Homosexual marriage

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

At anyrate, physically, a human may be classified as an animal. I understand that well. But ask a phsycologist: humans and animals are completely different in that respect, for the reasons I mentioned.

At the psychological level? Well sure. But what does that prove other then that human brains are different from cat brains or fish brains? And how does that relate to gay marriage or homosexuality in general?

Sorry for 'lumping', but after all the human is comprised of a physical body and a non-physical thought-process. How can these two things co-exist, I ask you?

Our “thought process” is a ramification of our physical (physiological) nature. Its not separate at all. Its how our brain works. It can be explained and quantified. Brain patterns can be measured. Neurons can be isolated. Theres your thought.

actually, the morality has ALWAYS stemmed from spirituality

By what mechanism does morality stem from spirituality? I can be a very “spiritual” person and care not a lick for what you consider good “morals”. You have had societies over time that have been very religious (the word I think you mean to use rather then spiritual) and they have had quite wide ranging morals. So how can morality be absolute and stem directly from religion or from your spirit?

I am not discriminating against homosexuals.

Well of course you are. You are telling them that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry when you can. That’s the very definition of discrimination.

The one thing I will not concede is that their behavior is right, or that I condone it.

But do you understand that you don’t HAVE to concede that their behavior is right. You have the right to freedom of speech and you can scream all you want about how “homosexual behavior” is evil or any such nonsense. You can even preach to them to some extent. But what you cant to is institutionalize an unfair system of discrimination because of your religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Tell me how you aren't.

What?! Tell me how you arent a Hindu. Or a lion tamer. Or a duck…

Instead you're deciding to make your own rules...aha! Exactly what we christians have been accused of all along...

No, what christians do is want everyone to live by their rules even to the point of trying to force it on them at times. That’s one of the flaws of Christianity. It uses circular logic that requires imposition on the universe in order for it to maintain its consistency. I didn’t make any rules. Im simply talking about equal rights. This is a constitutional issue.

I don't understand how a person who believes in moral relativity can justify his following of some traditional morals other than by saying he doesn't feel like breaking them. Nor can he justify any belief in morals if he does follow them but doesn't believe that they are "already there", other than by saying that they don't produce the desired result.

Heres what yer missing: Im not interested in doing anything for a higher purpose. I choose not to do things like kill and rape and pillage (and discriminate against gays) because I wouldn’t want someone killing or raping or pillaging (or unfairly discriminating against) me or my loved ones. And if I allow that killing or raping or pillaging (or discrimination) theres more of a chance that those things could at some point turn around on me. So call it selfish rational if you like. That would certainly pop your “absolute morals” balloon now wouldn’t it.

See Hector you always have to look for a reason why we do what we do and not simply assume it must be god magic because its not right there on the surface.

So if this is the way it is, I'm allowed to not give a dang about the stuff you want to go your way, and I can make it so that being evil is the best thing.

You can try. But chances are “being evil” is hard to do among our species with regular success so youll end up either incarcerated or outcast or dead. And not only does that really hamper your ability to spread your genes (and produce more actively evil offspring) but others see what happened to you and realize that kind of behavior generally doesn’t work and actually could cause great harm or suffering for them and that in turn is instilled into our culture which over time makes doing those things seem… well… bad… And bingo you’ve got your god given morals, get em while theyre hot…

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No, what christians do is want everyone to live by their rules even to the point of trying to force it on them at times. That’s one of the flaws of Christianity. It uses circular logic that requires imposition on the universe in order for it to maintain its consistency. I didn’t make any rules. Im simply talking about equal rights. This is a constitutional issue.

Anyone who votes makes rules and forces them on some people who don't want them. So give me a break with your claim that you don't make rules . Everyone on Entmoot also votes for what they think is best for the society we live in, and for what they believe is right. We're all far more similar than you're saying.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

From what I've heard, we were only able to survive BECAUSE we were improved, now don't turn around and jibber about how that's not the case.

“we” were able to survive because “we” (or more specifically one ancestor) happened to change in such a way as to make them more successful at that particular point in time. Like for example sickle cell mutations were useful for an ancient population of primates in Africa at some point in the past because it allowed them to have heightened resistance to malaria. Call that an improvement if you like… But today if you have sickle cell disease you can die from it because the “improvement” isn’t needed anymore and it causes more damage then its worth. Do we understand the concept now? Its not all about improvement. Its about surviving TODAY by any means necessary even if its harmful TOMORROW.

That's not what she meant at all. Seen an ape's library recently Rex? That's what she meant.

Are you implying that anything or anyone that has a library is not an animal?

Nobody said we weren't made out of the same stuff animals are

The implication you are insisting on is that we are somehow fundamentally different from other animals and we most certainly are not. We are frighteningly animal like really.

How do they know we're offending them? They must have...supernatural powers!

Well then better start worshiping them as a god until we figure out their technology eh? Seems to be our pattern…

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Anyone who votes makes rules and forces them on some people who don't want them. So give me a break with your claim that you don't make rules . Everyone on Entmoot also votes for what they think is best for the society we live in, and for what they believe is right. We're all far more similar than you're saying.

You would sooner discriminate against a group of people without any verifiable reason simply because in your religion you are taught that homosexuality is wrong. I may find homosexuality just as disturbing and might not want them gays amarryin’ but I would not feel the need to IMPOSE such a belief system on others because it confirms my belief system to do so. That’s the difference between you and me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You would sooner discriminate against a group of people without any verifiable reason simply because in your religion you are taught that homosexuality is wrong. I may find homosexuality just as disturbing and might not want them gays amarryin’ but I would not feel the need to IMPOSE such a belief system on others because it confirms my belief system to do so. That’s the difference between you and me.

Plainly you did not read the post I sent you earlier in this thread, when I stated some of my beliefs on this issue and why I hold them because you and Falagar asked me about it in the Elton John thread. Either you didn't read my post, or you don't remember any of it.

When I take the time to write something to you, would you please do me the courtesy of reading it, in the future?

[Lief Erikson]

But I will make one other point in my response to this, and that is about religion. You would allow homosexual marriage because from your perspective, it's fine, and there's no evidence it's harmful. If you thought there was evidence that it was very harmful, like there is with drugs or pedophelia, you would take a position against it. You vote based on your beliefs, and your beliefs are based upon evidence.

I function the same way, and so do Christians. To us, the Bible is God's Word and God has spoken through it. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting the accuracy of the scripture and Jesus' claims to have been God. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. If evidence (there are many forms and varieties of this evidence, but it is immensely strong and generally only rejected because of other people's bias) shows that Jesus is God, and he says that the scripture is all true and God's Word, and the scripture indicates that homosexuality is harmful and dangerous, (like drugs or pedophelia) then that is a perfectly valid form of evidence. Jesus is God (on evidence), so scripture is true (on evidence), so homosexuality is harmful (like drugs), so we should vote against it being given marriage status. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. It's a well supported, evidence-based position. You just disagree with the evidence, and so you disagree with the conclusions. But religion is a perfectly valid reason for voting against homosexual marriage.

It is NOT the only reason I would strongly oppose homosexual marriage, as you would be well aware if you'd remembered the content of the post on this thread I addressed to you, but it is a perfectly valid one, even left standing all by itself.

Falagar, what do you think of this claim of mine about religion? Granted that it's evidence based rather than mere belief, doesn't it make sense to you that it be used (like any other evidence, if it's good evidence) as a valid reason to vote against homosexual marriage, if it says homosexuality is dangerous and harmful?

[Tessar]

I'm actually quite with Lief in thinking that it's silly when people say the Catholic Church (or the Muslims, or the Liberals, or the Republicans... you get the idea) are 'forcing' their views on anyone. That's free speech, unless they've tied you down to a chair and are forcing you to listen . The simple fact that you're not agreeing with Lief shows that he has in no way managed to force his views on you .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I function the same way, and so do Christians. To us, the Bible is God's Word and God has spoken through it. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting the accuracy of the scripture and Jesus' claims to have been God. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. If evidence (there are many forms and varieties of this evidence, but it is immensely strong and generally only rejected because of other people's bias) shows that Jesus is God, and he says that the scripture is all true and God's Word, and the scripture indicates that homosexuality is harmful and dangerous, (like drugs or pedophelia) then that is a perfectly valid form of evidence. Jesus is God (on evidence), so scripture is true (on evidence), so homosexuality is harmful (like drugs), so we should vote against it being given marriage status. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. It's a well supported, evidence-based position. You just disagree with the evidence, and so you disagree with the conclusions. But religion is a perfectly valid reason for voting against homosexual marriage.

Religion isn't a good enough reason in our country where the privledges allowed to adults are concerned. Those who argued against interracial marriage used biblical arguments against it and they were struct down in a state in which a majority had indeed voted to make interracial marriage illegal.

Also, as a general statement:
Many christians accept homosexual marriage
Many christians do not believe the scripture is all true

So saying "to us christians" is a vast overgeneralization.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'm don't think there's any easy way to separate the nature of the intercourse with the nature of the 'sex-ers', as the method, value and attraction will vary a great deal from specie to specie (and, as you said, things act in accordance with their nature)...but seems like we've reached at least some kind of standstill. The closest we're probable to get a "conclusion", I suppose.

But at least, you will agree that the nature of sex is different from the nature of those who have it? An act differs in nature from the performers?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion isn't a good enough reason in our country where the privledges allowed to adults are concerned. Those who argued against interracial marriage used biblical arguments against it and they were struct down in a state in which a majority had indeed voted to make interracial marriage illegal.

Where it comes to our own personal rights to vote, it is certainly a sufficient and valid reason for us to vote in the way we want. I'm not talking about a court of law. Our voting rights include electing officials who will get our views about what's right for the country made into law, and also sometimes voting specifically on the issues, when that's not handled by the legislature. There are a number of ways to get one's views established in law, and it is wholly valid for us to take those approaches.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Also, as a general statement:
Many christians accept homosexual marriage
Many christians do not believe the scripture is all true

So saying "to us christians" is a vast overgeneralization.

True.

[klatukatt]

Dear Lief,

I believe in your right to vote against homosexual rights in any way because of your religion.
However, we have freedom of religion in this country and many other religions believe in your rights and homosexual rights and Muslim rights and Scientologist rights.
Here I am citing Unitarianism.

I think what I am asking is should we allow religions to battle over the rights of the whole country?
(PS: This question is not just adressed to Lief, but I would like to hear his opinion.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I'm actually quite with Lief in thinking that it's silly when people say the Catholic Church (or the Muslims, or the Liberals, or the Republicans... you get the idea) are 'forcing' their views on anyone. That's free speech, unless they've tied you down to a chair and are forcing you to listen . The simple fact that you're not agreeing with Lief shows that he has in no way managed to force his views on you .

Is it your contention that actively BANNING gays from marrying is not an imposition? Thats hardly free speech.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I think what I am asking is should we allow religions to battle over the rights of the whole country?
(PS: This question is not just adressed to Lief, but I would like to hear his opinion.)

My answer is yes. Though we also have such things as minority rights in this country, and for good reason! If we didn't have them, all kinds of unfair discrimination could occur.

When I say yes to your question, it's for the following reason. This isn't religions battling it out, it's people. It's people who hold to different religions, and just battle issues out based upon their different opinions, values, and interpretation of the available evidence and what parts of it they listen to.

People should be allowed to battle their disputes out legally, from their own different sets of values (which include religions), for otherwise we don't have a free, democratic government but an authoritarian secularist government.

[klatukatt]

And while religions have a right to fight for their beliefs, so do other non-religious communities, such as the homosexual community.

So, we most likely agree that Homosexuals have as much of a right to fight for their beliefs as Christians, but how do we balance between the two?

And also, how do we balance all different peoples wants and needs?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

And while religions have a right to fight for their beliefs, so do other non-religious communities, such as the homosexual community.

Absolutely right.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

So, we most likely agree that Homosexuals have as much of a right to fight for their beliefs as Christians, but how do we balance between the two?

I say we don't. Let 'em duke it out. Unless a reasonable compromise can be reached, of course, but I don't know what that is. I have my own feelings about what should be done, but everyone disagrees with me, so what's the point?

Originally Posted by klatukatt

And also, how do we balance all different peoples wants and needs?

That seems too big a question to conceivably be answered, doesn't it?

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is it your contention that actively BANNING gays from marrying is not an imposition? Thats hardly free speech.

The USA is a democratic state. If enough Americans stand up with the desire to get Gay Marriage passed, then it will happen. As it is, it seems quite a number don't want that in their state.

If someone wants to be a Catholic, then they should realize they can't marry someone of the same sex. Kind of like how you need to enjoy camping and doing projects to become a boyscout. If you don't like doing projects or camping... maybe you shouldn't be a boyscout . No one is forcing me, or anyone else that I know of, to be a Catholic, it's a choice.

It's my right to remain a faithful Catholic, for the time being, and it's also Lief's right to vote against homosexual marriage.

The only thing 'banning' gays from marrying is all of the lazy people who wont get off their asses and go vote. As far as I've ever met, more people are for gay marriage than people who are against it.... but you know what? Almost without fail, the people who are against it are people who go and vote. The people who are for it seem much, much less likely to vote.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That seems too big a question to conceivably be answered, doesn't it?

Yes of course. My apologies.

Anyway, I'm not worried about gay marriage failing in the United States. All it takes is one state to make it legal and it's legal everywhere. True, you have to get married in only one state, but it's better than nothing.

And three cheers for everyone that has the guts to stand up and defend their opinion!

That's why I admire true Christians so much. Their faith propells them into seeing everything through, whether it's the Crusades or helping the poor.

YAY!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Out of curiosity, Katt, how would you define a 'true Christian'?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

for otherwise we don't have a free, democratic government but an authoritarian secularist government.

Most religions are authoritarian by their very nature, with "god" being the authority. An authority that can't be seen, heard or questioned.

Government must be free and secular.