From: Westbrick | #147 Well... yeah, obviously. I'm not sure what significance "other moral systems exist" has.
Acknowledgment of the fact that other belief systems exist, obviously. Hence why you can't really argue about the definition of marriage from a Christian perspective without having to also argue that Christianity should also be able to dictate morality over all other objections, since both require you to give priority to their beliefs.
...is not. Christians can and do feel harm at having state-sponsored legislation against an institution with which they attach such importance. This is, again, an undeniable fact.
Well that's basically just their problem. If someone has a belief system that is intolerant enough to consider it harmful for society to not be built around it, it really can't be given any more respect than "okay, believe it all you want but we're not forcing it on everyone else for you". If they feel that other people being allowed to do similar things to what they do is unacceptable, then compromise is impossible anyway.
This is the big problem with your position: you're making the non-religious position into some kind of default position. That's not the case. The state has to stake some value claim on social issues, whether it be religious or otherwise.
It is the default position, because it's the one that ends up allowing for the inclusion of the most other positions. If the non-religious position is accepted, then religious groups are still allowed to view marriage their own way and only assign meaning to marriages that fit their definition. If the religious position is accepted, then everyone outside of their faith is *not* allowed to act on their own beliefs. It's pretty clear that the state should pick the side where the downside is one group not being able to make other people do what they want instead of the one where the downside is all other groups being forced to do what other people want.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
Acknowledgment of the fact that other belief systems exist, obviously. Hence why you can't really argue about the definition of marriage from a Christian perspective without having to also argue that Christianity should also be able to dictate morality over all other objections, since both require you to give priority to their beliefs.
My point is that the grievances are legitimate, not that there aren't competing perspectives. As an atheist, I happen to disagree with the Christian understanding, but I deeply empathize with it.
If they feel that other people being allowed to do similar things to what they do is unacceptable, then compromise is impossible anyway.
"Impossible," eh? How about the compromise I listed earlier?
It is the default position, because it's the one that ends up allowing for the inclusion of the most other positions.
This is just the libertarian principle guised up as some "default" perspective. Most perspectives =/= correct approach.
From: Westbrick | #148 They aren't offended because, even if the motivations are not religious, the results abide by religious doctrine. As a comparison, think of murder: why does the state prevent people from killing one another? Presumably to maximize utility, or protect individual rights, or something similar. The religious person chooses not to kill because it is one of God's commandments. Yet they will still be content with the state's motivation, because the result conforms to the moral order.
I get your comparison but 'murder' is a bit of an extreme example. The difference here is that murder is something that has a potential to affect the life of a Christian - they could be the one being murdered, after all. Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it. It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).
They have every right to be offended but none to tell other people how to live their lives. If this leads to religous outcry, the government dropping the term "marriage" in favor of "civil union," then so be it, but it has to apply to all "legal marriages" for the sake of equality.
But then maybe the people in male-female secular civil unions would get offended and here we go again.
-- You have no time to ponder such questions, as Link has just grabbed a Smash Ball. http://backloggery.com/herodeltiempo/sig.gif
Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it.
To be clear: I disagree with the notion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think that the superior choice is a compromise, but if I was presented with either no gay marriage or universal gay marriage, I'd side with the latter. That said, I'm simply trying to illustrate how a Christian thinks. And wouldn't you know, it's not so crazy after all!
As to your point, this simply isn't how Christians feel. "Not having to associate" doesn't mean they won't be hurt or offended at having such a sacred institution defiled.
It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).
This is true, but many Christians prize marriage as hugely important. You've heard the rhetoric before: building block of the family, the proper way to raise kids, etc.
They have every right to be offended but none to tell other people how to live their lives.
So then which position does have the right to tell us how society should be structured? The secularists? Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. One side has to win and one has to lose, but there are sides. It's not as though Christians are some fringe group rallying against some common-sense moral intuition.
From: Westbrick | #152 "Impossible," eh? How about the compromise I listed earlier?
The compromise that means Christians get to define marriage exclusively and everyone else who happens to have a different belief on the matter gets to go suck a dick?
This is just the libertarian principle guised up as some "default" perspective. Most perspectives =/= correct approach.
Well unless you want to base it on a debate over which perspective is correct, then yeah, the position that allows the most groups to get the most of what they want while the least harm is done is pretty hard to argue as the best starting position.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Westbrick | #154 As to your point, this simply isn't how Christians feel. "Not having to associate" doesn't mean they won't be hurt or offended at having such a sacred institution defiled.
it's already getting "defiled" by the state letting people get divorced and remarried, inter-religious marriage, etc.
The compromise that means Christians get to define marriage exclusively and everyone else who happens to have a different belief on the matter gets to go suck a dick?
This is what I'm talking about: it just seems like you're pretending that your opinion isn't an opinion, but some self-sufficient moral truth. Let me rephrase your objection from the perspective of an angry Christian:
"The compromise that means secularists get to define marriage exclusively and everyone else who happens to wish to protect the sanctity of marriage gets to go suck a dick?"
And my proposal, by the way, allows individual churches to decide.
Well unless you want to base it on a debate over which perspective is correct, then yeah, the position that allows the most groups to get the most of what they want while the least harm is done is pretty hard to argue as the best starting position.
It's actually extremely easy to argue against it, especially from a religious perspective. Why should moral falsehoods be tolerated, particularly if they debase a central social institution?
it's already getting "defiled" by the state letting people get divorced and remarried, inter-religious marriage, etc.
I've heard this argument before, and I'm sure you realize it's fallacious. Tainting isn't binary; it's not either defiled or not-defiled. I'll agree with you, however, that those against gay marriage but for divorce are hypocrites.
I didn't say tainting was binary, but you had said that religious people aren't offended by secular heterosexual marriage, because it fits into the order, and I was pointing out that it doesn't fit as nicely as you made it sound
From: Westbrick | #157 This is what I'm talking about: it just seems like you're pretending that your opinion isn't an opinion, but some self-sufficient moral truth. Let me rephrase your objection from the perspective of an angry Christian:
"The compromise that means secularists get to define marriage exclusively and everyone else who happens to wish to protect the sanctity of marriage gets to go suck a dick?"
And my proposal, by the way, allows individual churches to decide.
Except that it doesn't let anyone define marriage exclusively to allow both secular and religious marriages to exist! Secular marriage existing doesn't prevent Christians from having their own view on marriage, only from having non-Christians forced to obey Christianity.
It's actually extremely easy to argue against it, especially from a religious perspective. Why should moral falsehoods be tolerated, particularly if they debase a central social institution?
Slight problem - you have to actually prove that it's a moral falsehood.
Yeah. That is why the neutral position should be taken, because otherwise you're asking the government to officially declare which religious position is right.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
I didn't say tainting was binary, but you had said that religious people aren't offended by secular heterosexual marriage, because it fits into the order, and I was pointing out that it doesn't fit as nicely as you made it sound
State-sponsored heterosexual marriage fits in that it is heterosexual. You're correct that it doesn't fit in regards to divorce (inter-racial marriage is fine), but I'm not sure those "messy" bits are related specifically to gay marriage.
This is true, but many Christians prize marriage as hugely important. You've heard the rhetoric before: building block of the family, the proper way to raise kids, etc.
As to your point, this simply isn't how Christians feel. "Not having to associate" doesn't mean they won't be hurt or offended at having such a sacred institution defiled.
True, but I haven't for example seen any huge outcries over secular divorce from religious organizations that don't allow divorce.
Everyone has a right to be offended, I'll admit, but it's hard to base judgements on if people are offended by it or not. It's more of a case-to-case basis. In this one, I think the minority deserves a form of equal rights and giving it to them doesn't necessarily take rights away from the religious majority, even if it causes them offense.
From: Westbrick | #154 So then which position does have the right to tell us how society should be structured? The secularists? Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. One side has to win and one has to lose, but there are sides. It's not as though Christians are some fringe group rallying against some common-sense moral intuition.
Well from my understanding, our government is supposed to include representatives from every major demographic within the country to make laws in the interest of those groups while still considering and being fair to the needs of other groups within good reason. Christians in this case are a huge demographic, but in this scenario I think it's important for the minority to have their rights protected.
Whether that works is another story, but there's the ideal.
I get your comparison but 'murder' is a bit of an extreme example. The difference here is that murder is something that has a potential to affect the life of a Christian - they could be the one being murdered, after all. Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it. It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).
Nobody ever has the right not to be offended, and everyone has the absolute right to offend others. However, it is not strictly true that gay marriage will definitely have no impact on Christians. Christians, may, for example, fear that God will punish America because of its association with gay marriage- for example, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, where 2 cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone from the skies.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: Westbrick | #161 You're correct that it doesn't fit in regards to divorce (inter-racial marriage is fine)
I... didn't say anything about inter-racial marriage.
I'm not sure those "messy" bits are related specifically to gay marriage
They're not directly related, they just represent an area where they don't seem to have any problem with the state's position on something that doesn't conform to their definition. Even if they are offended, I don't see a lot of people calling for divorce to be outlawed.
Except that it doesn't let anyone define marriage exclusively to allow both secular and religious marriages to exist! Secular marriage existing doesn't prevent Christians from having their own view on marriage, only from having non-Christians forced to obey Christianity.
Right, and this is where Christians will appeal to the fact that this marginalizes the "true" (holy, hallowed) understanding of marriage. What the religious are advocating isn't all that unusual in politics anyway: the government has limited some perspectives in order to support others plenty of times.
Slight problem - you have to actually prove that it's a moral falsehood.
Yeah. That is why the neutral position should be taken, because otherwise you're asking the government to officially declare which religious position is right.
But yours is also a position: namely, that a Christian morality cannot be proven, and that society functions optimally when as many perspectives as possible are tolerated.
I... didn't say anything about inter-racial marriage.
Quote:
it's already getting "defiled" by the state letting people get divorced and remarried, inter-religious marriage, etc.
They're not directly related, they just represent an area where they don't seem to have any problem with the state's position on something that doesn't conform to their definition. Even if they are offended, I don't see a lot of people calling for divorce to be outlawed.
I know plenty who are opposed to such things. Even still, this is more a point about their consistency in regards to other questions rather than the logic behind the specific decision to ban gay marriage.
From: red sox 777 | #163 I get your comparison but 'murder' is a bit of an extreme example. The difference here is that murder is something that has a potential to affect the life of a Christian - they could be the one being murdered, after all. Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it. It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).
Nobody ever has the right not to be offended, and everyone has the absolute right to offend others. However, it is not strictly true that gay marriage will definitely have no impact on Christians. Christians, may, for example, fear that God will punish America because of its association with gay marriage- for example, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, where 2 cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone from the skies.
Well they're free to preach that, but I don't think that we should disallow certain laws on basis of fire and brimstone.
Well they're free to preach that, but I don't think that we should disallow certain laws on basis of fire and brimstone.
What about moral decadence? What about the fostering of conditions that could turn people away from God and make them sinful? Are these more acceptable?
Anyway, I don't believe that government should define marriage traditionally because of religious or moral reasons. I think there's a strong case that the majority can define it traditionally, however, just based on what the dictionary says. It's the Scalia approach to things. What does marriage mean? Well what does the dictionary say it means? (Or even better, what does a dictionary published around the time our marriage law was established say?) It says it is a union of a man and a woman, so that is what marriage is. Gay marriage is impossible in the same way that a woman cannot be a man, no matter how much she may protest that separate is not equal and she should have the equal right under law to being a man.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: Westbrick | #165 Right, and this is where Christians will appeal to the fact that this marginalizes the "true" (holy, hallowed) understanding of marriage. What the religious are advocating isn't all that unusual in politics anyway: the government has limited some perspectives in order to support others plenty of times.
Well that's too bad for them isn't it? Do you really think that it's better to force Christianity on everyone even if they don't believe in it than it is to allow people on both sides of the issue to use their own definition for their own purposes?
But yours is also a position: namely, that a Christian morality cannot be proven, and that society functions optimally when as many perspectives as possible are tolerated.
No **** it's a position, the position that if you're discussing things that can't be proven either way, you should try to accommodate both while doing the minimal harm. What else do you think should be done? You're just dancing around saying that it's wrong to tolerate everyone without proposing any alternatives beyond "force Christianity on everybody".
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
Well that's too bad for them isn't it? Do you really think that it's better to force Christianity on everyone even if they don't believe in it than it is to allow people on both sides of the issue to use their own definition for their own purposes?
Haven't heard anyone advocate that the government recognize only Christian marriages. And yes, we do stuff like this all the time. Why do drug laws exist? Because some people think they are immoral. Why do you get to deduct mortgage interest from your taxes? Because many people consider owning houses to be a good thing they want to encourage.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: Westbrick | #170 Well they're free to preach that, but I don't think that we should disallow certain laws on basis of fire and brimstone.
What about moral decadence? What about the fostering of conditions that could turn people away from God and make them sinful? Are these more acceptable?
Well, I don't view it as declining society's morals in any way. Maybe Christians would just view it as another test of faith. To them, we already live in a time of sin anyways.
Now we're back to arguing about whether gay marriage itself is right or wrong, and going to retread that some people think it's good and other think it's bad. It's not going to go anywhere.
I think fire and brimstone is a better reason than moral decadence for making something a law. Morality is probably the flimsiest reason there is for making a law. Fire and brimstone is a very real and tangible danger that threatens to kill us all. Remember, you must consider things from the perspective of if they were true, as the person honestly believes. Moral decadence by itself won't kill anybody no matter how true it is.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Well that's too bad for them isn't it? Do you really think that it's better to force Christianity on everyone even if they don't believe in it than it is to allow people on both sides of the issue to use their own definition for their own purposes?
No. Christians, of course, do.
No **** it's a position,
Whoa there!
the position that if you're discussing things that can't be proven either way, you should try to accommodate both while doing the minimal harm. What else do you think should be done?
Christians: abide by the moral order, preserve the sanctity of marriage. Me: push all legal benefits to civil unions, keep the word "marriage" for religious institutions; allows gays to be legally bound and receive benefits while satisfying the desires of a very large Christian population.
You can think of my position as a utilitarian argument, if you like. And red sox brought up some good examples where moral "pandering" is the basis for our law.
Morality is probably the flimsiest reason there is for making a law.
Could you explain this a bit? Because I can't think of a law that isn't based on some moral judgment.
Hey, there's actually a judicial opinion in which the judge writes, "As a matter of law, the house is haunted."
Issues of fact in law are for juries to decide, and in politics they are for voters to decide. If 51% of voters decide that they are in terrible fear of imminent rains of fire from the skies if they legalize gay marriage, they have a strong interest in the preservation of their own lives to ban gay marriage. It's similar to if Vladimir Putin threatened to rain down nukes on us if we legalized gay marriage.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Do most of you hate christianity/religion in general, or do you simply hate the poorer or more pushy practitioners, such as Westboro or other "hardcore" religious people? This is one of the thing that has bothered me about a great many Atheists - why would you go around consistently trying to correct or mock religious people? What is wrong with having faith?
My problem with religion is that it holds humanity back. We'd know much more about the universe and would have achieved much greater things if people didn't assume that they already had all the answers due to religion, or if powerful religious people didn't kill thousands of great minds because they felt threatened by them. Every day thousands of people waste their time praying and if religion never existed those people could actually be doing something constructive and useful for humanity.
--
"ExTha and Eli Manning are my heroes. One raps circles around me and the other balls circles around my football team."
Could you explain this a bit? Because I can't think of a law that isn't based on some moral judgment.
That's probably true, but still, it's best to avoid morality (read: subjective value judgments) in law as much as possible. We promote free trade because we can prove that it helps everyone economically. We established the Federal Reserve to provide for a more elastic currency and banking system. To the extent that we can, it's best to stick to objective things, meaning things where people agree on the goals, even if they disagree on how best to achieve those goals.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
My problem with religion is that it holds humanity back. We'd know much more about the universe and would have achieved much greater things if people didn't assume that they already had all the answers due to religion, or if powerful religious people didn't kill thousands of great minds because they felt threatened by them. Every day thousands of people waste their time praying and if religion never existed those people could actually be doing something constructive and useful for humanity.
1) That bolded part: do you have numbers? Because Galileo, who was just about as offensive to the Pope as one could possibly be, was only sentences to a lifetime house arrest. I sincerely doubt "thousands of great minds" were killed in the name of religion.
2) There's a very real chance that, without religion, there's nothing "constructive" and "useful" for humanity to do other than expire a pointless existence. Beyond that, the supposed "Dark Ages" was actually one of the brightest in world history for philosophical work.
That's probably true, but still, it's best to avoid morality (read: subjective value judgments) in law as much as possible. We promote free trade because we can prove that it helps everyone economically. We established the Federal Reserve to provide for a more elastic currency and banking system. To the extent that we can, it's best to stick to objective things, meaning things where people agree on the goals, even if they disagree on how best to achieve those goals.
"Objectivity" in these discussions tends to boil down either to utilitarian calculus or application of the libertarian preservation-of-rights, the value of both being entirely subjective. I understand what you're saying, but the entire legal sphere is a dense web of competing and contrasting subjective principles; you can only become "objective" once one particular set of value judgments has been agreed upon.
Galileo was too prominent and popular to turn into a martyr I think. Keep in mind he lived during the first century of the Protestant Reformation, so the Catholic Church had very real competition and could not afford to turn people away by killing popular figures. Not to mention that everyone knew how corrupt the Medieval/Renaissance Popes were.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: Westbrick | #178 Me: push all legal benefits to civil unions, keep the word "marriage" for religious institutions; allows gays to be legally bound and receive benefits while satisfying the desires of a very large Christian population.
And now we loop back to the very beginning and I ask why Christianity deserves to be given special treatment? They get to take entire concepts that exist in tons of other contexts and have for huge amounts of history and make them their own, to the point of taking the word itself and preventing others from using it? Suck dick, non Christians, it's not enough for Christianity to be allowed to use its own definition of marriage, we need to be forced to obey their definitions too.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
"Objectivity" in these discussions tends to boil down either to utilitarian calculus or application of the libertarian preservation-of-rights, the value of both being entirely subjective. I understand what you're saying, but the entire legal sphere is a dense web of competing and contrasting subjective principles; you can only become "objective" once one particular set of value judgments has been agreed upon.
Indeed, that's why we try as best we can to ignore the conflicting subjective values and focus on lawmaking that advances values everyone or almost everyone agrees on. And the default is to leave the rest to individual freedom, to let people do as they please according to their own subjective values. Of course you're right that in practice, subjective values are pretty central to laws.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
And now we loop back to the very beginning and I ask why Christianity deserves to be given special treatment?
Either the Christians get preferential treatment, or the gays get preferential treatment. You can continue to push the "equality" rhetoric, but at the end of the day, one side gets what it wants and one side doesn't. My position gives concessions to both, which makes it attractive from a utilitarian perspective (if you're into that sort of thing).
And interesting stuff, red sox. Thanks for the background info.
Indeed, that's why we try as best we can to ignore the conflicting subjective values and focus on lawmaking that advances values everyone or almost everyone agrees on.
Just curious: have you read any John Austin or other legal positivists? Because this shift from metaphysical disputes to questions of practical harm/benefit sounds a lot like it.
And now we loop back to the very beginning and I ask why Christianity deserves to be given special treatment? They get to take entire concepts that exist in tons of other contexts and have for huge amounts of history and make them their own, to the point of taking the word itself and preventing others from using it? Suck dick, non Christians, it's not enough for Christianity to be allowed to use its own definition of marriage, we need to be forced to obey their definitions too.
Because it's a large majority of the USA. Any majority would get to do the same thing.
Though I must say I don't like the argument. I like the Scalia-style dictionary argument much better. Oh, what's that, you have all these theories and values and arguments about human rights? Too bad, my dictionary published in England in 1770 says differently, you lose. If you don't like it, go try to get a Constitutional amendment passed.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: Westbrick | #187 Either the Christians get preferential treatment, or the gays get preferential treatment. You can continue to push the "equality" rhetoric, but at the end of the day, one side gets what it wants and one side doesn't. My position gives concessions to both, which makes it attractive from a utilitarian perspective (if you're into that sort of thing).
No, your position does not give concessions to both, it gives Christians what they want and tells everyone who has a different definition of marriage to go **** themselves. My position is the one where both sides actually get to use the definition they want. Why do you consistently ignore that non-Christian definitions of marriage exist and people are just as offended by being legally forced not to use them as the Christian side?
From: red sox 777 | #188 Because it's a large majority of the USA. Any majority would get to do the same thing.
American demographics are completely and utterly irrelevant and would be even if it weren't incredibly dumb to say that the majority should be able to force their religion on everyone else.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
Do you have a problem with special taxes on cigarettes? Because that is the majority imposing their will on the minority, to actively punish smokers for smoking.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #191 Actually, in a Republic, they are highly relevant. The side with more votes gets to make the laws. And no one is forcing their religion on anyone here, so don't try to argue that.
No, they're not relevant, because they change over time and thus have no relevance to a discussion on whether gay marriage should be legal or not, a debate whose answer needs to actually be applicable in general (this isn't even about the US in general and hasn't ever been, and I'm not even American). And yeah, forcing Christian beliefs into law solely because they are Christian is forcing religion on people. You have to be blind to not think that it's forcing religion on someone to say "well this groups religion says your beliefs are wrong, and we're going to make the law such that your beliefs aren't recognized and theirs are".
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
American demographics are completely and utterly irrelevant and would be even if it weren't incredibly dumb to say that the majority should be able to force their religion on everyone else.
Actually, in a Republic, they are highly relevant. The side with more votes gets to make the laws. And no one is forcing their religion on anyone here, so don't try to argue that.
Just curious: have you read any John Austin or other legal positivists? Because this shift from metaphysical disputes to questions of practical harm/benefit sounds a lot like it.
Nope. Maybe this summer?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
No, your position does not give concessions to both, it gives Christians what they want and tells everyone who has a different definition of marriage to go **** themselves.
This is wrong. My position grants gays all the legal benefits of marriage as well as the ability for individual churches to decide whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.
My position is the one where both sides actually get to use the definition they want.
Your position is one where the Christian desire to keep marriage sacred is thrown in the trash. See? I can play the rhetoric game too.
From: red sox 777 | #192 Do you have a problem with special taxes on cigarettes? Because that is the majority imposing their will on the minority, to actively punish smokers for smoking.
I'm actually kind of unsure about that issue, because it's a lot more complex to decide on than just "majority rules" (health issues, both in terms of secondhand smoke and in terms of any potential burden on a health care system that will inevitably affect others, are impossible not to consider and I'm not going to take any real stance when I don't know enough about it).
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
From: Westbrick | #194 This is wrong. My position grants gays all the legal benefits of marriage as well as the ability for individual churches to decide whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.
Your position also tells anyone that isn't religious that their beliefs don't get to be recognized; only churches get to define marriage, anyone else isn't allowed the same respect, no matter what they believe.
Your position is one where the Christian desire to keep marriage sacred is thrown in the trash. See? I can play the rhetoric game too.
My position is the one where the belief system that goes "I'm being oppressed if other people are allowed to have their own belief systems not be oppressed!" gets thrown in the trash, yeah. They can have their own definition of marriage for absolutely everything that is within the realm of their own religion, but they can't force outsiders to be bound by their beliefs.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
No, they're not relevant, because they change over time and thus have no relevance to a discussion on whether gay marriage should be legal or not, a debate whose answer needs to actually be applicable in general (this isn't even about the US in general and hasn't ever been, and I'm not even American).
Uh, the whole idea of democracy is that a law should be the law if the majority votes for it. We have a 15% tax if people vote for that, we have a 40% tax if people vote for that. We have government healthcare if people vote for it, and not if they don't. We have a draft if people vote for it, and not if they don't. A law doesn't need any reason to become law other than the will of the majority. And it makes zero difference that it changes over time, because whatever is the current law is what is current. If the opinions change over time, the people can change the law.
There doesn't need to be some general rule for gay marriage (or other stuff) across the whole earth. Many of us in the US think the UK's lack of free speech protection is appalling, an outrage to fundamental human rights. We're not going to invade Britain or anything to force them to change.
And yeah, forcing Christian beliefs into law solely because they are Christian is forcing religion on people. You have to be blind to not think that it's forcing religion on someone to say "well this groups religion says your beliefs are wrong, and we're going to make the law such that your beliefs aren't recognized and theirs are".
Oh? So then, it would be equally wrong for us to make laws that impede racism, because we are forcing our beliefs of equality on people?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
You cannot detach people's beliefs from their politics. And that is not the meaning of separation of church and state. Church and state are and ought to be intimately linked through individuals people, who are members of both. Separation of church and state means that the links must be at just that level- through individuals only.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Your position also tells anyone that isn't religious that their beliefs don't get to be recognized; only churches get to define marriage, anyone else isn't allowed the same respect, no matter what they believe.
This is correct, yes. A better alternative in my mind than undermining such an important institution for such a large number of committed Christians. And for what? As you've correctly pointed out, it's the Christians who care deeply about securing the title of marriage. Why should gays necessarily care that only certain churches will bestow them with that title?
My position is the one where the belief system that goes "I'm being oppressed if other people are allowed to have their own belief systems not be oppressed!" gets thrown in the trash, yeah.
It's not about "oppression"; it's about the defiling of a sacred institution. But you know this and are just being stubborn.
From: red sox 777 | #197 Uh, the whole idea of democracy is that a law should be the law if the majority votes for it.
The whole idea of pure democracy is also a terrible way to rule a nation because you agree that if the majority says so, it's totally okay to enslave and murder people. I doubt you genuinely believe that there are not limits on what is and is not decided by the majority. And on an individual level the arguments themselves matter anyway.
Oh? So then, it would be equally wrong for us to make laws that impede racism, because we are forcing our beliefs of equality on people?
No, because that isn't forcing beliefs on people, it's preventing people from enforcing their beliefs on others. Banning racism (ie thought crime) would be wrong, banning speaking racist ideas is wrong, banning people from actively harming others is not. It's only "forcing beliefs of equality" on people to the extent that absolutely every law is "forcing" things on someone; you could say that it is if you really want to, but the alternative is anarchy because any law will always have some degree of forcing something on someone.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny