." There is, however, the slight problem of supportive facts. He can't prove God exists (or having these opinions) and you can't prove God doesn't (or thinks differently). I don't think there's a logic problem here, just a dead end to the discussion. Strictly logically, we can discuss two things:
1. Try to prove God's (non)existence.
2. Try to argue different meanings to his (see above) words.

Now, about marriages. ;)
People want to get married because it's a holy union in their opinion. If it is the 'holy' thing they look for, this is strictly between them and the religious community they belong to. A country should give all couples that made some serious commitment the same rights, regardless of the blessings or music they had during the ceremony.

But there's some complication here. Imo, the tough point is not getting married, but getting divorced. Can somebody get married as a Catholic, ask Canada to register him, ask Canada (in agreement with his partner) to cancel that and then go marry somebody else in a Buddhist ceremony? Can a Jewish couple register as divorced without any official "get" and marry again in another way? There's some kind of relationship between all the people that have the right to make these ceremonies (given to them by the country) and the country. They are different from each other and present complications - ignoring them altogether and setting a separate legal system exposes people to even more trouble.

Maybe it is because I'm looking at this from the Jewish perspective, where marriage laws have all kinds of little knows laws that can make your life hell and things are not that complicated in other ceremonies :eh:

To pick Cardie's example, the process of allowing interracial marriages and same sex marriage is like the process of allowing black people and women to vote. Did that lead to children voting? No. But it did lead to discussions about the age people should be granted the right to vote and there will be some discussions like them in the future. Will same sex marriage lead to discussing younger marriage? If it does, I hope the right decisions will be made. We do not avoid doing something right because some people may use it as an excuse to do something wrong. We do what's right and keep the line between right and wrong clear. At the same time, we don't avoid doing something because we assume we know better then the people that will be making  the deacons in the future. You're suggesting that we don't open the door to them, because we have better morals than them. That's a mistake - we may have different morals, but there time is there's to govern.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#70 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 09:28 PM

Enmar, on Dec 19 2003, 10:56 PM, said:

I don't think so. There's no logical fallacy in a sentence like "God knows all, God decides what's right and wrong, God said so therefore this is wrong." There is, however, the slight problem of supportive facts. He can't prove God exists (or having these opinions) and you can't prove God doesn't (or thinks differently). I don't think there's a logic problem here, just a dead end to the discussion. Strictly logically, we can discuss two things:
1. Try to prove God's (non)existence.
2. Try to argue different meanings to his (see above) words.
The reason that appeals to authority, including religious ones, are logical fallacies is the following: logical arguments can only be supported by facts and by valid logical inferences.  Testimony by a figure whose existence is neither proven nor disproven does not count as either; thus, the fallacy of the "God says so!" argument.

You see a dead end to the discussion, I see a logical fallacy.  This is just how I've been taught in various logic courses.  I think we're in agreement in general, though. :)

#71 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 09:47 PM

Logic does not rely on objective fact, although it certainly can.  All logic does is provide a framework by which information inputted turns into a result on the other end which is consistent.  The fact that logic can be used to determine real world things is actually just a side effect of the process.  In a consistent universe, a means by which you can achieve consistency is very useful.  

However, I'll have to join the debate against an appeal to divine authority as illogical.  The fact is that logic (and science) has certain laws or axioms which are simply considered to be true.  Basically it's like lawyers stipulating things during trials.  There's nothing that says that the facts so stipulated can be proven given exhaustive tests but since both sides believe that that particular "fact" is true, the court doesn't have to waste it's time applying the tests.  

It is possible to stipulate that God exists, and God is omnipotent, and that anyone who is omnipotent basically gets to tell you what is right or wrong.  Now, you may not agree with that stipulation, but that doesn't affect the logic of the argument at all, it just means that the output is meaningless because the input is meaningless.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Nevertheless, as long as the decision making process produces consistent results, then it was a logical process.  

Garbage in, garbage out = logical
Good data in, good conclusions out = logical
Garbage in, good conclusions out = illogical, but darn lucky (see Kepler)
Good data in, garbage out = illogical, and what you'd expect

You believe that inputting God into the equation is the introduction of non-factual data.  That's just Garbage in, it doesn't say anything about the process of testing and reaching a conclusion.  Thus, a person's belief in God is irrelevant in determining the logic of a particular statement.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#72 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:01 PM

Sorry, where I wrote "facts", I should have written "assertions".  Looking back, that was a really bad choice of wording.

The reason that "God says so!" isn't valid isn't a valid argument is because there's no argument behind it.  "An omnipotent being, God, exists; God always knows what is best; God always says homosexuals can't marry; if God always knows what's best, then whatever he says is true; therefore, it is true that homosexuals can't marry" is a logical argument, though one can feel free to disagree with the assertions.

I guess what I meant originally was just that "God says so!" arguments are logical fallacies because there's no logic behind them.

#73 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:16 PM

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 01:47 PM, said:

I happen to believe that laws should only sanction practices that clearly and directly deprive, harm or coerce other individuals, as long as all persons involved in the transaction are capable of informed consent. I may think that many of these practices are immoral.  I may avoid them and shun their practitioners.  But I don't think the state has a right to make them suffer criminal penalties or exclude them from secular rights granted to other individuals.  That's all I'm arguing. I don't require anyone else to abandon what they think about morality in religious terms on a personal basis.

Many positive developments in human history have had a religious impetus; many dreadful catastrophes have had as well.  I feel neither that faith-based social ideas are always bad, nor that they are always good.  But I don't privilege religious altruism as always superior to  altruism that arises from other philosophies or instincts.
As usual, you said what I was trying to say much more clearly than I could. ;

Cardie's a reform Jew. I'm an agnostic. Neither of us would appreciate having the other's religious beliefs foisted on us as law (although it happens that we generally agree).

Edited by Rhea, 19 December 2003 - 10:18 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#74 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:22 PM

prolog, on Dec 19 2003, 07:01 PM, said:

Sorry, where I wrote "facts", I should have written "assertions".  Looking back, that was a really bad choice of wording.

The reason that "God says so!" isn't valid isn't a valid argument is because there's no argument behind it.  "An omnipotent being, God, exists; God always knows what is best; God always says homosexuals can't marry; if God always knows what's best, then whatever he says is true; therefore, it is true that homosexuals can't marry" is a logical argument, though one can feel free to disagree with the assertions.

I guess what I meant originally was just that "God says so!" arguments are logical fallacies because there's no logic behind them.
Worse than logical fallacies: copouts.  Rather than leaning on the Bible how about tell us the REAL reason you oppose it:  discomfort with homosexuality.
Posted Image

#75 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:33 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 20 2003, 03:22 AM, said:

Worse than logical fallacies: copouts.  Rather than leaning on the Bible how about tell us the REAL reason you oppose it:  discomfort with homosexuality.
I was approaching it from a purely-logical perspective because I was challenged to prove how the "God says so!" argument isn't a valid one.  I don't want to touch the issue that much, but given that I tend to be pretty left-wing, you can guess where I stand. ;)

#76 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:46 PM

ERm...I didn't phrase that all that well.  The "you" I was referring to was the people who retreat to the "god says so" argument and refuse to come out from behind it because to do so would be to openly admit that what really motivates them is their discomfort with/disapproval of homosexuality.  Independent of what "God says".

Lil
Posted Image

#77 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:53 PM

Quote

I happen to believe that laws should only sanction practices that clearly and directly deprive, harm or coerce other individuals, as long as all persons involved in the transaction are capable of informed consent.

I don't know.  I feel that the idea of "informed consent" is an illusion that is dangerously close to be an irresponsible abdication of responsibility.  Let's look at this closely....

First of all, what does "informed" mean?  What I see it as meaning is some people taking a minimal amount of effort to try and get some sort of answer about certain issues that they happen to be aware of.  Unfortunately, what that generally means is that people pick and choose the data out there which is the most compatible with what they want to do.  If people think that being gay is unhealthy, there is no shortage of information out there for them to stitch together an argument from.  If people want to argue that being gay is perfectly safe, ditto.  

The fact is that so-called "informed consent" holds up no reasonable standards for the protection of oneself, and more importantly, the community at large.  Indeed, I think the largest issues with certain actions are not what is immediately obvious, but rather what happens as a long range result.  Does what two gay individuals do in privacy any business of mine?  I'd come close to saying that it isn't my business.  On the other hand, is adopting a child something that only affects them?  No, it is not.  When looking at something like a civil union/marriage debate, you must inform yourself of the big picture, not just enlarge your reaction to people who try and invade the privacy of a gay person's home.  

In terms of placing my "religious beliefs" on others, the fact is that a large portion of my religious beliefs already are incorporated into law.  Indeed, a healthy portion of Islamic law is also in our law.  You know, things like murder, theft and such?  Adding the complaint that something or other is not worthy of law just because it's part of someone's religion is pointless, because in the end, any values decision you make can be applied to some religion or another.  The only way that we avoid that is by completely divorcing ourselves from any coherent values structure whatsoever, and that's just not a very good idea.  

In terms of Christianity, I happen to believe certain things because God says so.  On the other hand, I frequently also see that such concepts are desirable even if God didn't comment on them.  Christianity is a path to make life better, not worse.  It does make demands on people, but for the most part, even if you don't accept the authority (or even the existence) of God, the idea would be that the stuff would still work regardless.  It is my firm belief that what you might be told to do or not to do is and will be materially beneficial to humans here on Earth, even if it is not immediately obvious.  Look at the "turn the other cheek" pronouncement.  To an ancient person, it might seem almost absurd.  To many people even today, it seems untenable.  However, in modern times, we have seen that non-violence can be effective.  Chances are that with further development of the idea, and closer adherence to that, eventually the value of unconditional forgiveness will be self-evident.  

I believe that people should completely get to understand their religions (if any) and values systems.  However, when they have done so, they should then act on those beliefs.  Saying that something is not worthy of enactment into law because it happens to have a religious source is ridiculous to the tenth degree.  That's saying that people should not vote for what they believe in if it doesn't meet some other person's narrow interpetation of what is allowable.  To me that smacks just as much of an unfree society as any fundementalist-controlled state.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 19 December 2003 - 10:55 PM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#78 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 20 December 2003 - 12:03 AM

Quote

but since we don't live in an Orthodox Jewish theocracy, they can't ban pork sausages in the whole United States.

Dang!

Quote

As usual, you said what I was trying to say much more clearly than I could. ;

Cardie's a reform Jew. I'm an agnostic. Neither of us would appreciate having the other's religious beliefs foisted on us as law (although it happens that we generally agree).

Absolutely!  Cardie nailed it!!  Cardie so rocks!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#79 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 20 December 2003 - 01:44 AM

Quote

Saying that something is not worthy of enactment into law because it happens to have a religious source is ridiculous to the tenth degree.

And if I say that the idea that something IS worthy of enactment into law because it happens to have a religious source is ridiculous to the tenth degree your response would be????
Posted Image

#80 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 20 December 2003 - 02:56 AM

My response is simple.  If you feel the item has no merit, you vote against it, but if you do see merit in it, then vote for it.  There's simply no reason at all not to sponsor or accept a reasonable law just because some religion thinks it's a good idea.  It's not a very consistent test, for one thing.  There's at least one religion which is more than happy to prescribe the death penalty for certain offenses, and there's others that at the same time that are dead set against it.  If something's a good idea, the fact that it's part of someone else's value system is not relevant to the discussion.  This country's seperation of church and state keeps the government from imposing a state religion, but freedom of religion allows... no I'd say it even assumes that you will vote with your conscience, and most people who subscribe to a religion develop a conscience related to it.  

In the end, pointing out that something is a part of a religion you don't like, or a religion in general is completely beside the point.  Certainly few in the US want women walking around in full-body bedsheets, but there are other parts of Islamic values that we might accept without comment.   The real issue, then is not if something is part of a religion, but rather if the actual specific item is desireable or not.  You may dislike the religion, or religion in general, but that doesn't mean that what they believe in is 100% wrong.  Yet, there are some people who are only against stealing because of divine justice.  Does that mean that we oppose fraud and theft legislation because there's someone out there that only believes it's wrong because "God said so"?  I'd hope not.  

In terms of gay marriage, there are people out there who oppose it for pragmatic reasons, for religious reasons, and also for both.  As I said, not granting people the ability to make decisions on their values, no matter how they are derived, is the mark of an unfree society.  Their arguments may not convince you, but they're not doing anything strange or insidious.  On the other hand, expecting them to disregard their values simply because you label them as undesirably "religious" is not in keeping with the spirit of free expression.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Canada, same-sex marriage, eloped

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users