#226328 - 13/07/2004 14:48
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
Agreed. Since the definition of intolerance is "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs", it seems that both sides suffer here. I don't forsee much of a middle ground on the road ahead.
I think the middle ground is "I don't like your views but I won't try to legislate your life". One side is willing to accept this middle ground and the other isn't.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226329 - 13/07/2004 14:57
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I think the issue over intolerence of intolerence is one of a misdefinition. People tend to define tolerence as "considering all opinions equally valid". I don't think that's the definition around here, but it gets used a lot in other circles. All ideas aren't equally valid, but people should be equally respected, regardless of how invalid their ideas are. That is the true definition of tolerence: "all people should be equally respected whatever their thoughts or opinions." In this very thread it is quite clear there are ideas some don't feel carry much value. But we all are sensitive to the fact that there are people behind those ideas and we value those people.
Saying "I think idea x is wrong" is not intolerent. Saying "because you believe idea x means I can treat you like garbage" IS intolerant. Unfortunately many people treat the first statement as being intolerant, and then when an objection is raised simply recite the "I won't tolerate intolerance" mantra. The fact this doesn't happen hear (or very often at least) is one reason I love discussions on this BBS.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226330 - 13/07/2004 15:12
Re: gay marriage
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
The more I hear of this discussion, the more I want to ask one question.
It is a very simple question, it does not require an answer in essay form. It's a simple yes or no question.
This question is posed to any and every person who believes that gay marriage should be either made illegal, or should be given a different legal definition than a hetero marriage...
Your reasons for supporting such legislation, when you really dig deep, when you look behind all of the semantics, and issue-skirting, and spin doctoring...
Are your reasons religious ones? Yes or no.
Think carefully before you answer. Really think about it. When you strip away all of the noise, all of the legal and legislative mumbo-jumbo, and concentrate on what you've really got against gay people getting married, in the end does it come down to "because I believe that homosexuality is against the will of God"?
If you like, we can phrase the question another way...
Is there anyone who supports legislation against gay marriage, who has a fundamental root reason for that belief, which isn't somehow (when you really dig past the surface) based on a religious source?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226331 - 13/07/2004 15:13
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) Christianity is true.
2) Christianity teaches that homosexual acts are sin.
When were the above statements proven to be true to you? As an athiest, this is something that I don't understand.
Ah, there is no proof. That is why it is called Faith.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226332 - 13/07/2004 15:15
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
When were the above statements proven to be true to you?
In short, through experience, research, and soul searching. I examined the claims of Christianity and came to the conclusion that as a faith system it best fit the world around me and explained my personal experience better than any other option- including the rejection of religion all together.Quote:
As an athiest, this is something that I don't understand. If you show me a book written by some guys a couple of thousand years ago, I feel the burdon of proof is obviously on you to demonstrate the book is true - not the other way around.
The burden of proof may be on me from your perspective, but not from mine. That is to say, I understand you don't see the proof you'd like to have regarding faith and so you'd like more if what I say is true. And I'd like to provide it if possible. However, from my perspective I can honestly say I KNOW it's true. I realize that doesn't carry much weight with you or anyone else, but I can't unlearn what I've experienced only because other's haven't experienced it too. Think of an episode of Star Trek where they're force to violate the Prime Directive and take people away from their homes to save them from some danger. There's no way they could ever explain the reality of spaceships, warp travel, aliens, etc. in a way that makes sense to the primitive civilization. And the burden is indeed on the Enterprise to do what they can to prove it, but if the civilization still can't understand the truth that they are in danger there are still very real consequences if they don't leave their planet.
That is the frustration for me. It would take an absurd amount of proof to demonstrate Christianity as a hoax to me: it is my only hope and the truth that has not ever let me down. Yet I realize that none of the this adds up to proof for you, even as it does for me. The only option I have is to live my life consistently with my values and my beliefs and hope others have the chance to expeirence what I have.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226333 - 13/07/2004 15:20
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Yes, my beliefs about gay marriage come from a religious source. Just about all my beliefs do in one way or another, especially all of my political ones.
Edited by FerretBoy (13/07/2004 15:21)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226334 - 13/07/2004 15:42
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Quote:
I feel the burdon of proof is obviously on you to demonstrate the book is true
Nothing can ever be proven true. Things can only be proven false. Only after standing the test of serious scrutiny over time is anything ever considered "true". On the converse, proving someting is false is easy. One instance where there is a breakdown and something is now false.
Even things like gravity are not considered to be "True". They are just generally accepted as such since they've stood the test of time without being disproven.
That being said, I feel the burden is on you to proove the Bible is wrong. Many christians have been made trying to do just that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226335 - 13/07/2004 15:42
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
I examined the claims of Christianity and came to the conclusion that as a faith system it best fit the world around me and explained my personal experience better than any other option- including the rejection of religion all together.
Did your personal experience cover the whole of Church doctrine (i.e. in the case of a fundamentalist church, biblical doctrine), or was there a point where you thought, "Hey, really quite a lot of this seems to fit the world around me; let's just assume that the rest of it does"? In particular...
Quote:
Think of an episode of Star Trek where they're force to violate the Prime Directive and take people away from their homes to save them from some danger.
...did your personal experience cover this whole idea that everyone -- not just those in the middle of personal crises -- is in "danger" if they're not "saved"? Earlier on you were talking about intangible but clearly grave harm that gays were experiencing and indeed causing for others; was this idea of harm one of the things you gained personal insight into, or did it kind of come along for the ride with the rest of Christianity? It's very clear how helpful all the "God is love" part of Christianity can be to those who are down (which, with that "it's my only hope" comment, sounds like it's sometimes you), but it's never very clear to me how some of Christianity's other ideas got popular.
The harm thing is important because it represents the limit of tolerance: it shouldn't matter to anyone else what your ideas are, unless you're using those ideas to harm others. The real deadlock here seems to be that one side genuinely believes that not affording gay people equality under the law causes harm, whereas the other side genuinely believes that being supportive to them causes harm.
Peter
PS. I'll echo too the sentiment that it's really great to be able to have this discussion in such a civil manner... I hope you aren't feeling too "ganged up on", or at least not in a hostile way. I hope I'm not coming across as combative; the fundamentalist position is one I don't understand well, and I'm only being tenacious in asking you about it because I'd like to understand it better...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226336 - 13/07/2004 15:53
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
However, from my perspective I can honestly say I KNOW it's true
And that's what Osama thinks, too. I'm not saying that to take a cheap shot at you. Intolerance and persecution and war are a continuum. History has shown time and time again that these are what result from a culture of intolerance. Ultimately, a culture of religious and social tolerance will lead to a better world for your children to live in. Do you really think otherwise?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226337 - 13/07/2004 16:03
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: lectric]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
I'd say we have pretty damn strong evidence of evolution which disproves the Adam and Eve story.
So in the absence of evidence you will choose to believe whatever you are told? I think there are invisible leprechauns that move my car keys at night. The real kicker is these crafty dudes know when someone is trying to track them and then they won't evidence themselves. (They're quantum leprechauns.  ) By your logic this statement must be true since the burden of proof is on demonstrating it is false and that's not possible.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226338 - 13/07/2004 16:52
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
Are your reasons religious ones? Yes or no.
Yes.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#226339 - 13/07/2004 17:04
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Thanks, Dylan. I now understand the elusive "invisible leprechaun" position much better.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226340 - 13/07/2004 17:07
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Quote:
I'd say we have pretty damn strong evidence of evolution which disproves the Adam and Eve story.
But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith? Or that he didn't create animals with similar genetics to us for the same reason?
No one has lived long enough to prove that evolution really happens. No one can prove that the 'evidence' wasn't planted by the planet builders or isn't part of our imagination.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226342 - 13/07/2004 17:11
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Are your reasons religious ones?
Yes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226343 - 13/07/2004 17:20
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
While I can appreciate wanting to boil things down to a yes/no question, Tony, I already pretty much knew the answer to that one. My single question would be at least kinda binary: "Should U.S. laws exist based on religious or theocratic doctrine alone, or should our laws reflect first and foremost the needs of our society and its citizenry?" Sure it's a leading question, but hey, I make no claims of lack of bias.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226344 - 13/07/2004 17:27
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: genixia]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith?
I think the thing for me with religion is that it ultimately seems to be a NoOp (i.e. sort of a dead end). In every culture, when science "runs out" people turn to religion. What is the Sun -- oh it's God. Why do the planets go around eachother? Oh, it's god. With each generation of scientific development, it seems that "God" gets pushed further and futher away as we continue to explain the universe scientifically. You can always take the argument of "God made it that way to test our faith", but when you continue that argument, it seems to me ultimately if God was so clever as to make everything He did be explained by science, then the God part doesn't really matter. By God not mattering, I mean if all his existence is is holding up science as it advances further and further, then what is the point? It doesn't seem to get you anywhere, and in fact it seems to me to be a bit of a crutch -- Why continue searching if it's just God back there? Sure you can say that the searching is "understanding God", but at that point, replace the word "God" for "science" and you have the exact same thing. It just becomes a linguistic game at that point.
When it comes down to it, I am not religious because religion has zero effect on my life. I can be a good person, and I can do good things without the fear of going to Hell if I don't. And the same goes for the part about not needing the carrot of Heaven either. Personally there's just no room for a God construct in my life -- seems to me there are more important things to attend to. And if one exists, I think He would agree with me
ms
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226345 - 13/07/2004 17:31
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: genixia]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
But can you prove that God didn't create dinosaur fossils just to test our faith? Or that he didn't create animals with similar genetics to us for the same reason?
I don't even know how to respond to this. When it boils down to self proving arguments like this then there is no point in continuing the discussion. This line of reasoning gives equal validity to every statement possible.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226346 - 13/07/2004 17:42
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: mschrag]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
mschrag, you've articulated how I feel exactly but in a way I've never been able to quite express. I'm saving your post.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226347 - 13/07/2004 17:43
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Thanks, Dylan. I now understand the elusive "invisible leprechaun" position much better.
That one should go in the alt.empegtheism FAQ.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226348 - 13/07/2004 17:48
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: Dylan]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Quote:
This line of reasoning gives equal validity to every statement possible.
Exactly. But this reasoning has perfect validity. To be sure, it shifts the discussion away from religion and into philosophy, but the point that I was trying to hammer home is that to a Christian, faith is far more important than belief.
In fact it is an important tenet - if we could prove beyond any doubt that God existed and that Jesus dies on the cross then we would _all_ be no more than slaves to God's will. By not giving us tangible and non-irrefutable proof, God is asking us to make a choice to have faith, and it is that choice and faith that will redeem us.
To a Christian, no amount of 'damn strong evidence' is going to overturn that faith unless that evidence is completely irrefutable.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226349 - 13/07/2004 17:57
Re: Gay Marriage & Christianity
[Re: genixia]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
No one can prove that the 'evidence' wasn't planted by the planet builders
That it's an inventive and funny science-fiction novel shouldn't blind anyone to the fact that Strata is also one of the great works of humanist philosophy.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226350 - 13/07/2004 18:32
Re: gay marriage
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
While I can appreciate wanting to boil things down to a yes/no question, Tony, I already pretty much knew the answer to that one.
See, that's just it. As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."
But that's not why I asked the question.
I asked the question because I'm genuinely hoping for someone to answer "no", at which point we can have a truly interesting discussion about their reasons. A discussion that can be based upon things that would be defensible and truly relevant to the law.
We can go around and around about religious topics until the end of time. That discussion never has an end or a resolution. I'm looking for someone who has a good non-religious reason to outlaw gay marriage.
If no one can come up with one, then we're back to STFU and separation of church and state again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226351 - 13/07/2004 18:45
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
As long as the answers are all "yes", the only possible truly logical outcome to any discussion on the topic is "shut the f*ck up, then, and stay out of the law books, because we have separation of church and state."
But that's not terribly helpful, because, as Ferretboy implies, if someone's truly pious then all their reasons for everything are religious. Guess what, I bet if you asked Ferretboy whether it was for religious reasons that he thought murder was wrong, he'd say yes. Religions are in fact reasonably unanimously opposed to murder. But that's no reason to strike the murder laws from the books because they're religiously-inspired.
You could try asking "Would you still be against gay marriage if Christianity were not true?", but don't expect quick answers from anyone to a counterfactual based on the opposite of what Ferretboy has already more-or-less stated is Axiom #1 of his personal truth-system.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226352 - 13/07/2004 18:53
Re: gay marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
But that's no reason to strike the murder laws from the books because they're religiously-inspired.
Fallacious argument, not relevant; there's a whole host of perfectly good non-religious reasons that people shouldn't kill one another. It's possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion, just as it's possible for immorality to exist in its presence.
My question still stands. Can anyone honestly say that they have non-religious reasons for wanting to outlaw gay marriage?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226353 - 13/07/2004 18:56
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
The interesting thing to me, is that in the context of current events, this whole discussion is really moot. The senate will likely vote on the FMA tomorrow. It will fail to get 2/3 vote, and it will die. It will never make it to the states for ratification, and everyone knows it.
This is a political powerplay, a classic example of divisive politics meant to force senators on the record one way or another, which can then be used as a bludgeon at election time. As with the war, and other hot-button topics of the day, this administration has proved one thing: they are masters of dividing issues into black-or-white polarized positions that make no room for middle ground. Four years ago, they campaigned on a platform of "compassionate conservatism," with their plans to put partisan politics aside and to unite the leaders and the people to make true progress.
Every campaign uses some variation of that theme, of course, but they really pushed it. Once in office, they have taken what I believe to be unprecedented steps in a number of areas to polarize both the congress and the public opinion in an unprecedented and dangerous way. I don't believe in such tactics, or in the tyranny of the majority. We need to at least make some effort to find something resembling a consensus in the middle ground. Issues such as these are complex, and often call for in-depth public discussion and debate, and the exploration of solutions beyond the simple, inadequate, flawed legislation we're often left with.
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226354 - 13/07/2004 19:06
Re: gay marriage
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226355 - 13/07/2004 19:19
Re: gay marriage
[Re: tfabris]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
If no one can come up with one, then we're back to STFU and separation of church and state again.
In reality the "separation of church and state" implies that government has no means to run the church, not the other way around. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226356 - 13/07/2004 19:37
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
I'm assuming you're kidding, but just in case. The first part is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It means that Congress cannot pass laws that are religious in nature -- meaning the otherway around is covered too. The second part is the free exercise part, which is the government running the church.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226357 - 13/07/2004 19:39
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
Quote:
In reality the "separation of church and state" implies that government has no means to run the church, not the other way around.
Winks aside, clearly that's open to debate. I think the majority of population that doesn't subscribe to your particular faith would rather not have it dictate our government policies, thank you very much.
--Dan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index