Can we stop the bashing now?

Posted by: Ladmo

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 16:29

Uh oh...'Bloddy Americians'? I guess I should just run away...sniff...no wait! I AM an Americian...not a Frenchman! Eh?

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 17:15

Quote:
This would be more impressive if the people actually did the work.

Now, the flipside is I won't tell you the government is the answer either. But look around a city and see how many homeless people you see. There's not a chance they all "want" to be homeless. We have shelters, but when the weather is extreme, they fill, and people are turned away. It's not the same as a home, either.

Now, you could get me to believe that many of them have mental problems. I've seen precious little from the non-government sectors to help there. But even the government wasn't really able to do anything; With advances in rights for the mentally ill, asylums were closed.

After a long(not-quite-completed) career in the mental health trenchs, I can tell you that the mentally ill landed in the streets as a RESULT of the government, much as schools are now failing to an even greater degree because of the No Child Left Behind Act: it instituted something that sounded good, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which was to set up adequate community-based facilities, and never since has adequately funded them, though they used the concept as the rationale for emptying the psychiatric hospitals, just as they will now use the NCLB Act to further eviscerate public schooling, especially in the poorest, most vulnerable areas. Special education law is yet a third example; currently, the Feds fund approximatley 12% of the costs of THEIR mandates, leaving states and districts to pick up the other 88% according to their varying resources. I happen to be one of those reviled liberals who think our social ills are too great to be adequately addressed by any entity but a federal government, as indeed most of the civilized countries do. Our government, however, in keeping with our general hypocrisy, (just witness all the concern about the sanctity of marriage in a country whose failure rate is nearly 50%) promulgates generous-sounding proposals and then doesn't fund them. the US Government has specialized for years in *saying* but not *doing* the right thing (various treaties and the Alaska Statehood Act come to mind). Under our "compassionate conservatives", the above is unlikley to improve. I guess it's evident that I'm feeling a bit disgruntled this morning...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 17:19

Quote:

After a long(not-quite-completed) career in the mental health trenchs, I can tell you that the mentally ill landed in the streets as a RESULT of the government, much as schools are now failing to an even greater degree because of the No Child Left Behind Act: it instituted something that sounded good, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which was to set up adequate community-based facilities, and never since has adequately funded them, though they used the concept as the rationale for emptying the psychiatric hospitals, just as they will now use the NCLB Act to further eviscerate public schooling, especially in the poorest, most vulnerable areas. Special education law is yet a third example; currently, the Feds fund approximatley 12% of the costs of THEIR mandates, leaving states and districts to pick up the other 88% according to their varying resources. I happen to be one of those reviled liberals who think our social ills are too great to be adequately addressed by any entity but a federal government, as indeed most of the civilized countries do. Our government, however, in keeping with our general hypocrisy, (just witness all the concern about the sanctity of marriage in a country whose failure rate is nearly 50%) promulgates generous-sounding proposals and then doesn't fund them. the US Government has specialized for years in *saying* but not *doing* the right thing (various treaties and the Alaska Statehood Act come to mind). Under our "compassionate conservatives", the above is unlikley to improve. I guess it's evident that I'm feeling a bit disgruntled this morning...

The government making the situation with regards to the mentally ill worse doesn't negate my point about the lack of help forthcoming from the private sector; I'm basically on the same side as you are though, so we're not really going to solve anything here.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 17:46

Quote:
The government making the situation with regards to the mentally ill worse doesn't negate my point about the lack of help forthcoming from the private sector; I'm basically on the same side as you are though, so we're not really going to solve anything here.

Don't get me started on the *private sector*; I have the greatest respect for friends whose opinions I diametrically oppose because they put their time, energy and money where their mouths are, and are genrally the kind of Christians who believe "judge not that ye be not judged". Now if every pro-lifer were to offer adoption or a stable foster home to a "crack baby" or under-adopted minority (rather than cutting, or voting for those who cut, maternal & child health programs) , or if everyone who critcizes the public schools went and volunteered their time improving one, I'd offer them equal respect...it's the rhetoric and the judgement without the righteous action, that I find completley untenable.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 17:57

Ok, so to get hypothetical with you guys (because this certainly isn’t my viewpoint), if there are people who absolutely believe that they hold no responsibility toward their fellow man and don’t want the money they make to fund social programs (see Ayn Rand), is it right for the government to take money from them and use it for social programs? Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 18:25

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, Civil Union <> Marriage.

How would you define the difference (apart from religious or ritual elements, which I dont' think, as I said, should be in the domain of government regulation, unless the state in question is a theocracy) ?

Many consider a "Marriage" to be a bond between a man and a woman usually with religious connotations. Two persons of the same sex do not fit that definition. IMO it would be much easier for many to accept a new definition of Civil Union (whatever the definition ends up to be) rather than mess with their existing definition of Marriage. Using “Civil Union” many gays (or others) could get the entitlements many believe they should have.

It also helps to yes, separate the two as well. Separate does not always mean worse or better just different. For example – “I am in a Civil Union bond with Pat” If Civil Union is defined as a bond between the same sex then you know what sex Pat is.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 18:38

Quote:
What are you talking about?

Real busy with work today so I am a little short in my responses.

In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of the opposite sex that want to have no religious connotations attached. “Civil Union” would get these people what they are entailed to (IMO) and probably not upset as many.

Using these different definitions Marriage <> Civil Union. That does not make one better or worse just by definition different.

The political correct stuff was just an added rant. To be political correct to me in many cases ignores the facts or truth in order to keep from possibly hurting someone’s feelings. People need to face facts and the truth no matter how unpleasant.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 18:58

Quote:
Ok, so to get hypothetical with you guys (because this certainly isn’t my viewpoint), if there are people who absolutely believe that they hold no responsibility toward their fellow man and don’t want the money they make to fund social programs (see Ayn Rand), is it right for the government to take money from them and use it for social programs? Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

Probably not. What will never happen: a way where you can choose what programs get your tax money, because some would get short-changed and then we'd be screwed when no one realized we needed them.

I'm unsure whether defense would end up being under or over-funded in such a system; Currently, maybe over, but I bet just a few years ago it would have been under, and we'd not be having the debate about Iraq; there wouldn't have been a force to have been mobilized so quickly.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 19:40

Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 19:50

Quote:
To be political correct to me in many cases ignores the facts or truth in order to keep from possibly hurting someone’s feelings.

The flip side of that coin is avoiding the truth to avoid hurting your own feelings. Case in point:

Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of the opposite sex that want to have no religious connotations attached.

Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace. I understand that you might wish for the term "marriage" to be given to religious institutions and left alone by the government, but that's ship's already sailed. I'm sure that this is the argument you use when defending the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance and the references to God in other US papers, including monies. (And let's not point out the other definitions of "marry" that have nothing to do with the union of people.)

Quote:
That does not make one better or worse just by definition different.

I'm sorry, but segregation is always worse.

I understand that you'd like to keep the term "marriage" for religious institutions, and if you could magically change things so that the term "marriage" was not referenced in any legal documentation, I'd support you, especially if you'd also remove clerics' legal rights to sanctify civil unions, too. But that's simply not going to happen.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 19:53

Quote:
Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?

I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.

I'll go for that--'enlighted self-interest"---we have to pay the taxes, but have *some* choice whether it'll be for schools or jails, and there's no question which is more effective or has more utility...

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:07

Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of them.
Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace.

In many countries, especially in Europe, it is quite common for people to have two weddings, the civil one and a religious one, and individuals may choose either or both. Maybe that would help resolve our national debate on this subject. Otherwise, "marriage" like "sex" or "friendship" really (aside from legality) has only the meaning ascribed to it by the individuals involved, and it is really ridiculous to be trying to legislate a one-size-fits-all meaning for such a diverse country.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:14

Quote:
I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.

I'd say both are forcing someone to adhere to an external moral code with which they may not agree, be it the miser or the murderer, (though admittedly the latter has more direct consequences on others).

There are those who argue that mercy is not the responsibility of the rich at all and feel it is very much an infringement to force them to do so. Once again, Ayn Rand was pretty clear on this point. Of course, her logic was flawed in so many ways I don’t know where to begin, but it makes the point (in my mind) that we are talking about an issue of morality- she felt other’s morals were being placed upon her, as do those who still follow in her footsteps.

I do agree that the health of a nation is important, which means keeping its citizens as well as possible. That is the reason the above was only a hypothetical. However, there are those who would argue that drinking (or at least drunkenness) is unhealthy, and therefore should be outlawed. At some point you have to draw the line between personal liberty and the health of the nation's people. I agree with that, and I'd say you do too. But I think in each case it's an example of the morals of the majority being placed on some minority (murderers, misers, drinkers). Which begs the greater question (and what I’m driving at): how does a society determine what morals to enforce upon its people?

I know this seems to be straying from the topic at hand, but it’s something I think about when I think of the role of government (in social programs and beyond). At what point is the government ensuring the health of the nation’s population and at what point is it overreaching into the lives of citizens and enforcing morality that it shouldn’t?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:15

Quote:

Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace. I understand that you might wish for the term "marriage" to be given to religious institutions and left alone by the government, but that's ship's already sailed. I'm sure that this is the argument you use when defending the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance and the references to God in other US papers, including monies. (And let's not point out the other definitions of "marry" that have nothing to do with the union of people.)

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth and reading my mind. You better get you psychic abilities checked.

You can legally define whatever you want. I just think (My Opinion) that states wouldn’t be passing these laws if gays would have backed off the “Marriage” tag. Going with Civil Union would have gotten them what they want.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:17

Quote:
if you'd also remove clerics' legal rights to sanctify civil unions, too.

What do you mean by this? I thought, here in Texas at least, pretty much anyone could "sanctify" a marriage. Is that not true, or am I missing your point?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:26

Quote:
Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth and reading my mind. You better get you psychic abilities checked.

I made an assumption in order to short-circuit the back-and-forth. I know that it would fit many people who make the same argument you're making.

Quote:
states wouldn’t be passing these laws if gays would have backed off the “Marriage” tag.

Since several of the states adopted laws/amendments/whatever to prohibit anything that simulates marriage, I think that you're wrong.

Regardless of that, I still think your standpoint is wrong. I don't think black people would be happy with having separate water fountains, do you? (Of course, now I'm forcing the point of whether homosexuality is a choice. I think you know where I stand.)

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:35

I struggled to find the right word, and "sanctify" was as close as I could come.

Unless I'm mistaken, clerics are currently given power to make marriages legal. Maybe it's just that they act as a witness or something and I'm wrong. But my understanding is that they work as an extension of the government. ("By the power vested in me by the state of Texas" and so forth.) And that they get that power simply by being a cleric in a recognized church. (Maybe there's some simple paperwork or something, but a layperson couldn't just go down and do it the same way.)

If you require that a direct governmental representative be the person to authorize the marriage and not allow clerics to be such a person (unless they also happen to be employed by the government for that purpose), then that would help ameliorate my concerns. Of course, that's all contingent on the term "marriage" being stricken from the law books, too, which, again, isn't going to happen.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:42

Quote:
And that they get that power simply by being a cleric in a recognized church. (Maybe there's some simple paperwork or something,.....

Off Topic, probably: My friend, essentially an atheist (I need to ask him "Hey, do you now think of yourself as an atheist?") signed up as a minister under some flag of convenience (Universal Life Church?) and has performed 5-6 marriages.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:42

I’m white, calling me black isn’t worse is it? It is just a fact that I am white. You can use that to discriminate against me but calling me white is just a fact. Civil Unions could be used to get gay couples what they want and yes it could be used to discriminate. However it is a fact that a gay union is not the same as a male-female union. I know guys wish it was the same but it is physically not.

I hope gays can have the same rights as other couples. I just have my own views on how that could be accomplished. Apparently the “Marriage” angle is not working. Maybe it will someday when everyone can handle changing the definition in their head (not the legal definition) of marriage. Just like any “elephant” of a problem – one bite at a time. First Civil Union then push “Marriage.”

Probably wrong but this is my opinion.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:54

Quote:
I’m white, calling me black isn’t worse is it?

In that it's incorrect, yeah, but no. It's not. But what if you decided that white people could have marriages but black people only civil unions. They're physically different, too.

If it's your argument simply that you need to take the problems in small steps, I find it hard to disagree. It's true that sugar helps the medicine go down. It'd be nice if it could be all or nothing, but that is probably impractical.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 20:58

He still has to register with a non-governmental organization (bogus tho it may be) in order to get the government to allow him to officiate a wedding. If that organization was intended to establish standards for that job (like, for example, the ABA), I could go with it. But it's not.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 21:02

Ah, ok I was wrong. I see that to have an "official" marriage (which appears to be different from a "common-law" marriage only in ceremony) you must have either a government official or an ordained minister. However, it seems that it's just as easy to go down and sign a marriage certificate with out any official being present at all.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 21:05

Common law marriage has become less common in recent years: http://www.ct-divorce.com/Commlaw.htm

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 21:50

CommOri,

I'm sorry that some people here are being very rude to you. You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face. It's quite sad. In the good ol' days, owning an empeg was good enough to make you "part of the community" but now, some people would rather you leave than voice an opinion they disagree with.

And I share your frustration. People are now saying, "if you don't like politics, don't go into Off Topic." Pretty sad huh? That means no reading about the latest Tivo gadget or whatever.

My only advice would be to steer clear of the political threads. While they can be fun excercises for debate, they are indeed full of hate (though never towards a member of this board). There are plenty of great things about this community that make it worth being a part of. Yes, Off Topic was thrown to the wolves, but that leaves plenty of other places to chat it up.

It's too bad that it's not like it used to be when a new member asking for help was met with a dozen people all fighting over who got to help him first (they're more likely to fight over who gets to correct your spelling or posting technique now), but it's still a good bunch of people. I'm even beginning to admire how Bitt and I can have exact opposite views on politics. It's like clockwork!

And even though I get out numbered in debates, the threads have been great excercises that allow me to research my replies and put my views to the test. Yet even I have to take a few weeks off from Off Topic once in a while.

But, just to prove your point, I'll be this topic turns to "Bush Lied" by day's end.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:15

I think that anybody who posts in Off-Topic is a dick. Thats why I don't read it very much. Its all a bunch of dicks, don't you agree?

If you agree that anybody who posts in OffTopic is a bunch of dicks, please post here and agree. If you don't post, well, you are just a bunch of chickens. Probably french chickens, too!

I am curious to see how this turns out. But not that curious. I won't be back. Anybody who posts here is a dick.

Posted by: Laura

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:35

Quote:
Anybody who posts here is a dick

Can I be a dick too even if I don't have one

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:40

Hahahahahah!!! Well answered!

It is true, though. I too think the board has been a bit more tense and polarized lately. Hopefully, with the election behind everyone, things will mellow out a bit.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:44

Then you already were one.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:54

Quote:
CommOri,

I'm sorry that some people here are being very rude to you. You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face. It's quite sad. In the good ol' days, owning an empeg was good enough to make you "part of the community" but now, some people would rather you leave than voice an opinion they disagree with.

I think whatever rudeness came from the poster's presumption that YOUR desire to get along together was impossible, as well as his assertion that he wouldn't be back to check responses to assess such possibility. Anyone who doesn't care to debate...shouldn't... that doesn't require a rude exit line. I can see your frustration here at times, but you generally hold your own, and as you note, when you don't choose to engage, you take a break....perfectly reasonable response; his wasn't.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 22:59

Quote:
Can I be a dick too even if I don't have one

As you said...4 or 5 of us here lack the physical equipment...but that kind of kook has other words for us....

Posted by: Laura

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 23:03

Quote:
but that kind of kook has other words for us.....

I'm sure he does but those words just don't have the same ring to them as dick does.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 23:14

Off topic, but dude, can you chill on the italics?

On topic: I'm a dick.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 23:21

Quote:
You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face.

Perhaps you missed his post from a minute or two earlier in a different thread:

Quote:
Ya know, I *hate* both parties...but I will say this:

The liberals on this board seem to have a BUNCH of free time to type a LOT of stuff without backing it up at all (a la Michael Moore; much conjecture and shark jumping, much emotion, LONG, LONG, LOOOONG lines to connect the imaginary dots).

Now, he does go on to say "I can bash the RIght, too". But he didn't. Many people are accusing us of making things personal. I totally disagree with your politics, Brad, but I don't hate you, nor do I intend to imply that I do in any way. But he took a personal shot, which seems to be just the non-existent thing he's complaining about. And then the "can't we just stop" post immediately afterwards feels like punching someone in the face and then calling "truce!"

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm taking that "seem to have a BUNCH of free time" line too personally. I am having a bad week, after all. If so, I apologize. I still wonder about the post's propriety, but whatever.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 23:22

It looks like she keeps missing the slash on the closing italics tag for her quotes. I'll fix it. Hope no one thinks I'm trying to edit out what she's saying.

Edit: Uh, oops. She. Kayak's a she. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Heather

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 03/11/2004 23:55

Uh, oops. She. Kayak's a she. Sorry about that.

Yay!!! More of the good kind of bush represented on the board!

On Tpoic: I'm not a dick, but I do have a certain fondness for them.

Posted by: ninti

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 00:04

Quote:
You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?"

Brad, that wasn't a peaceful "can't we all get along" kind of post. That was a "shut up the lot of you, I hate you all and I am leaving so you can kiss my ass" kind of post.

Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 00:10

Why would he need to bash the Right when you guys are doing it for him?

I didn't see the other post, and I don't want to start merging threads, but I can see how that was a factor. I thought he was just an observor of Off Topic and was fed up with the moveon.org type stuff.

So, not seeing the other thread, I thought he was just pleading for the threads we all miss...

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 00:43

Quote:
Off topic, but dude, can you chill on the italics?

On topic: I'm a dick.

I'm a newbie, so if I need correction it requires specificity. If you mean the earlier posts on this topic, it took me awhile to get the syntax right, but I think I have it in the last couple...the quote *is* italicized, isn't it?

On Topic: I'm NOT a dick, therefore not a dude---maybe dudette?

Posted by: cushman

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 00:49

Quote:
I'm a newbie, so if I need correction it requires specificity. If you mean the earlier posts on this topic, it took me awhile to get the syntax right, but I think I have it in the last couple...the quote *is* italicized, isn't it?

No worries, I thought you might be doing it on purpose. Bitt actually fixed your two posts previous to this one, but you got this one right.

Quote:
On Topic: I'm NOT a dick, therefore not a dude---maybe dudette?

The reference "dude" is non-gender specific, man. Unless you are talking about "The Dude" you are totally out of your element. I mean, this aggression will not stand, man.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 00:59

Quote:
...as a new poster,...

Welcome aboard, then! It's great to see lurkers shedding the cloak and joining in the discussions!

One possible reason for mass apparent civility here (apart from Bitt keeping our grammer honest), is that many of us have met each other in the flesh (face to face, that is), at one or more of the various meets.

Somehow, that always seems to help the atmosphere, though it doesn't explain Paul, or lots of others here. Maybe we're all just human, and realize it.

Cheers

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 01:19

Quote:
One possible reason for mass apparent civility here (apart from Bitt keeping our grammer honest), is that many of us have met each other in the flesh (face to face, that is), at one or more of the various meets.

Somehow, that always seems to help the atmosphere, though it doesn't explain Paul, or lots of others here. Maybe we're all just human, and realize it.

Cheers

Paul guessed how scary we really are, and cleverly avoids us

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 02:35

how does a society determine what morals to enforce upon its people?

Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 02:47

Quote:
When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.

tanstaafl.

And then we see where the controversy over abortion comes from. It's a question of when you believe it's a person.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:23

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

Quote:
...other people's well-being...

What kind of well-being are you talking about? Well-being as in "ensuring those people do not die"? Physical comfort levels? Emotional well-being? Financial?

Posted by: lectric

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:38

Quote:
many of us have met each other in the flesh (face to face, that is), at one or more of the various meets.

Sigh. I wish there was a meet less than hundres of miles away from me. I'd love to put some faces on some of you faceless people but I just can't see flying to one.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:45

Hm. Well, I'd suggest one in Atlanta the week of Nov 14-19... but that's 3 states away from you anyway. Oh well.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:50

Quote:
I'll fix it. Hope no one thinks I'm trying to edit out what she's saying.

Never occurred to me. I *did* think you might have caught a grammatic error and were "going easy" on my general newbie ignornace here--thanks! Just realized that what was causing the italics wasn't the forward slash, but the bracketed "i"...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:55

And you just got italics in that one.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 03:57

Ah. You don't need to add the bracketed i in quotes, but if you do, the second one needs to be a left bracket slash i right bracket; You dropped the slash.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 04:19

Quote:
you are totally out of your element. I mean, this aggression will stand, man.

I'm assuming that's deliberate provocation here,man...how can I resist?! Nothin' like a little gender confusion....

"Man" in the biblical sense I won't do any feminist quibbling about, but where is it written that "dude" isn't gender-specific? Thanks to you and Bitt for your help BTW.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 04:22

...and everybody else! Long night last night and not a good day...

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 04:37

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

Quote:
...other people's well-being...

What kind of well-being are you talking about? Well-being as in "ensuring those people do not die"? Physical comfort levels? Emotional well-being? Financial?[/color:green]

Does it have to be more complicated than the Golden Rule?

Posted by: drakino

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 06:59

Quick hint. To quote someone, just use [q] and [/q]. It's a shortcut I added a while back to help the frequent use of quotes here, one that follows the normal accepted format for what people want.

Posted by: Mach

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 07:21

This really ties the allusion together.

http://bednark.com/big.lebowski.script.html

Quote:
DUDE
No, look. I do mind. The Dude minds.
This will not stand, ya know, this
will not stand, man. I mean, if
your wife owes--

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 09:32

Okay. I am awake now... Coffee nice and hot from the microwave, Route 287 successfully navigated and my player safely in the office dock...

To be honest, I am merely a figment of someone's deranged imagination.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 10:12

Quote:
Does it have to be more complicated than the Golden Rule?

I hope we don't start throwing people in jail for that one, because I'll have to admit to not keeping it too many times to count!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 12:40

Quote:
I am merely a figment of someone's deranged imagination.

Ah, but whose?

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 12:47

That exercise is left to the reader...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 13:21

Quote:
That exercise is left to the reader...

Now I have to get exercise to read the bbs? Sigh.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 18:47

Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. As has already pointed out, "other people's well-being" is very subjective. You and I both have clear ideas of what someone's "well-being" is, and they aren't the same. Even beyond that, though, there is a line we all draw between how adversely someone is affected and the personal liberty of the person doing the affecting that we draw to determine if we should permit the action. Murder? Clearly the aggressor should be stopped. Putting someone down and using harsh words against them? We let that go, even though it clearly affects people's well-being. How about not giving money to those in need? That begins to get into the grey area of whether the government should step in. On one hand we value people's rights to spend the money they make the way they wish, on the other we want those who are starving to be fed. We kind of draw the line in the middle, so that some needs are met without a person having to forfeit their entire earnings. But almost no one is happy with where that line is drawn; there are advocates for moving it in both directions.

I think the determinations of both what is “well-being” and what affects it largely separate the left from the right. Many of the accusations that get hurled at the left from the right are due to these fundamental differences of worldview, and I can only assume the same is true about insults the right hurls at the left. Most people that I know who are against homosexual marriage don't hate anyone, but they do believe it will contribute to an overall decline in our country's "well-being". Yes, you don't understand or agree with that perspective and feel that denying homosexuals the right to get married is a greater blow to "well-being". I'm not trying to argue the merits of either perspective here, but both are seeking greater human "well-being", not to diminish it. Or in other words, both sides feel that they are carrying out your statement exactly, and who is to judge which side is right? You can say "the people do", but that only works if you're sitting in the majority. You know as well as I that sometimes the majority is wrong, but what else do we have? In many ways our system is designed to lessen the “tyranny of the majority” (one example is supposedly the electoral college), but in the end, as long as we view morals as subjective (and I agree they are with regards to how they affect the law), the laws of the land will have no choice but to follow the subjective morals of its people.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 19:00

Quote:
But there is a subtle distinction between civil debate and flamethrowing

There have been a couple of occasions in which members of the BBS have contacted me privately to continue or extend a rather heated discussion. This was done for the purpose of avioding the apperance of an attack or providing more fuel for a volatile topic. In these cases it has allowed us to explore issues that probably would have generated more negative discussion than positive, but in a postive way. To me this points out the intense level of responsibility I've felt on this BBS toward civility and respect.

That's not to say that everyone feels this respect or gives it, but I doubt there are many places on the web where people go as far as people do here to respect one another.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 19:18

That goes back to what I mean about the Golden Rule (which is an ideal we can only aspire to, not achieve), and its converse. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality. I never wanted an abortion, any more than I want a gay marriage, so I made damn' sure I never needed one, but I helped others who did because of *my* belief that the higher good there is that no child should be born that isn't wanted. Again, those against it (either abortion or gay marrige) are surely entitled to their beliefs, and some respect for those beliefs; just don't inflict them on me.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 19:21

Quote:
That goes back to what I mean about the Golden Rule (which is an ideal we can only aspire to, not achieve), and its converse. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality. I never wanted an abortion, any more than I want a gay marriage, so I made damn' sure I never needed one, but I helped others who did because of *my* belief that the higher good there is that no child should be born that isn't wanted. Again, those against it (either abortion or gay marrige) are surely entitled to their beliefs, and some respect for those beliefs; just don't inflict them on me.

And again we see the disconnect. I bet he believes the aborted baby is a life and the mother is forcing her beliefs on it

None of these debates bother me in the slightest, oddly, because regardless of whether I agree I can see where the other side comes from with perfect clarity. It's the necessity of the Iraq invasion which no one has yet explained to me in a way I can understand so simply as this, for instance. There are others, but let's pick that one.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:00

I can see where the other side comes from (my mind is that evil thing, "nuanced" like Kerry's), and as I noted, respect their views--as long as they don't try to impose their views on others. I just want the same degree of respect for my viewpoint, and the same recognition of its possible validity.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:10

Quote:
as long as they don't try to impose their views on others

But that's my whole point: that the law is the imposition of one person's views on another. Someone who thinks that they were justified in the act of murder is going to be held to the moral views of others that murder is wrong. By the nature of supporting laws and being a voting member of our society, you and I are both attempting to impose our moral views on other people.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:20

To take gay marriage as an example, I think you're wrong. The "right" wants to prevent a couple from being married. The "left" wants to allow them to be married. The "right" wants to deny a choice, whereas the "left" wants to allow it. The "right" want to impose its morality on that couple. The "left" specifically doesn't want to. This strikes me as being an "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" proposition. I'm not saying that the "left" isn't guilty of trying to impose their ideals on others in other cases, but gay marriage affects no one besides the gay couple, especially assuming that you're in favor of allowing gay couples the benefits associated with traditionally married couples.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:30

Quote:
If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one; just don't abridge others' rights in the name of some abstract, self-defined higher morality.

First off, the reason I personally don't want legal gay marriage is because I don't want the government defining marriage in a way that is not consistent with my beliefs. I don't believe that the government should be defining it at all, but if it does I'm not in favor of a definition different from mine. Those in favor of legal gay marriage are saying the same thing, only from the other side. They don't want marriage defined legally in a way that is different from their view, either. I am for civil unions, however, because I don't think that homosexuals should not have the same legal benefits I have as a heterosexual. Yes, Bitt is right about the “separate buy equal” argument, but I think it’s the best imperfect solution available, requiring concessions on all sides.

Now ultimately I believe that homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being, but I recognize that I cannot force people to be moral through the law. Moral living (in the sense that I believe there really is absolute morality, even if there’s no way to represent it in our laws) is a choice people have to make of their own volition, and only when immorality reaches a point of extremely ill-affecting others should the law step in.

So I am not against gay marriage in order to force people to live out my moral values, but because I don't like the government defining marriage in a way that does not hold to my beliefs.

As far as "abstract, self-defined higher morality", everyone’s sense of morality comes from someplace. Why is abridging someone's rights wrong? I don't disagree with the statement, but where does your sense of right and wrong come from? I admit mine comes from faith, but is that ay more "abstract" than someone who comes to a belief by reasoning apart from faith? Ultimately all of our morality comes back to something we just accept is true, whether that be from internal, self examination or adherence to an external code. Who can objectively say which is more valid?

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:32

Without wanting to restart a debate on this, I would like to point out that the opposite argument is true as well. The example could also be interpreted as the "left" wants to force the concept of gay marriage on the "right", that the "left" wants to impose its morality on society and that the "left" wants to change the laws to enforce and codify their point of view.

As with anything else, interpretation of the topic is specific to and the point of view / perspective of the interpreter. The concepts of "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" are all a matter of judgement and are relative to that interpreter's position at the time. There are no absolutes.

Note: This is not a comment on my personal opinion about gay marriage.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:43

Quote:
The "right" wants to prevent a couple from being married.

Now see, what I object to is taking the definition of something I believe and broadening it to include something I don't believe. For me, that's like the state coming along and defining "baptism" as "someone getting wet". To me that would be offensive and an overreaching of the state's powers.

Quote:
This strikes me as being an "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" proposition

I completely understand this, and I also understand why you think the right is denying gay couples a "right". Unfortunately, I don't think the left at all understands the perspective of the right, and so we end up getting labeled as being full of "hatred" and "homophobic". The truth is, we (or I at least) feel very much attacked by an overreaching State. I don't want homosexuals to be persecuted, and I don't think of them any lesser than myself.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 20:44

I disagree. I mean, that may be an argument, but two men marrying each other in San Francisco doesn't affect anything besides the lives of those two people and, potentially, insurance companies.

Wait. Maybe I'm seeing the other side's point now. At least the extremists'. If you allow for gay marriage and that requires that insurance companies provide for the other half of a gay marriage, then that allows that other half to be a stay-at-home parent, which means that they could continue to promote the gay agenda through child-rearing.

Yup. Now I see it. I underestimated the bigotry. (Not yours, Jeff, or that of the rest of you here.)

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 21:31

...promote the gay agenda through child-rearing...

Huh? Okay... <backs away slowly> That took a weird turn...

All I said (or wanted to say) is that the absolutes I have seen on both sides of this debate are something that I find very difficult to accept. I do not think that hatred and prejudice are dominating all of the people against (although it is certainly there in the extremes), or that idealism and pontification are dominating all of the people for (although it is certainly there in the extremes).

As with any highly polarizing argument (other examples include abortion rights and gun control), it is very easy for people to lose track of the fact that it is not "us vs. them".

Posted by: djc

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 21:56

Quote:
Now ultimately I believe that homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being.

Quote:
I don't think of them any lesser than myself.

Speaking as our token gay man in a long-term relationship that I would like to see become a marriage, I have a hard time reconciling these two statements. In fact, I would offer to fly down to San Antonio and buy you dinner so you could explain to me, face to face, how my relationship is detrimental to the national well-being.

--Dan.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:14

Quote:
In fact, I would offer to fly down to San Antonio and buy you dinner so you could explain to me, face to face, how my relationship is detrimental to the national well-being.

I suggest all hungry college students reading offer a similar affront

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:17

Quote:
But that's my whole point: that the law is the imposition of one person's views on another.

It's the singular I cavil at here; for example, to take the devil's advocate position, I'd skip the whole "is abortion murder? Does life begin at conception?" arguement and stipulate that, after a lifetime of working with ( and sometimes being one..) children abused in various ways, I'd say: So, OK, it's murder; I'd rather smother them painlessly in the delivery room than leave them to the fates I've seen them experience...but I don't expect society to permit me to do that anytime soon; that's not permitted to be an individual decision, and probably shouldn't be. It can't be a simple matter of majority rules, either, however; in wartime Germany the laws supported genocide. Generally, I'd go with the 10 Commandments, with which most societies agree--although not always about their narrow interpretation--and that's where laws governing society belong.. But I suspect both you and I can visualize situations in which the dictates of our individual conscience would supercede the law--and where we'd be willing to take the responsibility for a decision, both personally, vis-a-vis our own belief systems, and with society. What I'm advocating is that we allow each other to live by our own belief systems and with our own consciences, as long as they don't actively infringe on each other. That, to me, is the essence of civil society.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:27

Quote:
I have a hard time reconciling these two statements.

I see how you would feel that way, so let me try to explain. Before I do, however, let me say that I appreciate you engaging me in this, as I know it is a very personal subject for you. Please let me know if I cross the line here into being disrespectful toward you, if I haven't already.

I regard homosexual acts as sin, as I also do drunkenness, lust, materialism, and a host of other things that are found in our society, some of which I am very guilty. My beliefs come from earnestly seeking to follow the God as He is presented in the bible. I believe that it teaches all of the things I listed above (plus many others) are not what God wants from us and therefore are sin. Ultimately I believe the most important effect of sin is to separate us from God, and that separation can't help but have effects on society around us. If we were all in perfect harmony with God, then we'd have peace, understanding, and perfect love for one another. Alas, this is not the case, as I believe each of us has fallen away from God and chosen sin over Him.

That is why I believe homosexual marriages are detrimental to our national well-being, alongside many other sins that aren't such hot topics of debate. The reason I say I don't think of a homosexual as less than I is because I am just as guilty of committing sin as any homosexual. I sin daily, and ultimately, just like homosexual sin, the sin I commit is detrimental to our national well-being. How can I think myself better than another if we are each just as guilty? In fact, in a very real since I am MORE guilty because I agree with God about what is sin and I do it anyway.

But I stress that I am not against legal homosexual marriage because I think it is detrimental to our national well-being. If I were, I'd also have to be against a host of other things that would put me on the wrong side of the law as well.

And I'd absolutely be willing to talk face to face about all of this if we had occasion to meet, though I wouldn’t allow you to pay for the plane ticket.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:35

Quote:
And I'd absolutely be willing to talk face to face about all of this if we had occasion to meet, though I wouldn’t allow you to pay for the plane ticket.

I think Dan's offer is probably the most remarkable thing I have every seen on this BBS.

Don't diminish it. Let him pay

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:41

Quote:
I admit mine comes from faith, but is that any more "abstract" than someone who comes to a belief by reasoning apart from faith? Ultimately all of our morality comes back to something we just accept is true, whether that be from internal, self examination or adherence to an external code. Who can objectively say which is more valid?

Who can objectively say? No one. That should be the point. Subjectively, we either decide for ourselves or let others do so by fiat (or fatwah, or Papal decree: you pick...) My own come from a combination of early, traditional but liberal mainstream Protestant teachings, a study of comparative religions, and many years of reflection and experience. Am I convinced mine is THE answer? No, only for myself, and that's open to reconsideration--which is the main reason why I wouldn't presume to inflict it on others. At the risk of becoming repetitious, I ask only the same consideration from those others.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 04/11/2004 22:47

Quote:
What I'm advocating is that we allow each other to live by our own belief systems and with our own consciences, as long as they don't actively infringe on each other. That, to me, is the essence of civil society.

I agree with you, and I truly only take hard stances on things when I think there is a high moral imperative. To that end, while I am here arguing against gay marriage, honestly it's not really a hot topic for me, and while I'll be dissapointed if/when it happens, I'm not going to view it as the end of the world. I understand the viewpoint of the otherside and feel like there's not much of a good resolution.

Abortion is another story, and honestly a topic I've tried to aviod debating here. But since it's been brought up several times in this thread, I suppose I'll give in this once. I feel very strongly that we are dealing with an innocent life, and to me that demands government protection. But it all comes down to that one premise; I totally understand that if we are not talking about a life, then the right to choice is absolute and the mother's rights should not be infringed. Regarding your argument of a humane mercy termination, I couldn't support that, but I understand what you're saying.

I think it is absolutely terrible, though, that anti-abortion legilation (such as dealing with partial birth abortions) has not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I can say, without a doubt, if it were my wife's life on the line or our unborn child, I'd choose her and feel it was the right thing to do since you're talking about one life verse another.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 00:21

Quote:
I think it is absolutely terrible, though, that anti-abortion legilation (such as dealing with partial birth abortions) has not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I can say, without a doubt, if it were my wife's life on the line or our unborn child, I'd choose her and feel it was the right thing to do since you're talking about one life verseus another.

We're in total agreement there, and of course no one contests that the mother's IS a life...but in the more extreme view, now codified in that law we were talking about,your stance is an instance where you *would* be contravening the law to save your wife, because that view holds that hers has no more validity than the fetus's...... I did use the extreme example (mercy killing) to emphasize my point, but won't pursue the abortion issue; it's just one more instance where I think it is and should be up to the individual conscience.

Posted by: PaulWay

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 01:24

Quote:
I don't believe that the government should be defining it at all, but if it does I'm not in favor of a definition different from mine

Sorry, but that's actually a rather arrogant and self-important statement, isn't it? Your definition here is really your opinion, because you're defining something as 'morally' right or wrong based on your own moral beliefs. And then you're saying that any opinion but your own is wrong, and it's wrong of the government to support any opinion but that that is congruent to your own. Yes?

A good example of the problem inherent in this attitude is the decision of Germany to not introduce capital punishment. The population actually voted for it, but the Chancellor ultimately blocked it because "what is popular is not necessarily what is correct" (I can't find any precise information on this despite extended google searching - someone with a better memory for history can correct me on the specifics). While there are plenty of things that would be popular, and a majority might even define as right, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is necessary. And forcing your opinions onto others has always been the territory of tyrants.

I'd be more tolerant, if I were you.

Paul

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 02:04

I feel very strongly that we are dealing with an innocent life, and to me that demands government protection

I might be more inclined to agree with that sentiment if the government did indeed offer protection to that innocent life.

But denying abortion to a woman who requests it is almost certainly going to be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the "innocent life" itself. Receiving poor or more likely no pre-natal care, it may well be be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack addiction, or physical or neurological deformities. Should it survive at all, there is a very high likelihood of it being "raised" (if you can call it that) in a life of pure misery and hell.

Jeff, there are worse things that can happen to an "innocent life" than never being born!

tanstaafl.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 02:37

Quote:
I might be more inclined to agree with that sentiment if the government did indeed offer protection to that innocent life.

But denying abortion to a woman who requests it is almost certainly going to be to the detriment of all concerned, particularly the "innocent life" itself. Receiving poor or more likely no pre-natal care, it may well be be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack addiction, or physical or neurological deformities. Should it survive at all, there is a very high likelihood of it being "raised" (if you can call it that) in a life of pure misery and hell.

Jeff, there are worse things that can happen to an "innocent life" than never being borntanstaafl.!

..what he said...is what I'm talking about. And as I said somewhere else on the board, these are the folks who've cut maternal and child healthcare, not to mention making welfare mothers leave their kids in horrible childcare to take subsistence jobs....real family values!

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 02:59

Quote:
Don't diminish it. Let him pay

Well, since you insist for him, OK! But I'll buy dinner.

Honestly Dan, if you'd really like to get together and discuss my views, I'm very open to that and would welcome the conversation.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 03:21

Quote:
And then you're saying that any opinion but your own is wrong, and it's wrong of the government to support any opinion but that that is congruent to your own. Yes?

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, if the government insists on being involved, I'm going to give my opinion. I do happen to believe that my opinion is correct, and if that's arrogant I guess I'll have to admit that I am. But I think I'm not alone, then. Most people who have opinions think theirs are correct, just ask those on the board who dislike Bush so much. I'll bet most of them voted their opinion when given the chance.

But even on top of that, I’ve already said that while I believe homosexual marriage to be wrong, since I can’t force people to obey my moral code I’d support civil unions as a compromise. As an aside, on this issue I was more with Kerry than Bush, though I realize this was a point of contention for many liberals.

Quote:
And forcing your opinions onto others has always been the territory of tyrants.

Once again, my stance has been that I don't want someone else's opinion forced onto me. I'll go for a compromise, but if it comes down to "marriage is x" or "marriage is y", then I don't see what's wrong with my backing my opinion.

Quote:
I'd be more tolerant, if I were you.

I try to do the best I can to respect other individuals in a culture of such diversity and still hold true to the faith that drives me. I probably get it wrong at times; I'm not infallible by any stretch of the imagination. What I strive for is to treat everyone with civility, even when our opinions differ. To me, that is the defining of tolerance.

Posted by: djc

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 14:06

I picked a bad time to jump into this conversation, as I have a software release to get out in the next few hours, but I just wanted to say I'd be back around later this afternoon to add some more thoughts to this discussion.

I know we've gone over this before, so I'd like to not rehash the same old material, but my point in offering to visit Jeff to talk this over in person it seems to me that the discussion of gay marriage often gets a bit abstract or theoretical (or theological?), and I want to remind you that beyond the abstract of "defending marriage", the place this issue hits home is in my home, and perhaps the homes of friends or family members of your own. Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own? Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?

Let's flip this around for a moment. Assuming that we can't be eliminated from the planet, what standard of behavior would you like gay men and lesbians to aspire to? Is it in society's best interest for us to be coupled, or not? Should we encourage fidelity, and stability in these relationships? If not, what's the alternative?

--Dan.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 14:24

Quote:
What I strive for is to treat everyone with civility, even when our opinions differ. To me, that is the defining of tolerance.

And I agree with your definition of tolerance. Unfortunately, there are people who don't.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 14:39

Quote:
Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own? Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?

Well, obviously those of us who are married now know better and are trying to stop others from making a horrible mistake

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 14:49

Hahahahahaha.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 15:08

Quote:
it seems to me that the discussion of gay marriage often gets a bit abstract or theoretical (or theological?), and I want to remind you that beyond the abstract of "defending marriage", the place this issue hits home is in my home, and perhaps the homes of friends or family members of your own.

I completely understand this, and I must admit to speaking about this subject in a very cold and philosophical manner rather than a personal one. It is very easy to forget that there are people at the core of these issues.

Having said that, this IS a personal issue for me, and “defending marriage” is not simply some sterile code to which I adhere. The concept I have of marriage is one of the most important things I believe, and unfortunately your definition and mine are mutually exclusive. We can talk more about “legal definitions” and such, but the comment you reacted to was not one about my political beliefs but about my philosophical/theological beliefs.

Quote:
Could you tell your gay brother that his happiness in a long-term relationship is not worthy of the same recognition as your own?

I honestly don’t have family members who are homosexuals, but I do have family members who have done other things that I consider to be sinful. An example is my sister who was living with her boyfriend. I consider this as much a sin as homosexual behavior. She knew that, recognized that we had different stands on the issue, and we moved on. She and her boyfriend were always welcome in our home and I never treated them differently because of my beliefs. When she became pregnant, I was one of the people she turned to for support when many in my family made life very difficult for her. We have a mature enough relationship that we can disagree with each other's choices on moral grounds and still be great friends.

Quote:
Can you look into someone's eyes and tell them their relationship is not worthy of recognition and respect under the law?

Personally, I don’t think the law should recognize relationships at all. Unfortunately it does, so to that end I believe you should have the same rights as I do. What I don’t want, however, is for the State to enforce your view about what the covenant of marriage is upon me. That is why I think Civil Unions are the best option we have, even if it is an imperfect solution. This is, btw, a big difference between myself and many conservatives, and probably makes me enemies on all sides.

Quote:
Assuming that we can't be eliminated from the planet

Just to state this emphatically, I would never want anyone to be eliminated from the planet. If homosexuality behavior were to be eliminated, it would have to be by people changing. But moving on, assuming that doesn’t happen . . .

Quote:
what standard of behavior would you like gay men and lesbians to aspire to? Is it in society's best interest for us to be coupled, or not? Should we encourage fidelity, and stability in these relationships? If not, what's the alternative?

I think it is in societies best interest for stable, healthy relationships even if not in what I think of as “marriage”. That extends not just to homosexual marriages, but to those living together pre-marriage and other relationships. To put it on a more personal note, my hope for you would be that you would ultimately seek to trust Christ and seek to follow God, which would ultimately mean seeking to change your behavior. However, barring that, I can hope you find fulfillment and stability in your relationship.

On an aside, as I don’t speak with homosexuals often, what is the most appropriate term: “gay” or “homosexual”, or are both acceptable? I know certain words often carry negative connotations, but I have no idea what the use of either of these terms communicates to you.

Posted by: genixia

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 15:57

Quote:
I honestly don’t have family members who are homosexuals, but I do have family members who have done other things that I consider to be sinful. An example is my sister who was living with her boyfriend. I consider this as much a sin as homosexual behavior. She knew that, recognized that we had different stands on the issue, and we moved on. She and her boyfriend were always welcome in our home and I never treated them differently because of my beliefs. When she became pregnant, I was one of the people she turned to for support when many in my family made life very difficult for her. We have a mature enough relationship that we can disagree with each other's choices on moral grounds and still be great friends.

Ok, I have to bite on this, not because you brought your sister into the discussion, but because you have (at least) twice now generalised homosexuality into a sin and opined from that position.

Would you support a change in your state's Constitution that would ban 'living in sin'? What about a change in the US Constitution? If a presidential candidate campaigned on such a platform would it make you more likely to vote for him?

What about a constitutional change to enforce marriage where pregnancy is concerned? After all, it would prevent further sin. Would you support a candidate who espoused this position?

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 16:17

Most “Jesus teaching book” (bibles) refer to premarital sex and homosexuality as a sin. You can then take that as far as you want, stone them, burn them at the stake or as Jeff is pointing out tolerate them and be kind to them even if you disagree with their actions. According again to many Jesus bibles man is not the judge God is.

The biggest problems with most religions are the “People,” not the teaching. Look at the Muslims that cut people’s heads off in the name of religion, talk about carrying something a bit far.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 16:26

Quote:
Would you support a change in your state's Constitution that would ban 'living in sin'? What about a change in the US Constitution? If a presidential candidate campaigned on such a platform would it make you more likely to vote for him?

Absolutely not. As I've said many times already, I don't think you can force people to be moral. I ultimately agree with Doug that the purpose of the law is to keep people from hurting one another. Unless a sin has drastic enough earthly consequences (such as murder), it should remain in the realm of personal freedom. My opposition to legal gay marriage is not an attempt to make homosexuals live according to my moral values.

I tried to talk my sister out of her decision, but it was her decision to make. The law doesn’t recognize that relationship one way or the other, nor should it. If it started regarding it as a marriage, I’d object. That is, I’d object to a man and woman being considered married if there is no long-term (“till death do us part”) commitment to on another.

Quote:
What about a constitutional change to enforce marriage where pregnancy is concerned? After all, it would prevent further sin. Would you support a candidate who espoused this position?

No. Wedding for the sake of a pregnancy can absolutely destroy a couple and their child if they don’t understand the commitment they’re making. Marriage is a HUGE commitment and responsibility, and if the decision is made under coercion could result in even more sin and painfulness.

As a matter of fact, when my sister got pregnant, the first question my family asked was whether she should get married before or after the child. No one even paused to consider whether non-marriage was even a choice. I sat down with my sister and talked to her about the huge commitment marriage was, and that while a healthy marriage would probably be a better environment for raising a child, if that was her only thought she might end up miserable and with a child in an even worse position. She took this advise very seriously and decided that she and her boyfriend really wanted to make that commitment and so they did. They are a very happy, very loving couple and good friends of ours. She is one of the best mother's I've ever met and her child is great. I've known other couples who've forced themselves into marriage that have become miserable and embittered beyond words.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 18:06

I have to jump in again on two things: Nobody outside the conservative religious community still considers homosexuality a choice--and I've had friends very unhappy that they were. I suppose the practice of it is a choice, but how many of us seriously advocate lifelong celibacy? Even in institutions which sanctify it, it doesn't appear to work too well, as witness the priests'scandals. Also, please show me where in the Bible it is condemned; the "spilling seed upon the ground" regards onanism.

Second, as I've also said before, the meaning of marriage is defined by the two people who make it--often as they go along. For myself, I'd agree that the ideal is lifelong, loving commitment; I've also failed (with help) at that commitment. Many people enter marriage conditionally, for as long as it feels good. Some enter it for financial or other practical considerations such as citizenship; while I don't personally agree with either, the law recognizes them equally--though when it can be proved, the citizenship dodge is an exception.
I could make the same arguement about sex--for many it manifests a deeply meaningful connection, for some it's good, clean fun, for others it's as meaningful (or meaningless) as a handshake; it also has its practical and financial aspects. Ditto friendship; few things are more meaningful to my life; for others it's a social expedient and/or offers financial/material advantage, and can also be a life-long commitment or a passing notion. The point is that none of us can or should define it for others. I agree that the legal protections desirable for society can be met separately from the institutions, and often already exist in the civil code.

BTW, isn't it amazing that what started as a nitwit flaming thread has morphed into several substantial topics?!

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 18:21

Quote:
I Also, please show me where in the Bible it is condemned;

The cities Sodom and Gomorra were both destroyed because of men lying with one another (God really put the hurt on them). Like the spilling of seed reference the bible does not use the term homosexual sex, but if you read about good O’L Lot and his two incestuous daughters you’ll get the picture. And it’s just as juicy as a Jerry Springer show.

Yes, these threads sure mutate. I think this one covered about everything. Except maybe government vs private healthcare. But we all know government healthcare is just of the devil right?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 20:15

Quote:
please show me where in the Bible it is condemned

You might want to check out The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. They have categories of ... odd stuff ... and one of them is about homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 -- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -- and 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- are pretty clear about it.

Posted by: Heather

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 21:06

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 05/11/2004 21:08

Have you not figured out by now that women are irrelevant to the Bible's authors?

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 06/11/2004 01:04

Quote:
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Thank you--for both the information and the reference; that sounds indispensable!

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 01:53

Quote:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." -- and 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- are pretty clear about it.

Obligatory West Wing quote...

President Bartlet: I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.
Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? "Think about that, will you? Oh, and one last thing. You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club but in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 02:21

That is just perfectly brilliant; I love it! I can often do that, start a backfire with the biblical references I was raised with, but never half so well! One of the best monlogues ever...!

Posted by: Daria

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 02:30

Quote:
That is just perfectly brilliant; I love it! I can often do that, start a backfire with the biblical references I was raised with, but never half so well! One of the best monlogues ever...!

The joys of having writers. I'd probably not come off as the grumpy guy at work quite so much if I did.

Posted by: mcomb

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 02:43

Quote:
Obligatory West Wing quote...

Nice, I'm going to have to start watching that show.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 03:09

Quote:
Nice, I'm going to have to start watching that show.

Get the first three seasons on DVD, those are Sorkin-penned and are the Good Stuff.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 05:06

Nice, I'm going to have to start watching that show.

I unabashedly rank The West Wing as not only the best show on network television today, but the best show that has ever been on network TV.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 05:50

Quote:
I unabashedly rank The West Wing as not only the best show on network television today, but the best show that has ever been on network TV.

tanstaafl.

Though no TV maven, the only possible competition IMHO was 'Northern Exposure,' which I got hooked on in NYC when I was doing it in reverse....so my perspective may have been skewed.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 11:13

By all means!

Sadly, Barlet character and most of his staff are an excercise in wishful thinking, not realism, but they are fun to watch (and sometimes even slightly though-provoking).

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 11:17

I just wanted to say that. My friends and I used to have weekly ritual collective "Nothern Exposure" watching. (Almost) never missed an episode.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 12:48

Note that I never said that it wasn't taken out of context. It's just very clear on the matter. As well as very clear on all those other matters which today seem utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 09/11/2004 16:41

Understood and agreed. I just couldn't let the opportunity to post that amusing snippet pass by.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 10/11/2004 02:27

Quote:
You may have mistaken this for your meeting of the ignorant tight-asses club but in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Sheen's delivery of this verbal evisceration was probably the tightest, most enjoyable moment of television I have ever experienced. If it isn't his best moment, I don't know what is.

(trying to decide if cheaper to get cable back or just buy used West Wing DVD sets!

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 10/11/2004 03:46

If it isn't his best moment, I don't know what is.

Quite possibly one of the best moments anybody ever had on network TV.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 11/11/2004 21:47

Quote:
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

As you might have noticed, I try to find rational justification for religious laws and taboos when I run into them, and sometimes come with some theories. But these two elude me. Has anyone any idea why are they there? OK, perhaps the later means 'no embroidery', no embelishments, just strict, functional and austere clothing (and they didn't have polymers

)... But crops?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 11/11/2004 23:06

Quote:
But these two elude me. Has anyone any idea why are they there? OK, perhaps the later means 'no embroidery', no embelishments, just strict, functional and austere clothing (and they didn't have polymers )... But crops?

Ok, this is totally off the cuff and I don't have time to research it, so let me give some background and then take a "not-quite-thoroughly-informed" answer.

The first thing to point out is that this is from the OT law. That’s not to say it wasn’t there for a purpose, but it must be put into context to make sense. The purpose of the OT law was for the Israelites alone (meaning it should not be carried over into any other society’s rules) so that they would be set apart and reveal God to the world around them. If you look at the OT law, there are multiple aspects to the laws. Some laws were about worship practices (sacrifice x animal in y way to atone for z sin). There is nothing “moral” about sacrificing an animal a certain way, but it was pleasing to God because that was how He dictated it be done. Others were simply to help order in society (resolve disputes over x by doing y). Still others revealed aspects of how God defines morality. Some are combinations of various aspects, and while Christians today can draw cues from the law (such as that homosexual behavior is a sin), we don’t go around doing all of the things Bartlett suggested because the law was specifically for the Israelites at that time. In fact, the overriding purpose of the law was to show us that we cannot be as righteous as God dictates and so we need His mercy.

Regarding the specific two things above (garments and crops), a HUGE issue with the Israelites is that they were “God’s chosen people”, meaning that they were set apart specifically for the purpose of revealing God to all nations. To that end, much more was expected from them than any other nation (incidentally this is the reason they had some super-strict laws with super-strict consequences). It was important that the Israelites remember their special status and special responsibilities, so God gave them many symbols to remember that they were to remain set apart in their actions. These symbols did not define morality in and of themselves; the “moral” aspect was remembering their identity as a chosen race. I’m guessing that the practice of keeping crops and garment threads separated was symbolic worship practices in this vein.

If I have time I’ll do a little research into the context and see how close I am.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 11/11/2004 23:18

Quote:
It was important that the Israelites remember their special status and special responsibilities, so God gave them many symbols to remember that they were to remain set apart in their actions.

"And thus God, on the umpteenth day, created Magnets"

/jim ducking!

Hey, for zero research, that was pretty good!

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Can we stop the bashing now? - 11/11/2004 23:24

Quote:
"And thus God, on the umpteenth day, created Magnets"

Can we stop the bashing now?