|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 11:20 Signet wrote:On October 20 2011 06:55 Penitent wrote:Signet wrote:
It's not being religious that ticks people off, unless somebody's a real fundamentalist. It's the legislating of religious issues. Long time reader, first time poster. The quote above is emblematic of the hippocritical stupidity so often displayed by the political left, and I feel compelled to say something to expose it for what it is. First time poster and you're already putting people into boxes and calling them "hippocritical"/stupid? (protip: it's spelled "hypocritical." This is a) an ironic example of emblematic stupidity b) causing me to envision a critical hippopotamus.) Now nevermind that I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats for federal offices... more Libertarians than Democrats as well... but yeah, I'm a total partisan hack. You got me. Gah, I repeatedly make that mistake. So my spelling is periodically bad, sue me =/. I stand by my position, however, that the political left is often guilty of hypocrisy and that those spouting it are often too stupid to recognize it. Based on your detailed reply you're clearly not a stupid person, but it is nonetheless hypocritical to claim that conservatives want to legislate "religious" issues because the implication is that liberals do not. Nothing could be further from the truth. That someone accepts a religion, including its attendant moral value system, and votes according to that system, does not somehow make them inferior to others who reject religion, have a moral value system, and vote according to that system. It's all the same. To say that it is impermissible for a religious person to vote according to her beliefs and the values that stem from them is no different than saying that it is impermissible for a black person to vote according to his beliefs and the values that stem from them. Everyone can vote one way or another on any given issue. Everyone does so based on their values. Everyone's values are drawn from or based on beliefs - first principles which are accepted without proof or reason. My position is that it is hypocritical for political leftists to denigrate religious beliefs and values while praising non-religious beliefs and values because all it comes down to is a cheap and logically unsupportable effort to de-legitimize viewpoints with which they do not agree. Show nested quote +
Why should it be reprehensible for a religious person to vote for his preferences but "courageous" for an a-religious person to do the same? No serious conservative (myself included) has ever suggested that we pass laws to compel belief in anything, yet to hear tell from the media and other leftists you'd swear there was a conspiracy to turn America into an Iranian-style theocracy.
America is a democracy. This means that we all have the right to vote our consciences when deciding, as a collective whole, how we are to live and what we are to do as a nation, as a state, and as a city.
If you like abortion because you don't think the thing inside a pregnant woman's womb is a human being, then vote your conscience. But don't presume to invalidate the opinion of someone who disagrees with you and believes that abortion is wrong because it involves the cold-blooded murder of a child. If you like gay marriage because you think that marriage does little more than confer titles, tax benefits, and specific legal rights, then vote to support it. But don't sneer at others who believe that marriage is a holy institution pre-dating government, and who believe that an institution which has never accepted homosexual unions across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history should not be tampered with by the equivalent of a civilizational diletante.
If you'd read a little more of my post, you'd see that I actually said I think that conservative opposition to abortion has logical secular arguments to support it (even though I disagree with the assertion that life begins at conception, their stance a valid conclusion for people who agree with said assertion). I did read the entirety of your post and I did notice that you said as much. It is irrelevant. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is no logical reason whatsoever to oppose abortion. Let us assume further that for religious reasons many people do not like abortion anyway. In a democracy, such as ours, where the government is not bound by its own laws (i.e., the Constitution) from prohibiting or allowing abortion, the people have the right to decide, as a collective political whole, that they don't want abortion to happen in their land. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires every law promulgated by every branch of government to have some secular - i.e., atheist - purpose. Show nested quote +
As Bibdy said, if marriage is supposed to be a sacred religious tradition then get it out of the hands of the government. I think many people would support simply allowing the government to grant "civil unions" to all adult couples who want one, while leaving "marriage" as a religious/cultural event that is separate from the government.
Beyond that, I do accept that some people want to define "marriage" in the Christian tradition while still allowing equal rights for gays... I disagree with these people for a few reasons, but I don't think they're being awful. But what we've repeatedly seen are laws being passed that not only define marriage as between a man and a woman, but also deny gays the right to legal equality through a civil union. That's simple hate, and I won't respect it.
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god. In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours. If by "numerous" you mean a handful over the course of hundreds of millions (billions?) of marriages over the course of human history, and if by "recognized" you mean not legally or generally acknowledged as being the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, then yes, your interpretation of the wikipedia page you cite would be correct. Just because there have been isolated instances of homosexual relationships being acknowledged and accepted to one limited degree or another does not change the fact that the institution of marriage has been of a heterosexual nature for millennia. The ancient Greeks, accepting as they were of homosexuality, did not acknowledge homosexual marriages. I believe I stand vindicated on this point. Show nested quote +
When someone votes for traditional marriage, or pro-life laws, or voluntary prayer in schools, or the teaching of intelligent design as a possible alternative to evolution (which to date STILL has no provable model for the macro-evolutionary change of a species with x number chromosomes into a new species with x+y number of chromosomes), do you rage because you feel like someone is trying to impose his beliefs on you?
Guess what, it feels the EXACT same way for conservatives when you vote for gay marriage, abortion on demand, the exile of faith from all public discourse, or the acceptance of Darwinian evolution as a provable fact.
Having been a conservative for the first 20+ years of my life, at no time did I ever feel like the teaching of evolution as the accepted scientific theory was anything resembling an attempt to impose liberal or whatever beliefs on me, not any more than the theory of gravity (which has way more gaps in it than evolution does but isn't subject to anything resembling the same political attacks) or integration by parts. The good Lord gave us a brain and the five senses so that we could use them... closing our eyes does nothing to achieve that. In science, the emphasis is on the "provable" (or more accurately, falsifiable). Darwinian evolution makes specific predictions that can be tested - such as the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria or changes in the color of moths in response to soot produced by early industrial factories. Nobody is saying that the theory is totally complete and will never change. In fact significant changes have been made to the theory of evolution, such as the replacement of gradualism with punctuated equilibrium. Chromosome numbers and speciation are addressed here: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.htmlNote the discussion of predictions made by the theory. Again this is the critical part. If evidence emerges that contradicts something this theory implies, then the theory must be revised or replaced. If another testable hypothesis is able to better explain the known data, it will become the accepted theory. Intelligent Design cannot be tested because it doesn't make these kind of predictions, and it rests on the existence of God (which for all practical purposes cannot be scientifically observed or falsified). It's basically arguing that unless you can explain every evolutionary step that every species ever took from primoridal ooze to modern-day humans, then God has to have been directly involved along the way. It's a terrible argument, and more relevantly to the discussion of scientific curricula, it's totally non-scientific. The reason ID shouldn't be taught alongside evolution isn't that ID is incorrect (we'll never know that until we die). It's that ID isn't a scientific theory. on the other hand, it might be appropriate for a survey of religions or Christian philosophy course. Although I think there are many more interesting debates in apologetics than an attempt to explain away evolution. I've been referred to the same link you provided before. I've read it numerous times. It fails to answer one of the most basic questions that science (good science anyway) always asks: how? Yes, yes, you have falsifiable theories and such. But still: how? Nowhere in the link you provide (or anywhere else for that matter) is there a concrete explanation of how one species transforms into another, higher species with more chromosomes that miraculously work to produce new structures and functions in that new species. Micro-evolution - the evolutionary change of species to different forms of that same species - is a provable fact. It is demonstrable in the field; no one disputes this. But macro-evolution is as much an article of faith as is creationism. In essence, macro-evolution can be summarized thus: 1. Functioning species with X number of chromosomes. 2. ?????? [insert theory here] 3. Different functioning species with X+Y number of chromosomes. 4. Profit. If your position then is that something ought not to be taught because it is not a scientific theory, then I would suggest that macro-evolution should be kept out of schools (I don't actually think this - I'd prefer it to be taught alongside ID). On this I will note finally that I don't actually have a problem with the theory of evolution. To my mind evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive things (who, after all, is to say that God did not fashion the creatures of the world through the processes of the nature He set in motion in the first place?). The only problem I have is, again, with the hypocrisy of ridiculing religious belief when "scientific belief" is itself alive and kicking. Show nested quote +
This is the nature of democratic politics. Every single time you vote one way or another on an issue, you are voting to impose your thoughts, your preferences, your views, and your beliefs on other people. This is okay; this is how democracy is supposed to work. Living in a democracy means everyone gets a say. It doesn't mean you always get your way, but it beats the hell out of being ruled by a monarch or a dictator or a politburo or a central committee who decide what to do and don't give a fuck if you and everyone else disagree with them. And if you lose? Go out and convince your fellow citizens that yours is the righteous cause, and next time maybe the votes will swing in your favor.
Again, it's a matter of degree. Someone wanting to impose affirmative action (which I diasgree with, but understand the arguments for redressing lingering inequality) isn't really the same as someone wanting to impose a ban on interracial marriage or to impose slavery (which not only do I disagree with, but any decent human being should as well).
Don't for a second believe the bullshit notion that your values or beliefs or views are any better or more important than someone else's and should therefore be accorded greater weight or respect, to the point where people who don't think like you do ought to be mocked and ridiculed as "fundamentalists" or "neanderthals" or "mindless sheep". I'm a devout Catholic and a political conservative because I think for myself, I understand my values, and I know who and what I support. I'm no more a mindless peon than an atheist liberal who takes the exact opposite stand on every issue.
There's a gulf between not respecting anyone's beliefs if they don't think like you and treating all beliefs as equal. I damn sure won't accept a totalitarian system of government or something like Sharia law and I see no reason to afford those beliefs any respect. On the other hand, I'm generally respectful of libertarian beliefs even though I no longer feel that this is the best/proper way to run an economy... hell, I'm respectful of Rothbardian-style anarchists and I think that's doomed to failure. In fact I may have a broader range of respect/acceptance than I gave myself credit for, because I'm even willing to tolerate some amounts of social conservatism if I feel like it's coming from a good place. Ireland is run as a heavily Christian country, but they don't throw it out the window when the Bible says to do something that might be considered "left of center." Hence they've outlawed all non-life threatening abortions... and have universal healthcare. (in fact it's the religious Fine Gael party that's pushing for full nationalized healthcare) For that matter the FG opposes gay marriage but at least supports civil unions... so while I disagree with them on that, I don't feel like they're just being a bunch of assholes. So what if they are just being a bunch of assholes? Democracy means you get a say. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you're a nice guy about it. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you agree with everyone else. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you think the right thoughts or express the right opinions. Democracy means you get a say. Show nested quote +
But this ideology of cherry-picking the conservative parts of the Bible and saying "we have to legislate this" while at the same time taking the progressive parts of the same book and saying "oh, that's not really the government's job" is, in my opinion, just an excuse to bully people while hiding behind religion. And I don't respect that.
Funny, because religious conservatives often feel bullied by those who preach tolerance (except for conservatives), free speech (except for conservative ideas), equality (except for white people and the rich), freedom (except when it comes to things like school choice, health care, etc.), and all manner of other nice-sounding things. I too cannot respect such hypocrisy. Show nested quote +
And yes, I think people who refuse to allow their beliefs and opinions to be swayed by evidence are being a little dense. Hence the mention of somebody believing the earth is 10,000 years old, when there are mountians of evidence to the contrary. Now whether someone personally believes this was all created by a micromanaging God, a watchmaker God, or no god at all isn't something that would cause me to question their ability to think.
If somebody steadfastly believed that America was founded in the 1930s by Russian Communists and refused to change their mind no matter what evidence they were shown, would you really say that their beliefs are equally valid? There's little difference between that and Young Earth creationism.
I see what you are saying, but I wasn't defending the insane or the ludicrous. The examples you cite here are provably false. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. The point of my post was that rejecting a political viewpoint because it is based on someone's religious beliefs and the values stemming therefrom is hypocritical because all it amounts to is making the logically unsupportable claim that my unprovable beliefs are inferior to your unprovable beliefs.
"Good science" certainly asks how, but it does not always answer it. The scientific theory is an ongoing process, you got that right, but no where does it state that the answer of "how" must be shown before acknowledging the theory.
Your first mistake, and the one most religious people like you make, is stating that macroevolution hasn't been observed. If you did any research at all, you would know that macroevolution has been observed and has been documented. I wouldn't expect someone like you to research evolution in depth in the first place, so don't take it too hard.
Your second mistake is thinking that ancient Greeks and Romans didn't recognize same sex marriage, which is also false. A Roman emperor married a man, look it up. Same sex marriage was barely an issue before the Christian Church got its hands on it and twisted it to their ends. It's pretty sad that you don't know your own religion's history.
I don't give a shit about religion and I don't give a shit if you think Atheism is a religion. While you may think homosexual marriage is about religion, the fundamental issue is that you think Christianity has a monopoly on marriage and you think it should keep it that way. That is demonstrably false, and what I can't respect is that while there is clear evidence to the contrary, you still use your talking points without an ounce of independent thought into it.
The issue is that in the U.S., marriage confers numerous rights on the couple, and homosexuals cannot receive those rights. You want to keep rights away from homosexuals? That's your choice, but don't fucking make it like it's something it's not.
|
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
"Protect the stability and strength" of marriage? Is there any evidence-at all- suggesting that gays being allowed to marry has somehow damaged the institution of marriage? And your next statement is even more laughable-what right do you have to tell someone else what to believe? You're going to force them to do something so they will have "eternal spiritual benefit"? Maybe to you, but it sure as hell isn't your place to tell someone else what's right and what's wrong, when what they're doing wrong has no negative impact on you or anyone else's lives. Gays having sex or being married has no impact on your life, but denying gays the right to marry has a big impact on their lives. That's the major difference, and that's the reason why opposing gay marriage is seen as forcing your views on others, while the same isn't true the other way around.
Funny, because religious conservatives often feel bullied by those who preach tolerance (except for conservatives), free speech (except for conservative ideas), equality (except for white people and the rich), freedom (except when it comes to things like school choice, health care, etc.), and all manner of other nice-sounding things. I too cannot respect such hypocrisy.
Lol@religious conservatives feeling "bullied"...You think white people aren't treated equally? The only argument that could possibly made for that is that there are certain scholarships and benefits for being a minority, but that's more because minority families tend to start in worse living conditions for many reasons, not because there's any kind of discrimination against white people(rofl...). And while it is true that there are hypocrites on the left, there's just as many, if not more, hypocrites on the right. And conservative ideas don't get free speech or tolerance? Is that a fucking joke? Have you ever heard of the Republican party? I disagree with most of what they say, but if I tried to deny their right to say it, I'd be just as bad as the religious conservatives who try to deny gays the right the marry or discriminate against Muslims, and I think most people on the left would agree.
|
On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours.
Protect the stability and strength on an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? wtf? Since when does marriage form the foundation of all human civilization? All I can see you saying in your post is you want to stop the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. THAT is trying to impose your religious beliefs on those who, quite frankly, don't give a fuck about Jesus or his message.
It's not like being gay is going to make you more likely to go to hell than if you're atheist. And anyways, if you accept Jesus into your heart, shouldn't you go to heaven even if you have homosexual sex? Is it any different than if you died and had been having lots of premarital sex with your girlfriend?
|
If you think something is sinful which doesn't negatively affect some else it should be a matter of belief not one of law.
Think what would happen if some other religion came into the majority in this kind of system, you would start having to follow their beliefs. It is happening right now all over the world. The results are not pretty for anyone valuing freedom and self determination.
Affirmative action I strongly disagree with. Its not the governments role to be treating people differently based on color no matter what the reason or intention.
|
On October 20 2011 09:00 Penitent wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 07:51 Kiarip wrote:On October 20 2011 06:55 Penitent wrote:
It's not being religious that ticks people off, unless somebody's a real fundamentalist. It's the legislating of religious issues.
Long time reader, first time poster. The quote above is emblematic of the hippocritical stupidity so often displayed by the political left, and I feel compelled to say something to expose it for what it is. Why should it be reprehensible for a religious person to vote for his preferences but "courageous" for an a-religious person to do the same? No serious conservative (myself included) has ever suggested that we pass laws to compel belief in anything, yet to hear tell from the media and other leftists you'd swear there was a conspiracy to turn America into an Iranian-style theocracy. America is a democracy. This means that we all have the right to vote our consciences when deciding, as a collective whole, how we are to live and what we are to do as a nation, as a state, and as a city. If you like abortion because you don't think the thing inside a pregnant woman's womb is a human being, then vote your conscience. But don't presume to invalidate the opinion of someone who disagrees with you and believes that abortion is wrong because it involves the cold-blooded murder of a child. If you like gay marriage because you think that marriage does little more than confer titles, tax benefits, and specific legal rights, then vote to support it. But don't sneer at others who believe that marriage is a holy institution pre-dating government, and who believe that an institution which has never accepted homosexual unions across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history should not be tampered with by the equivalent of a civilizational diletante. However, why should you make legislature that limits the rights of a person to do something that doesn't hurt anyone? who cares if 51% believes it's wrong, or 99% of people believe it's wrong. If it doesn't infringe on the constitutional rights of anyone else it should be allowed. And if marriage is indead a holy insitution pre-dating government, then why should we have government sponsorship of marriage? Let's remove all economic benefits from marriage so it REALLY IS a spiritual thing, and then if a church doesn't want to marry to gays because it's against its religious ideals... fine it won't. Who are you to say what does or does not "hurt" someone? Maybe you think that gay marriage or abortion or socialized medicine don't "hurt" anyone, but I and millions of others would strongly disagree. But let's say for the sake of argument that, for example, gay marriage doesn't "hurt" anyone as an objective fact. So what? Gay marriage is not a Constitutional right. This means that if there are enough people who think it a repugnant thing they should and do have the right to vote against it. Here's a parallel example: no one is "hurt" in mixed martial arts because the fighters engage in it of their own free will, but different states are free to permit or deny the practice of the sport in their domains because, like gay marriage, mixed martial arts is not a Constitutional right. As for ending government recognition of marriage, I can agree with you there. I would rather end the practice of officially recognizing marriage than allow the state to re-define an institution which has stood, largely unchanged, for the better part of all of recorded human history. Show nested quote +
When someone votes for traditional marriage, or pro-life laws, or voluntary prayer in schools, or the teaching of intelligent design as a possible alternative to evolution (which to date STILL has no provable model for the macro-evolutionary change of a species with x number chromosomes into a new species with x+y number of chromosomes), do you rage because you feel like someone is trying to impose his beliefs on you?
Guess what, it feels the EXACT same way for conservatives when you vote for gay marriage, abortion on demand, the exile of faith from all public discourse, or the acceptance of Darwinian evolution as a provable fact.
It doesn't because the existence of gay marriage, doesn't infringe on your human rights. Abortion is more contraversial though. As for not teaching faith, well I think this is a question of whether it would be a class that teaches a student vitally important skill or information or not. I'm against public schools in general, though and private schools to some extent can already teach faith if they want. This issue should be completely separate from the evolutionary issue though. Whether or not to teach evolution in a public school is more of a scientific issue. I think that you can teach it in school just fine, because Evolution as a scientific theory explains a great deal of what we know about species, still not everything, but there hasn't been any natural occurances that directly contradict evolution, although there are some that evolution has not yet fully explained.
This is the nature of democratic politics. Every single time you vote one way or another on an issue, you are voting to impose your thoughts, your preferences, your views, and your beliefs on other people. This is okay; this is how democracy is supposed to work. Living in a democracy means everyone gets a say. It doesn't mean you always get your way, but it beats the hell out of being ruled by a monarch or a dictator or a politburo or a central committee who decide what to do and don't give a fuck if you and everyone else disagree with them. And if you lose? Go out and convince your fellow citizens that yours is the righteous cause, and next time maybe the votes will swing in your favor.
No. Because luckily we have the constiution which protects our rights from oppressive legislation. And which rights might those be? Don't assume that the right to do the things you want to do is automatically in the Constitution; chances are it is not. This is what really rankles lots of Conservatives. People are always claiming they have the Constitutional right to this, that, and the other thing when no fair reading of the Constitution or its history could EVER support any of the rights so claimed. Show nested quote +
Don't for a second believe the bullshit notion that your values or beliefs or views are any better or more important than someone else's and should therefore be accorded greater weight or respect, to the point where people who don't think like you do ought to be mocked and ridiculed as "fundamentalists" or "neanderthals" or "mindless sheep". I'm a devout Catholic and a political conservative because I think for myself, I understand my values, and I know who and what I support. I'm no more a mindless peon than an atheist liberal who takes the exact opposite stand on every issue.
But when you're talking about issues of whether or not to take away a person's personal liberty which doesn't actually harm anyone... Should the people have a right to do that even if they're unananymous in their decision? Everyone likes more liberty, not less, but being a part of a democracy means living by the decisions of the community as a whole once those decisions are made. Yes, we have a Constitution, and yes, that Constitution prevents majority rule from taking away specific liberties from the people (e.g., the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to be free from enslavement). But the Constitution doesn't limit the ability of the body politic, or any subunit thereof, from doing what it wants to do within the boundaries of the Constitution. Gay marriage, abortion, functionally atheist schools and civic bodies - none of that crap is in, or logically mandated by, the Constitution or its history. That these have come to be accepted as Constitutional rights is the work of activist Supreme Court justices, who have robbed us all of our collective right to decide for ourselves how we should or should not live. I don't know about you, but I would rather lose a straight up vote on every issue dear to my heart than have five men and women in black robes telling everyone that I'm right. America is a democracy, and by God, it ought to stay that way. Finally, to the person who mentioned that we are a republic and not a democracy, you are only half right and inconsequentially at that. We are indeed a republic, but a democratic republic, and I don't see how the matter of representation in government at all detracts from the idea that this is a democratic country and that citizens have the right to vote their consciences, regardless of how those consciences are formed (religious, a-religious).
I'm not just half right, and it's not inconsequential. What you are advocating, or think that we have in the United States, or something, is a democracy. What we actually have is a (democratic) republic. That's a big difference. The reason we have a republic is exactly because of people that, given a 51% majority, would "collectively decide how we all should live".
There is also a difference between atheist and secular, but I won't bore you with silly facts.
|
On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:
Gah, I repeatedly make that mistake. So my spelling is periodically bad, sue me =/.
I'm only joking  It's ironic because of the proximity to an accusation of stupidity. (I've also done the same thing myself.)
I stand by my position, however, that the political left is often guilty of hypocrisy and that those spouting it are often too stupid to recognize it. Based on your detailed reply you're clearly not a stupid person, but it is nonetheless hypocritical to claim that conservatives want to legislate "religious" issues because the implication is that liberals do not. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I've always felt that there is plenty of hypocrisy in both camps.
I don't care which side is doing it. If a liberal Democrat wants to pass a law based on religion that has no secular support, I'm against that. If liberals tried to pass regulations for our businesses based on the early chapters of the Bible, I'd say that has no place in our government.
That someone accepts a religion, including its attendant moral value system, and votes according to that system, does not somehow make them inferior to others who reject religion, have a moral value system, and vote according to that system. It's all the same. To say that it is impermissible for a religious person to vote according to her beliefs and the values that stem from them is no different than saying that it is impermissible for a black person to vote according to his beliefs and the values that stem from them.
Everyone can vote one way or another on any given issue. Everyone does so based on their values. Everyone's values are drawn from or based on beliefs - first principles which are accepted without proof or reason. My position is that it is hypocritical for political leftists to denigrate religious beliefs and values while praising non-religious beliefs and values because all it comes down to is a cheap and logically unsupportable effort to de-legitimize viewpoints with which they do not agree.
It's not about inferiority, but it is important constitutionally. The Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment has long been interpreted as meaning that every law promulgated by every branch of government must have some secular purpose. Not just the interpretation of some 1960s liberal court, but as far back as Reynolds v US (1878).
That said, your second paragraph is pretty accurate, and I think the Court has made statements on this in the past. (but I can't remember the context and it's too late for me to search google for more than 5 minutes, which was unsuccessful. my apologies.) Basically, as long as a law has a secular purpose, then religious support for the law doesn't disqualify it constitutionally. For example if a bill was being considered to broaden welfare programs and Johnny was in favor of that because Jesus said to feed the poor, that's okay (Constitutionally) because the law itself clearly has a secular purpose. Or if somebody supported capital punishment because at times it was mandated by God in the Bible, that's also okay Constitutionally, because clearly the purpose of capital punishment isn't to advance religion and it has secular support.
I did read the entirety of your post and I did notice that you said as much. It is irrelevant. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is no logical reason whatsoever to oppose abortion. Let us assume further that for religious reasons many people do not like abortion anyway. In a democracy, such as ours, where the government is not bound by its own laws (i.e., the Constitution) from prohibiting or allowing abortion, the people have the right to decide, as a collective political whole, that they don't want abortion to happen in their land. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires every law promulgated by every branch of government to have some secular - i.e., atheist - purpose.
The last statement is in contradiction with well over a century of legal precedent.
Also, no, secular does not mean atheist. Secular refers to the things that are separate from religion. For example, taking a mathematical derivative is secular because it doesn't involve God, but it doesn't imply a lack of belief in God. Somebody can take a derivative whether they are Christian, atheist, Jewish, etc. On the other hand, if somebody needed to solve a mathematical problem and prayed for help, that would be religious.
Similarly, the scientific method is secular because it does not rely on God existing or not existing. Darwin himself was Christian throughout most of his life, including when he published Origin of the Species.
From the opposite direction, I don't know if I'd say atheism is secular, since it is a belief about the existence of God. But to some extent, whether atheism is secular or not is just academic semantics - atheism is a singular belief, not a belief system, so it's possible that atheist implies secular but secular doesn't imply atheist. Whatever.
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
I've made it quite clear that I have considered that, and that there are conservative positions on this issue that I don't agree with but don't find hateful.
As I said, I don't find it hateful if somebody wants to make marriage a religious ceremony and make civil unions about the legal rights. I don't find it hateful if someone wants to deregulate marriage entirely. Or even if they want government marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions with full legal benefits for homosexuals. (which I very strongly disagree with - "separate but equal" has tended to fail miserably - but won't go so far as to say it's definitely indicative of hatred)
But if someone wants the law to expressly treat homosexuals as second class citizens, to the point of not even accepting if we take the literal word "marriage" and keep it hetero-only and come up with a different word for gays, how can I not find that hateful? That's no different that saying gays should be arrested for living together or shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Also I'm not sure why you're painting this conflict between Christians and "leftists." While American Protestants tend to vote Republican, American Catholics tend to vote Democratic. (neither one lopsidedly - you're obviously an example of a conservative Catholic) Most American liberals/leftists are Christian. Worldwide, most Christians have views far to the left of our country's center. The Pope's economic views are to the left of Obama's and he's generally anti-war, in addition to the social conservatism. Half the reason Ayn Rand hated religion so much was because it promoted things like helping the poor while speaking out against gluttony, which she felt made Christianity "the best kindergarden of communism possible." (obviously a little extreme, then again that's Rand for you.) We're the exception to the rule... which I don't say as criticism, only to inform you that Christianity isn't inherently, or even predominantly, right-wing.
In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours.
Speaking of straw man arguments, I never said religious conservatives shouldn't be allowed to marry or shouldn't have the same legal rights as other Americans.
If by "numerous" you mean a handful over the course of hundreds of millions (billions?) of marriages over the course of human history, and if by "recognized" you mean not legally or generally acknowledged as being the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, then yes, your interpretation of the wikipedia page you cite would be correct. Just because there have been isolated instances of homosexual relationships being acknowledged and accepted to one limited degree or another does not change the fact that the institution of marriage has been of a heterosexual nature for millennia. The ancient Greeks, accepting as they were of homosexuality, did not acknowledge homosexual marriages. I believe I stand vindicated on this point.
That's the problem with a statement like "across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history." "All" is a pretty strong word. Saying "all prime numbers are odd" is actually false, just because of little ol' number 2. Similarly your statement is incorrect. Something like "the vast majority of marriages throughout human history have been heterosexual" would be correct.
I also wouldn't consider the Emperor of Rome insignificant myself.
I've been referred to the same link you provided before. I've read it numerous times. It fails to answer one of the most basic questions that science (good science anyway) always asks: how? Yes, yes, you have falsifiable theories and such. But still: how? Nowhere in the link you provide (or anywhere else for that matter) is there a concrete explanation of how one species transforms into another, higher species with more chromosomes that miraculously work to produce new structures and functions in that new species. Micro-evolution - the evolutionary change of species to different forms of that same species - is a provable fact. It is demonstrable in the field; no one disputes this. But macro-evolution is as much an article of faith as is creationism. In essence, macro-evolution can be summarized thus:
1. Functioning species with X number of chromosomes.
2. ?????? [insert theory here]
3. Different functioning species with X+Y number of chromosomes.
4. Profit.
If your position then is that something ought not to be taught because it is not a scientific theory, then I would suggest that macro-evolution should be kept out of schools (I don't actually think this - I'd prefer it to be taught alongside ID).
On this I will note finally that I don't actually have a problem with the theory of evolution. To my mind evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive things (who, after all, is to say that God did not fashion the creatures of the world through the processes of the nature He set in motion in the first place?). The only problem I have is, again, with the hypocrisy of ridiculing religious belief when "scientific belief" is itself alive and kicking.
Macro and micro-evolution are a false dichotomy. What matters is your DNA. Kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc are just useful levels of classifications for biologists; they don't really "exist" in nature. There are actually frogs in Texas where subspecies A can reproduce with subspecies B, B can reproduce with C, but A cannot reproduce with C. At some point individuals have enough genetic differences that they can't successfully reproduce, even if they have the same number of chromosomes. (trivia: some black rats also have 46 chromosomes, the same number as humans)
The link explains how one chromosome can split into two. The link explains how one chromosome can become longer or shorter. These have been observed in nature. That's the scientific method for you.
Now you do have a point that one can always ask "how" until eventually there is no real answer. While the evidence for evolution and the big bang are extremely solid, we understand a lot less about abiogenesis (I think - someone correct me if I am mistaken) or what happened to cause the big bang. I don't want public science teachers teaching random guesses about what caused these things as if they were an accepted theory until we have a stockpile of evidence for them, because that isn't how science works. Science is not about having complete, total understanding about everything in the universe. It's about explaining that parts that we have come to understand, to the best of our ability. "I don't know" or "we're still investigating that" is a perfectly legitimate answer in science, and I'd go as far as to say that there is no scientific theory in existence that you can't ask "how" enough times without eventually coming to that answer.
Honestly, the ire should be directed at the theory of gravity not evolution You have to poke extremely deep to get to evolutionary issues that we don't understand. Whereas in comparison - we've already identified DNA as the basic unit of genetic information, but no "graviton" or other messenger particle has ever been observed for gravitational force. We don't know what happens with gravity in a quantum mechanics framework. These are all more basic problems than the 58th iteration of "how"
Obviously that's a little in jest, but I do think that the lack of comparable objections to the teaching of gravity indicate that wanting "good science" to be taught has little to do with why people try to argue that tiny gaps in our understanding of evolution are evidence that the theory is on roughly even footing with other historical explanations.
Eventually this becomes an issue of personal ability/willingness to understand difficult concepts and how we react to the really tough questions. Because at some point, there's a question that we don't know the answer to. It may not be "how do chromosomes split" but there are obviously things scientists don't understand. Saying "oh, that's where God comes in" isn't good science, and if we are interested in teaching good science then we shouldn't introduce that into the classroom. The history of human understanding is full of great scientists - atheists, Christians, Muslims, whatever - who searched for the scientific answer and eventually discovered it. Many (probably most) said "this is the how, God is the why" which, I think, only the most hardcore atheist would have any significant issue with beyond basic philosophical disagreement. Humans today have benefitted immensely because some scientist in the past didn't accept things like "we don't know what's making you sick, it's probably just the Lord's will." If the purpose of science education is to promote an actual understanding of the scientific method as well as to convey some of the basic facts about the current state of scientific understanding, then watering down that process with philosophy or religion is only going to hurt us in achieving that goal. Religion and philosophy have their place in our society and in human thought, but it's not in the laboratory.
From the other angle, I always felt like relying on areas of human ignorance to say "ah ha! This is where we find God!" is kinda selling faith short. Someone's belief in God should stand firmly along with what we know, not be some sort of filler for things in the world we don't (yet) understand. I think that's much more positive perspective, personally.
This is the nature of democratic politics. Every single time you vote one way or another on an issue, you are voting to impose your thoughts, your preferences, your views, and your beliefs on other people. This is okay; this is how democracy is supposed to work. Living in a democracy means everyone gets a say. It doesn't mean you always get your way, but it beats the hell out of being ruled by a monarch or a dictator or a politburo or a central committee who decide what to do and don't give a fuck if you and everyone else disagree with them. And if you lose? Go out and convince your fellow citizens that yours is the righteous cause, and next time maybe the votes will swing in your favor.
Again, it's a matter of degree. Someone wanting to impose affirmative action (which I diasgree with, but understand the arguments for redressing lingering inequality) isn't really the same as someone wanting to impose a ban on interracial marriage or to impose slavery (which not only do I disagree with, but any decent human being should as well).
So what if they are just being a bunch of assholes? Democracy means you get a say. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you're a nice guy about it. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you agree with everyone else. Democracy does NOT mean you only get a say if you think the right thoughts or express the right opinions. Democracy means you get a say.
I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Anyone is free to vote like a complete jackass if they want to, and I'm free to call a spade a spade if I want to. Democracy does NOT mean you can't call people out if they take stances you find reprehensible. It seems like you're objecting to me objecting to other people's positions/voting behavior. You can have your opinion on an issue, but I can have my opinion on your opinion.
Part of articulating how unbelievably assholish it is to deny someone health insurance coverage or hospital visitation rights because of their sexual orientation is so that people who have moderate positions and/or open minds will think about just what they're doing. To some extent I expect there will always be some percentage of the population that flat-out hates homosexuals. (any reasonable conservative will admit that the people who physically assault someone for being gay or burn crosses in the yard of a family with a gay child are guilty of hatred, so we can agree that homophobia exists even if we disagree on the scope.) I don't have any expectation that homophobia will be wiped out or that there won't be some people who think gays should have fewer legal rights. By convincing the people whose opinions can be changed, I'm limiting the damage done by those whose can't.
Even when I was still a conservative Republican, opposition to civil unions was the first thing I changed my mind on, because people who care about equality made it clear how much harm this causes gay people and therefore why it was hateful to be aware of this and still hold that position. If people like Bill O'Reilly can come around and support equality, then there is reason for liberals, libertarians, and conservatives who favor equality to push people to change. Agreeing to disagree doesn't cut it on civil rights.
Funny, because religious conservatives often feel bullied by those who preach tolerance (except for conservatives), free speech (except for conservative ideas), equality (except for white people and the rich), freedom (except when it comes to things like school choice, health care, etc.), and all manner of other nice-sounding things. I too cannot respect such hypocrisy.
I agree, it's totally hypocritical to support gay marriage but want to restrict a company from dumping toxic waste in the river. Because both are restrictions on some type of freedom. Great argument. Nevermind what the consequences of people exercising said freedoms might be - either you want to restrict EVERYTHING, or you're an anarchist, or your're a total hypocrit!
Of course, I assume that people who expect us to "tolerate conservatives" (because as we know, political disagreement = intolerance) but themselves are unwilling to tolerate gay marriage are equally hypocritical under your definition?
Show nested quote +
And yes, I think people who refuse to allow their beliefs and opinions to be swayed by evidence are being a little dense. Hence the mention of somebody believing the earth is 10,000 years old, when there are mountians of evidence to the contrary. Now whether someone personally believes this was all created by a micromanaging God, a watchmaker God, or no god at all isn't something that would cause me to question their ability to think.
If somebody steadfastly believed that America was founded in the 1930s by Russian Communists and refused to change their mind no matter what evidence they were shown, would you really say that their beliefs are equally valid? There's little difference between that and Young Earth creationism.
I see what you are saying, but I wasn't defending the insane or the ludicrous. The examples you cite here are provably false. The same cannot be said for the existence of God.
That's why I've never said people who believe in God are insane. I literally, in the paragraph you quoted, said "Now whether someone personally believes this was all created by a micromanaging God, a watchmaker God, or no god at all isn't something that would cause me to question their ability to think." I've clearly and consistently made a distinction between fundamentalism (which I think is crazy) and general religious belief (which I don't think is crazy).
The point of my post was that rejecting a political viewpoint because it is based on someone's religious beliefs and the values stemming therefrom is hypocritical because all it amounts to is making the logically unsupportable claim that my unprovable beliefs are inferior to your unprovable beliefs.
No, that's another straw man argument. At this point I'm starting to think you're an atheist trolling the forum... either that or you don't know how to have a discussion without being extremely combative.
|
this gay marriage stuff is a joke to me. RELIGION says gays are bad. MARRIAGE is RELIGIOUS. if you are gay, you are not involved (heavily) in RELIGION. why would you NEED their PERMISSION to declare life-long love for someone. why do you NEED their LABEL on life-long love: MARRIAGE?
why must you be accepted by the people that will NOT accept you no matter what?
that said, this should not be a law-based issue. separation of church and state should disallow ANY federal or state provision endorsing, or denying, or even simple arguments for or against, marriage. marriage is a religious institution, and therefore, should be COMPLETELY separated from all state or federal law.
as soon as you pass any law that even MENTIONS marriage, even TAX LAWS, it is a violation of the constitution, because the entire thing is part of a religion. civil unions may be secular, but they are still TECHNICALLY unconstitutional. you can be life-partners without a government or community having to approve.
i believe this thread is about republican nominees (i know they talk about gay marriage), and i'm sure there are bigger problems we can be discussing. i consider myself a constitutional conservative. i am not christian (or any RELIGION) but i am a very spiritual person. god and i are tight, and from what i have learned, god made EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE, so your "sins" are a perceptual thing in the human mind.
you see, NOTHING in the grand scope of things is "evil". the supreme creator (w/e u want to call it) made it all, and it all has a PURPOSE. the PURPOSE of PERCEIVED evil is to show you that which you are NOT. this is ALL a learning process for our souls. many of the religious fanatics are failing this schooling, because god want's you to UNDERSTAND the things that have been created. most of these people are wrapped up in man-made laws (state and religious) and cannot see the true beauty of creation's many facets.
SEPARATION of church and state. 1st amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." by creating a law that bans "gay marriage" you are creating a law that establishes that christianity (or any other religion that would happen to agree) is MORE valid than someone else's beliefs. if someone is gay, you could say that that is part of their "life-belief-structure", or religion, and by passing this law, you are prohibiting the free exercise of thier life.
the purpose of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. the fifth amendment is there to protect innocents and guilty criminals equally. this pattern exists throughout the constitution.
The tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
this is why we are a republic, not a democracy. majority does NOT rule.
|
That is a magnificently large post that fails to explain why exactly the politicians should be voting on marriage in the first place.
As has been said many times in this thread, over and over again, why does the government have to legislate on what is effectively a traditional ceremony?
Politicians are voting on marriage issues because marriage is a status recognized by the state which confers tangible benefits to those who are deemed married. In effect, the rest of society subsidizes those who are married because of the state's recognition of marriage. More importantly, however, the law is a teacher. What the law allows and protects eventually comes to be viewed as acceptable, and what the law prohibits and disavows eventually comes to be rejected by all as a matter of course. Not all the time, mind you, but this is generally how things work. Thus, the matter of gay marriage is critically important to everyone interested in what their country and their society is going to look like in the future - no, homosexuals are not the only interested parties, because I don't have to marry another guy in order to end up living in a society that has moved in a direction I don't like.
There are extremists of both sides of the political spectrum, and they tend to shout at their opposing extremists. But so say that ID is somehow comparable to evolution is just plain non-sense.
Macro-evolution cannot be proven simply because of the time scale, however there are vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory. Not least of course, similarities between animals in similar habitats. Common body types, niche specification. The list goes on. ID as a theory basically states that anything that is not proven by science is done by god. Well how to disprove that?
Can you give me a reason why God would choose to use similar techniques across genetically related animals? Surely a most magnificant being would show his magnificence by creating completely unique versions each time.
Evolution as a principle provides an explanation that is plausible. ID provides nothing but fairy tales.
I'm not a biologist and I would wager that no one else in this thread is either (but not a large wager - TLers are a smart bunch, no?), but let me be clear that I do not claim to support the teaching of creationism in public schools. ID, as much as I know of it at least, is intriguing to me as a potential scientific discipline, because the people who started it weren't a bunch of uneducated Bible-thumping idiots - they were Ph.D.s and career scientists who'd dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I think it completely reasonable for them to have posed the question as to whether evolution is a properly complete theory because, just to name one example, they can raise issues which evolution cannot answer on even a theoretical basis, such as the irreducible complexity of things like ribosomes or the molecular motor that gives a sperm cell motility.
Let me repeat too that I don't have a problem with evolution qua evolution. My problem is that many of the same people who ridicule conservatives because they vote their religious beliefs are just as happy to demand that others embrace their own world view on matters such as evolution, even though significant elements of evolution don't even have existing theoretical models (e.g., the process by which an organism with X number of chromosomes becomes a completely different organism with X+Y number of chromosomes in which those new chromosomes are expressed as new structures and new functions in the new organism) and are therefore less "scientific" than is commonly "believed" (lol).
|
Politicians are voting on marriage issues because marriage is a status recognized by the state which confers tangible benefits to those who are deemed married.
this is the problem. this should not be. it is unconstitutional.
|
On October 20 2011 17:35 fenix404 wrote:Show nested quote +Politicians are voting on marriage issues because marriage is a status recognized by the state which confers tangible benefits to those who are deemed married. this is the problem. this should not be. it is unconstitutional.
No, it's not. Marriage as a legal status is, at least ostensibly, a secular entity. That's why all you need to be legally married is a judge and a witness. It doesn't matter what religion you subscribe to, the legal availability and benefits of marriage are the same.
|
On October 20 2011 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours.
Protect the stability and strength on an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? wtf? Since when does marriage form the foundation of all human civilization? All I can see you saying in your post is you want to stop the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. THAT is trying to impose your religious beliefs on those who, quite frankly, don't give a fuck about Jesus or his message. It's not like being gay is going to make you more likely to go to hell than if you're atheist. And anyways, if you accept Jesus into your heart, shouldn't you go to heaven even if you have homosexual sex? Is it any different than if you died and had been having lots of premarital sex with your girlfriend?
Since always. Civilization's foundation is the family unit, headed by a married father.
Every society that did not have such a family unit, never made it out of the hunter gatherer stage (i.e. not civilization).
Some civilizations have attempted to move past it. They are either dead or dying.
|
That said, your second paragraph is pretty accurate, and I think the Court has made statements on this in the past. (but I can't remember the context and it's too late for me to search google for more than 5 minutes, which was unsuccessful. my apologies.) Basically, as long as a law has a secular purpose, then religious support for the law doesn't disqualify it constitutionally. For example if a bill was being considered to broaden welfare programs and Johnny was in favor of that because Jesus said to feed the poor, that's okay (Constitutionally) because the law itself clearly has a secular purpose. Or if somebody supported capital punishment because at times it was mandated by God in the Bible, that's also okay Constitutionally, because clearly the purpose of capital punishment isn't to advance religion and it has secular support.
You are correct that Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century and a half has largely followed this train of thought. Consider, however, that the Supreme Court (or to be more precise, the portion of the Court that agreed with this line of thinking) could be wrong. I repeat the irrefutable claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which requires any law made at any level of government to have some "secular" purpose. I challenge any and all who disagree with me to find in the text or the history of the text any hint whatsoever that the Framers of the Constitution or its subsequent Amendments ever intended to pass into law a general, universally binding requirement that all laws have some "secular" purpose.
There is a reason why the Framers never did so, and why they would be appalled to know that our Supreme Court has unilaterally inserted such a requirement into the Constitution by raw judicial fiat. Consider the consequences of such a requirement (which in technical legal parlance is actually framed as the requirement that all laws have some "rational basis"). Who decides what is "rational"? Why, the Supreme Court does. So if all laws everywhere must be "rational", who then commands ultimate veto authority over every single law in America? Why, the Supreme Court does. Consider carefully that what is "rational" to some will be madness to others. There is no infallible way of establishing the boundaries of "rationality". Because of this, any legal requirement that a law be "rational" - or in your terms, have a "secular" purpose - is effectively nothing more than a power grab by the one branch of our government that is immune to electoral challenge.
The very idea that a law must have some "secular" purpose or "rational" basis is repugnant to the concept of a democracy. This is America, where we have the right to elect our rulers and replace them if they rule for ill. I didn't sign up to be ruled by a minimum of five unelected elites wearing black robes, and I suspect neither did you.
As I said, I don't find it hateful if somebody wants to make marriage a religious ceremony and make civil unions about the legal rights. I don't find it hateful if someone wants to deregulate marriage entirely. Or even if they want government marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions with full legal benefits for homosexuals. (which I very strongly disagree with - "separate but equal" has tended to fail miserably - but won't go so far as to say it's definitely indicative of hatred)
But if someone wants the law to expressly treat homosexuals as second class citizens, to the point of not even accepting if we take the literal word "marriage" and keep it hetero-only and come up with a different word for gays, how can I not find that hateful? That's no different that saying gays should be arrested for living together or shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Okay, so let's take your stand against "hatred" to the next logical step. Do you support polygamous marriage? If not, why do you hate people who just want to engage in loving, polyamorous relationships? What about incestuous marriage? Or, if you think the possibility of genetically deformed children is too great a risk, what about homosexually incestuous marriage? Do you support that? If not, why do you hate family members who want to engage in loving, sexual relationships with each other? What about pedophiliac marriage? The age of consent in many countries around the world is as low as 13; isn't it hateful for us to bar significantly older adults from taking willing spouses at young ages?
I know you'll probably try to call this a straw man argument, but it isn't because it gets to the heart of the problem of officially recognizing gay marriage - that doing so obliterates the original purposes of having the institution of marriage in the first place, and having done that, there's no logical reason why the institution of marriage should be denied to other possible sexual groupings of people.
The whole point of marriage was to create stable bonds between the two halves of our species so that they could pool resources and work together to birth and raise the next generation of children. Governments realized that it was in their best interests to promote and protect marriage and correspondingly recognized marriage and included it in the basic framework of governance.
You are free to disagree with this understanding of marriage, as indeed most everyone still participating in this thread does, but recognize too that if you choose instead an understanding of marriage as the mere conference of special rights and benefits, there is no logical reason why marriage shouldn't also be extended to sexual groupings of people that even the most die-hard gay marriage supporters would find repugnant.
That's the problem with a statement like "across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history." "All" is a pretty strong word. Saying "all prime numbers are odd" is actually false, just because of little ol' number 2. Similarly your statement is incorrect. Something like "the vast majority of marriages throughout human history have been heterosexual" would be correct.
I also wouldn't consider the Emperor of Rome insignificant myself.
Fair enough. As for the Emperor of Rome, however, I will note that Nero is widely recognized as having been a seriously disturbed and psychopathic individual; he "married" a man because he was the emperor, and no one says no to the emperor, especially when he's as likely to cut your hand off as shake it.
Religion and philosophy have their place in our society and in human thought, but it's not in the laboratory.
I'd have quoted the entire section but it was quite long and all I had to say in reply is that if there is in fact more to speciation than I have been able to find on my own, then I'm quite happy to have evolution taught in public schools as a proper scientific theory. As it is, I have yet to find anywhere a sufficiently plausible theoretical model for how a fish becomes a zebra a billion generations down the line. But I do think it is overly simplistic to say that ID boils down to finding the gaps in evolutionary theory and then saying "that's where God is". Many of the questions posed by scientists who support ID are eminently valid ones for which, to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists have yet to formulate any answers, theoretical or otherwise (such as the problem of irreducible complexity on a molecular level - and no, exaptation does not explain how the molecular pieces of a ribosome could have come together for some other purpose only to magically chance upon the awesomeness of being a ribosome). But I digress.
I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Anyone is free to vote like a complete jackass if they want to, and I'm free to call a spade a spade if I want to. Democracy does NOT mean you can't call people out if they take stances you find reprehensible. It seems like you're objecting to me objecting to other people's positions/voting behavior. You can have your opinion on an issue, but I can have my opinion on your opinion.
You're definitely right that you and everyone else is free to call me out for opposing gay marriage. But the manner in which that "calling out" is done is what so often devolves into hypocritical bullshit. If you want to say that you disagree with me because you believe that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships and should be accorded the same rights and benefits, fine. But to claim that my position is bad or illegitimate simply because it is based on my religious beliefs is hypocrisy because the opposite position isn't based on anything better (and I direct this not at you in particular but to liberals in general).
Why do you support gay marriage? Because I believe in equality for all people. Why do you want equality for all people? Because of the following 32 reasons, all of which boil down to equality being a good thing. Why is equality a good thing? Because ... um ... because it is. Why? Because it just is. Well, why is it better to support good things instead of bad things? Because I think good things are better than bad things. Why? Because.
That, right there, is the opposing viewpoint's foundational religious belief on this matter. At some point, every value preference must be rooted in a belief that is accepted without question or further basis, be it religious in origin or not. So to claim that religious voters, like myself, who vote their values, are somehow imposing our religion on others while non-religious voters, who vote their values, are not, is complete and total hypocrisy. They ARE imposing their religious values on others when they vote - they just don't see it as such because they don't organize their values and beliefs into coherent, internally consistent religions like religious voters do.
No, that's another straw man argument. At this point I'm starting to think you're an atheist trolling the forum... either that or you don't know how to have a discussion without being extremely combative.
Exactly what about my argument makes it a "straw man"? When a liberal (not necessarily you btw) blithely declaims that religious nutjobs like me are ruining the country by imposing our religious values on everyone else, how is that not also a statement that my religious values and beliefs are somehow less legitimate than the values and beliefs of those who disagree with me?
Everyone says that I am imposing my religion on homosexuals when I deny with my vote a homosexual's ability to marry his sexual partner, but no one seems to understand that they too impose their "religion" (i.e., value and belief system) on me when they vote to recognize and support something which I want society to reject. No, I am not being forced to marry a man, but I am being forced to live in a country that officially recognizes and accepts and promotes homosexual relationships - something which I do not want.
The whole point of my original post and these succeeding replies is to counter the notion that religious values and beliefs are a less legitimate source of political preferences than a-religious / atheistic / "secular" / "rational" / spaghetti monster values and beliefs.
|
Disclaimer+ Show Spoiler +-I'm just some rookie noob at TL with a crappy post count and no seniority.
It would be a shame if this thread gets closed for failure to mention a candidate, or a position of a candidate. I personal like reading this thread. I'm sorry for putting it out there, but this thread is like the only thread you can mention Mr Paul without being dragged to the Bog of Eternal Stench.
Sorry in advance. It's early
|
On October 20 2011 19:07 Penitent wrote:Show nested quote +
That said, your second paragraph is pretty accurate, and I think the Court has made statements on this in the past. (but I can't remember the context and it's too late for me to search google for more than 5 minutes, which was unsuccessful. my apologies.) Basically, as long as a law has a secular purpose, then religious support for the law doesn't disqualify it constitutionally. For example if a bill was being considered to broaden welfare programs and Johnny was in favor of that because Jesus said to feed the poor, that's okay (Constitutionally) because the law itself clearly has a secular purpose. Or if somebody supported capital punishment because at times it was mandated by God in the Bible, that's also okay Constitutionally, because clearly the purpose of capital punishment isn't to advance religion and it has secular support.
You are correct that Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century and a half has largely followed this train of thought. Consider, however, that the Supreme Court (or to be more precise, the portion of the Court that agreed with this line of thinking) could be wrong. I repeat the irrefutable claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which requires any law made at any level of government to have some "secular" purpose. I challenge any and all who disagree with me to find in the text or the history of the text any hint whatsoever that the Framers of the Constitution or its subsequent Amendments ever intended to pass into law a general, universally binding requirement that all laws have some "secular" purpose. There is a reason why the Framers never did so, and why they would be appalled to know that our Supreme Court has unilaterally inserted such a requirement into the Constitution by raw judicial fiat. Consider the consequences of such a requirement (which in technical legal parlance is actually framed as the requirement that all laws have some "rational basis"). Who decides what is "rational"? Why, the Supreme Court does. So if all laws everywhere must be "rational", who then commands ultimate veto authority over every single law in America? Why, the Supreme Court does. Consider carefully that what is "rational" to some will be madness to others. There is no infallible way of establishing the boundaries of "rationality". Because of this, any legal requirement that a law be "rational" - or in your terms, have a "secular" purpose - is effectively nothing more than a power grab by the one branch of our government that is immune to electoral challenge. The very idea that a law must have some "secular" purpose or "rational" basis is repugnant to the concept of a democracy. This is America, where we have the right to elect our rulers and replace them if they rule for ill. I didn't sign up to be ruled by a minimum of five unelected elites wearing black robes, and I suspect neither did you. Show nested quote +
As I said, I don't find it hateful if somebody wants to make marriage a religious ceremony and make civil unions about the legal rights. I don't find it hateful if someone wants to deregulate marriage entirely. Or even if they want government marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions with full legal benefits for homosexuals. (which I very strongly disagree with - "separate but equal" has tended to fail miserably - but won't go so far as to say it's definitely indicative of hatred)
But if someone wants the law to expressly treat homosexuals as second class citizens, to the point of not even accepting if we take the literal word "marriage" and keep it hetero-only and come up with a different word for gays, how can I not find that hateful? That's no different that saying gays should be arrested for living together or shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Okay, so let's take your stand against "hatred" to the next logical step. Do you support polygamous marriage? If not, why do you hate people who just want to engage in loving, polyamorous relationships? What about incestuous marriage? Or, if you think the possibility of genetically deformed children is too great a risk, what about homosexually incestuous marriage? Do you support that? If not, why do you hate family members who want to engage in loving, sexual relationships with each other? What about pedophiliac marriage? The age of consent in many countries around the world is as low as 13; isn't it hateful for us to bar significantly older adults from taking willing spouses at young ages? I know you'll probably try to call this a straw man argument, but it isn't because it gets to the heart of the problem of officially recognizing gay marriage - that doing so obliterates the original purposes of having the institution of marriage in the first place, and having done that, there's no logical reason why the institution of marriage should be denied to other possible sexual groupings of people. The whole point of marriage was to create stable bonds between the two halves of our species so that they could pool resources and work together to birth and raise the next generation of children. Governments realized that it was in their best interests to promote and protect marriage and correspondingly recognized marriage and included it in the basic framework of governance. You are free to disagree with this understanding of marriage, as indeed most everyone still participating in this thread does, but recognize too that if you choose instead an understanding of marriage as the mere conference of special rights and benefits, there is no logical reason why marriage shouldn't also be extended to sexual groupings of people that even the most die-hard gay marriage supporters would find repugnant. Show nested quote +
That's the problem with a statement like "across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history." "All" is a pretty strong word. Saying "all prime numbers are odd" is actually false, just because of little ol' number 2. Similarly your statement is incorrect. Something like "the vast majority of marriages throughout human history have been heterosexual" would be correct.
I also wouldn't consider the Emperor of Rome insignificant myself.
Fair enough. As for the Emperor of Rome, however, I will note that Nero is widely recognized as having been a seriously disturbed and psychopathic individual; he "married" a man because he was the emperor, and no one says no to the emperor, especially when he's as likely to cut your hand off as shake it. Show nested quote +
Religion and philosophy have their place in our society and in human thought, but it's not in the laboratory.
I'd have quoted the entire section but it was quite long and all I had to say in reply is that if there is in fact more to speciation than I have been able to find on my own, then I'm quite happy to have evolution taught in public schools as a proper scientific theory. As it is, I have yet to find anywhere a sufficiently plausible theoretical model for how a fish becomes a zebra a billion generations down the line. But I do think it is overly simplistic to say that ID boils down to finding the gaps in evolutionary theory and then saying "that's where God is". Many of the questions posed by scientists who support ID are eminently valid ones for which, to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists have yet to formulate any answers, theoretical or otherwise (such as the problem of irreducible complexity on a molecular level - and no, exaptation does not explain how the molecular pieces of a ribosome could have come together for some other purpose only to magically chance upon the awesomeness of being a ribosome). But I digress. Show nested quote +
I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Anyone is free to vote like a complete jackass if they want to, and I'm free to call a spade a spade if I want to. Democracy does NOT mean you can't call people out if they take stances you find reprehensible. It seems like you're objecting to me objecting to other people's positions/voting behavior. You can have your opinion on an issue, but I can have my opinion on your opinion.
You're definitely right that you and everyone else is free to call me out for opposing gay marriage. But the manner in which that "calling out" is done is what so often devolves into hypocritical bullshit. If you want to say that you disagree with me because you believe that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships and should be accorded the same rights and benefits, fine. But to claim that my position is bad or illegitimate simply because it is based on my religious beliefs is hypocrisy because the opposite position isn't based on anything better (and I direct this not at you in particular but to liberals in general). Why do you support gay marriage? Because I believe in equality for all people. Why do you want equality for all people? Because of the following 32 reasons, all of which boil down to equality being a good thing. Why is equality a good thing? Because ... um ... because it is. Why? Because it just is. Well, why is it better to support good things instead of bad things? Because I think good things are better than bad things. Why? Because. That, right there, is the opposing viewpoint's foundational religious belief on this matter. At some point, every value preference must be rooted in a belief that is accepted without question or further basis, be it religious in origin or not. So to claim that religious voters, like myself, who vote their values, are somehow imposing our religion on others while non-religious voters, who vote their values, are not, is complete and total hypocrisy. They ARE imposing their religious values on others when they vote - they just don't see it as such because they don't organize their values and beliefs into coherent, internally consistent religions like religious voters do. Show nested quote +
No, that's another straw man argument. At this point I'm starting to think you're an atheist trolling the forum... either that or you don't know how to have a discussion without being extremely combative.
Exactly what about my argument makes it a "straw man"? When a liberal (not necessarily you btw) blithely declaims that religious nutjobs like me are ruining the country by imposing our religious values on everyone else, how is that not also a statement that my religious values and beliefs are somehow less legitimate than the values and beliefs of those who disagree with me? Everyone says that I am imposing my religion on homosexuals when I deny with my vote a homosexual's ability to marry his sexual partner, but no one seems to understand that they too impose their "religion" (i.e., value and belief system) on me when they vote to recognize and support something which I want society to reject. No, I am not being forced to marry a man, but I am being forced to live in a country that officially recognizes and accepts and promotes homosexual relationships - something which I do not want. The whole point of my original post and these succeeding replies is to counter the notion that religious values and beliefs are a less legitimate source of political preferences than a-religious / atheistic / "secular" / "rational" / spaghetti monster values and beliefs.
When a person supports gay marriage, he isn't attacking religious beliefs... He is defending some individuals' rights to an act that fits into their right of pursuit of happiness without infriging on the rights of any other citizens.
When a person supports banning gay marriage he is supporting the Federal infrigement of personal liberties...
How is the distinction not obvious? No one is making any do gay marriages just because they're legal, it just gives people that want to a legal ability to do so.
As for evolution. Yes it's not a complete theory, but tons of theories are incomplete at this point for example in particle physics, and etc. There's nothing found so far to contradict evolution, although it's true that there phenomena found that evolution has not yet explained.
There's a difference. If there's counter evidence that it becomes obvious that the theory is wrong in its curent state, but if there are phenomena that the theoy hasn't yet explained it simply means that our understanding of nature doesn't yet encompass that particular phenomenom.
An example of disproving a theory for example, is how in early 20th century physicists believed that everything existed in some kind of medium, called ether, but then astronomists measured the red shift, and this directly contradicted the possibility of existence of ether.
|
On October 20 2011 19:02 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours.
Protect the stability and strength on an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? wtf? Since when does marriage form the foundation of all human civilization? All I can see you saying in your post is you want to stop the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. THAT is trying to impose your religious beliefs on those who, quite frankly, don't give a fuck about Jesus or his message. It's not like being gay is going to make you more likely to go to hell than if you're atheist. And anyways, if you accept Jesus into your heart, shouldn't you go to heaven even if you have homosexual sex? Is it any different than if you died and had been having lots of premarital sex with your girlfriend? Since always. Civilization's foundation is the family unit, headed by a married father. Every society that did not have such a family unit, never made it out of the hunter gatherer stage (i.e. not civilization). Some civilizations have attempted to move past it. They are either dead or dying.
isn't that every civilization? show me one that isn't dead or dying. if you use a historical reference, it's dead. if it's one in the present, it's dying.
|
On October 21 2011 00:39 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 19:07 Penitent wrote:
That said, your second paragraph is pretty accurate, and I think the Court has made statements on this in the past. (but I can't remember the context and it's too late for me to search google for more than 5 minutes, which was unsuccessful. my apologies.) Basically, as long as a law has a secular purpose, then religious support for the law doesn't disqualify it constitutionally. For example if a bill was being considered to broaden welfare programs and Johnny was in favor of that because Jesus said to feed the poor, that's okay (Constitutionally) because the law itself clearly has a secular purpose. Or if somebody supported capital punishment because at times it was mandated by God in the Bible, that's also okay Constitutionally, because clearly the purpose of capital punishment isn't to advance religion and it has secular support.
You are correct that Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century and a half has largely followed this train of thought. Consider, however, that the Supreme Court (or to be more precise, the portion of the Court that agreed with this line of thinking) could be wrong. I repeat the irrefutable claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which requires any law made at any level of government to have some "secular" purpose. I challenge any and all who disagree with me to find in the text or the history of the text any hint whatsoever that the Framers of the Constitution or its subsequent Amendments ever intended to pass into law a general, universally binding requirement that all laws have some "secular" purpose. There is a reason why the Framers never did so, and why they would be appalled to know that our Supreme Court has unilaterally inserted such a requirement into the Constitution by raw judicial fiat. Consider the consequences of such a requirement (which in technical legal parlance is actually framed as the requirement that all laws have some "rational basis"). Who decides what is "rational"? Why, the Supreme Court does. So if all laws everywhere must be "rational", who then commands ultimate veto authority over every single law in America? Why, the Supreme Court does. Consider carefully that what is "rational" to some will be madness to others. There is no infallible way of establishing the boundaries of "rationality". Because of this, any legal requirement that a law be "rational" - or in your terms, have a "secular" purpose - is effectively nothing more than a power grab by the one branch of our government that is immune to electoral challenge. The very idea that a law must have some "secular" purpose or "rational" basis is repugnant to the concept of a democracy. This is America, where we have the right to elect our rulers and replace them if they rule for ill. I didn't sign up to be ruled by a minimum of five unelected elites wearing black robes, and I suspect neither did you.
As I said, I don't find it hateful if somebody wants to make marriage a religious ceremony and make civil unions about the legal rights. I don't find it hateful if someone wants to deregulate marriage entirely. Or even if they want government marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions with full legal benefits for homosexuals. (which I very strongly disagree with - "separate but equal" has tended to fail miserably - but won't go so far as to say it's definitely indicative of hatred)
But if someone wants the law to expressly treat homosexuals as second class citizens, to the point of not even accepting if we take the literal word "marriage" and keep it hetero-only and come up with a different word for gays, how can I not find that hateful? That's no different that saying gays should be arrested for living together or shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Okay, so let's take your stand against "hatred" to the next logical step. Do you support polygamous marriage? If not, why do you hate people who just want to engage in loving, polyamorous relationships? What about incestuous marriage? Or, if you think the possibility of genetically deformed children is too great a risk, what about homosexually incestuous marriage? Do you support that? If not, why do you hate family members who want to engage in loving, sexual relationships with each other? What about pedophiliac marriage? The age of consent in many countries around the world is as low as 13; isn't it hateful for us to bar significantly older adults from taking willing spouses at young ages? I know you'll probably try to call this a straw man argument, but it isn't because it gets to the heart of the problem of officially recognizing gay marriage - that doing so obliterates the original purposes of having the institution of marriage in the first place, and having done that, there's no logical reason why the institution of marriage should be denied to other possible sexual groupings of people. The whole point of marriage was to create stable bonds between the two halves of our species so that they could pool resources and work together to birth and raise the next generation of children. Governments realized that it was in their best interests to promote and protect marriage and correspondingly recognized marriage and included it in the basic framework of governance. You are free to disagree with this understanding of marriage, as indeed most everyone still participating in this thread does, but recognize too that if you choose instead an understanding of marriage as the mere conference of special rights and benefits, there is no logical reason why marriage shouldn't also be extended to sexual groupings of people that even the most die-hard gay marriage supporters would find repugnant.
That's the problem with a statement like "across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history." "All" is a pretty strong word. Saying "all prime numbers are odd" is actually false, just because of little ol' number 2. Similarly your statement is incorrect. Something like "the vast majority of marriages throughout human history have been heterosexual" would be correct.
I also wouldn't consider the Emperor of Rome insignificant myself.
Fair enough. As for the Emperor of Rome, however, I will note that Nero is widely recognized as having been a seriously disturbed and psychopathic individual; he "married" a man because he was the emperor, and no one says no to the emperor, especially when he's as likely to cut your hand off as shake it.
Religion and philosophy have their place in our society and in human thought, but it's not in the laboratory.
I'd have quoted the entire section but it was quite long and all I had to say in reply is that if there is in fact more to speciation than I have been able to find on my own, then I'm quite happy to have evolution taught in public schools as a proper scientific theory. As it is, I have yet to find anywhere a sufficiently plausible theoretical model for how a fish becomes a zebra a billion generations down the line. But I do think it is overly simplistic to say that ID boils down to finding the gaps in evolutionary theory and then saying "that's where God is". Many of the questions posed by scientists who support ID are eminently valid ones for which, to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists have yet to formulate any answers, theoretical or otherwise (such as the problem of irreducible complexity on a molecular level - and no, exaptation does not explain how the molecular pieces of a ribosome could have come together for some other purpose only to magically chance upon the awesomeness of being a ribosome). But I digress.
I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Anyone is free to vote like a complete jackass if they want to, and I'm free to call a spade a spade if I want to. Democracy does NOT mean you can't call people out if they take stances you find reprehensible. It seems like you're objecting to me objecting to other people's positions/voting behavior. You can have your opinion on an issue, but I can have my opinion on your opinion.
You're definitely right that you and everyone else is free to call me out for opposing gay marriage. But the manner in which that "calling out" is done is what so often devolves into hypocritical bullshit. If you want to say that you disagree with me because you believe that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships and should be accorded the same rights and benefits, fine. But to claim that my position is bad or illegitimate simply because it is based on my religious beliefs is hypocrisy because the opposite position isn't based on anything better (and I direct this not at you in particular but to liberals in general). Why do you support gay marriage? Because I believe in equality for all people. Why do you want equality for all people? Because of the following 32 reasons, all of which boil down to equality being a good thing. Why is equality a good thing? Because ... um ... because it is. Why? Because it just is. Well, why is it better to support good things instead of bad things? Because I think good things are better than bad things. Why? Because. That, right there, is the opposing viewpoint's foundational religious belief on this matter. At some point, every value preference must be rooted in a belief that is accepted without question or further basis, be it religious in origin or not. So to claim that religious voters, like myself, who vote their values, are somehow imposing our religion on others while non-religious voters, who vote their values, are not, is complete and total hypocrisy. They ARE imposing their religious values on others when they vote - they just don't see it as such because they don't organize their values and beliefs into coherent, internally consistent religions like religious voters do.
No, that's another straw man argument. At this point I'm starting to think you're an atheist trolling the forum... either that or you don't know how to have a discussion without being extremely combative.
Exactly what about my argument makes it a "straw man"? When a liberal (not necessarily you btw) blithely declaims that religious nutjobs like me are ruining the country by imposing our religious values on everyone else, how is that not also a statement that my religious values and beliefs are somehow less legitimate than the values and beliefs of those who disagree with me? Everyone says that I am imposing my religion on homosexuals when I deny with my vote a homosexual's ability to marry his sexual partner, but no one seems to understand that they too impose their "religion" (i.e., value and belief system) on me when they vote to recognize and support something which I want society to reject. No, I am not being forced to marry a man, but I am being forced to live in a country that officially recognizes and accepts and promotes homosexual relationships - something which I do not want. The whole point of my original post and these succeeding replies is to counter the notion that religious values and beliefs are a less legitimate source of political preferences than a-religious / atheistic / "secular" / "rational" / spaghetti monster values and beliefs. When a person supports gay marriage, he isn't attacking religious beliefs... He is defending some individuals' rights to an act that fits into their right of pursuit of happiness without infriging on the rights of any other citizens. When a person supports banning gay marriage he is supporting the Federal infrigement of personal liberties... How is the distinction not obvious? No one is making any do gay marriages just because they're legal, it just gives people that want to a legal ability to do so. As for evolution. Yes it's not a complete theory, but tons of theories are incomplete at this point for example in particle physics, and etc. There's nothing found so far to contradict evolution, although it's true that there phenomena found that evolution has not yet explained. There's a difference. If there's counter evidence that it becomes obvious that the theory is wrong in its curent state, but if there are phenomena that the theoy hasn't yet explained it simply means that our understanding of nature doesn't yet encompass that particular phenomenom. An example of disproving a theory for example, is how in early 20th century physicists believed that everything existed in some kind of medium, called ether, but then astronomists measured the red shift, and this directly contradicted the possibility of existence of ether.
Plus the Michelson-Morley experiment. That one put the final nail in the coffin.
It's the ultimate hypocrisy within the religious base of the Republican party. They want smaller government and less intervention like moderate conservatives, but then simultaneously wants the government to go to great lengths to control social behaviour. And this guy (Penitent) had the audacity to call out liberals as being hypocrits earlier in the post, calling them too blind and stupid to realize it. Oh the irony.
Penitent, get it through your head that it doesn't matter whether that decision of yours comes from a religious conviction, or a non-religious one, denying people their freedoms is unconstitutional. You will continue to lose the battle in the courts, because neither religious or non-religious opposers can come up with a constitutionally valid reason why the government should prohibit it. Religion only comes into the picture when the religious crowd starts claiming that marriage is an exclusively religious union. It's not the Dark Ages anymore. Marriage has become something that goes beyond religion.
Edit: I shouldn't say non-religious conservatives, because there are plenty far-right non-religious conservatives who want to put a stop to anything they deem is changing society too much, too. Usually older people who want society to go back to the way it was when they were kids.
|
On October 20 2011 19:02 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 14:30 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 20 2011 12:57 Penitent wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that religious conservatives don't hate homosexuals? Has it occurred to you that we may vote the way that we do because we wish to protect the stability and strength of an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? Did you consider that Christians, for example, may oppose gay marriage because we believe that resisting the broader cultural acceptance of homosexual sex will redound to homosexuals' eternal spiritual benefit? Declaring that religious conservatives are motivated by hate is nothing more than you setting up a straw man. It is also you being a hypocrit (hypo, hypo, hypo ...). Do conservatives declaim that leftists hate Christians because leftists reject Christian political wishes (like, say, a Nativity scene in front of City Hall during Christmas)? Some, probably, but not near as many as those claiming religious conservatives are a hate-filled mob frothing at the mouth to destroy all that is good in the world for the sake of their imaginary god.
In short, unless you're willing to admit to a deep, abiding hatred for Christians and other religious conservatives as the reason for your political preferences, don't suggest that we hate homosexuals / atheists / liberals / puppies / kittens as the reason for ours.
Protect the stability and strength on an institution which forms the foundation of all human civilization? wtf? Since when does marriage form the foundation of all human civilization? All I can see you saying in your post is you want to stop the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. THAT is trying to impose your religious beliefs on those who, quite frankly, don't give a fuck about Jesus or his message. It's not like being gay is going to make you more likely to go to hell than if you're atheist. And anyways, if you accept Jesus into your heart, shouldn't you go to heaven even if you have homosexual sex? Is it any different than if you died and had been having lots of premarital sex with your girlfriend? Since always. Civilization's foundation is the family unit, headed by a married father. Every society that did not have such a family unit, never made it out of the hunter gatherer stage (i.e. not civilization). Some civilizations have attempted to move past it. They are either dead or dying.
What? The invention of agriculture spurred the creation of community, which in-turn spurred the creation of marriage, not the other way around. Civilization and community had been around for a LONG time before someone up and decided "Let's create a committed relationship, and symbolize it with a trinket".
|
|
|
On October 20 2011 10:14 Warrior Madness wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 08:11 ilovelings wrote:
I lol'd when Paul acknowledged that America was an Empire.
I do not understand the whole migration debate in the US. It is a nation that was built by migrants, so why suddenly no one likes them?
It's kind of funny when you think about it. First and second generation migrants comprised 50% of the US army during WW1 and 2 and now they are considered a magical evil entity.
What I don't understand is how people get immigration and illegal immigration so easily confused....Yes, immigrants built the nation. But illegal immigrants are another matter. That is a strawman, no one is saying that. Illegal immigrants come to the country illegaly, mostly from Mexico and they're a drain on the economy (Though to be fair, a lot of them do pay their share of taxes). Show nested quote +The migration problem in the US exists because there is no plan. Countries like Australia & Canada have planned migration policies. Declaring it illegal is not gonna stop Mexicans who want in, and it actually makes them criminals, and negates social integration of the migrants. After considering this, you should add the fact that the US is in the middle of an Economical crisis, that leads to the traditional "blame game" which gets exacerbated by the Mass Media.
As long as there is no plan to integrate the people who want to live and work in the US of A, big problems will arise. You are again conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration. The US doesn't have a "plan" for illegal immigrants because.... they shouldn't BE there in the first place. The US has a fine legal immigration policy (Canada's immigration policy is actually more strict fyi). Show nested quote +30 years ago, part of my family (my cousins) migrated to Australia. They were sent to the middle of the Australian Outback (by the Australian Goverment) to work the land. Now, they are pretty much Australians as everyone else. That was a quite nice policy : We will give you a job, and you will have to work for it. Now they own a beautiful estate, and some houses in Perth. Again, your family emigrated to Australia LEGALLY did they not? You're comparing apples to oranges as Herman Cain would say. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US right now, mostly unskilled immigrants who suck up low wage jobs. Imagine if those 11 million "spots" instead went to LEGAL immigrants such as your family instead. Or maybe to professors or researchers, or managers, or people with advanced degrees/abilities or investors or students or entrepreneurs (Mostly first preferences in their immigration policy). America has a right, just like every other nation out there to put its best interests FIRST. Also, since you cannot deport 11 million illegals what you can do at least is take away their economic incentives to come here such as free education.
Nope. Illegal/Legal migration is still migration. If you expect that by declaring something illegal, and taking away 'incentives' (which are not incentives. People go there to work not to study) it's magically going to stop, you are delusional.
The real question is, do you want it with or without lube? because they are coming in anyways.
|
United States7483 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On October 20 2011 19:07 Penitent wrote:Show nested quote +
That said, your second paragraph is pretty accurate, and I think the Court has made statements on this in the past. (but I can't remember the context and it's too late for me to search google for more than 5 minutes, which was unsuccessful. my apologies.) Basically, as long as a law has a secular purpose, then religious support for the law doesn't disqualify it constitutionally. For example if a bill was being considered to broaden welfare programs and Johnny was in favor of that because Jesus said to feed the poor, that's okay (Constitutionally) because the law itself clearly has a secular purpose. Or if somebody supported capital punishment because at times it was mandated by God in the Bible, that's also okay Constitutionally, because clearly the purpose of capital punishment isn't to advance religion and it has secular support.
You are correct that Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century and a half has largely followed this train of thought. Consider, however, that the Supreme Court (or to be more precise, the portion of the Court that agreed with this line of thinking) could be wrong. I repeat the irrefutable claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which requires any law made at any level of government to have some "secular" purpose. I challenge any and all who disagree with me to find in the text or the history of the text any hint whatsoever that the Framers of the Constitution or its subsequent Amendments ever intended to pass into law a general, universally binding requirement that all laws have some "secular" purpose. There is a reason why the Framers never did so, and why they would be appalled to know that our Supreme Court has unilaterally inserted such a requirement into the Constitution by raw judicial fiat. Consider the consequences of such a requirement (which in technical legal parlance is actually framed as the requirement that all laws have some "rational basis"). Who decides what is "rational"? Why, the Supreme Court does. So if all laws everywhere must be "rational", who then commands ultimate veto authority over every single law in America? Why, the Supreme Court does. Consider carefully that what is "rational" to some will be madness to others. There is no infallible way of establishing the boundaries of "rationality". Because of this, any legal requirement that a law be "rational" - or in your terms, have a "secular" purpose - is effectively nothing more than a power grab by the one branch of our government that is immune to electoral challenge. The very idea that a law must have some "secular" purpose or "rational" basis is repugnant to the concept of a democracy. This is America, where we have the right to elect our rulers and replace them if they rule for ill. I didn't sign up to be ruled by a minimum of five unelected elites wearing black robes, and I suspect neither did you. Show nested quote +
As I said, I don't find it hateful if somebody wants to make marriage a religious ceremony and make civil unions about the legal rights. I don't find it hateful if someone wants to deregulate marriage entirely. Or even if they want government marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions with full legal benefits for homosexuals. (which I very strongly disagree with - "separate but equal" has tended to fail miserably - but won't go so far as to say it's definitely indicative of hatred)
But if someone wants the law to expressly treat homosexuals as second class citizens, to the point of not even accepting if we take the literal word "marriage" and keep it hetero-only and come up with a different word for gays, how can I not find that hateful? That's no different that saying gays should be arrested for living together or shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Okay, so let's take your stand against "hatred" to the next logical step. Do you support polygamous marriage? If not, why do you hate people who just want to engage in loving, polyamorous relationships? What about incestuous marriage? Or, if you think the possibility of genetically deformed children is too great a risk, what about homosexually incestuous marriage? Do you support that? If not, why do you hate family members who want to engage in loving, sexual relationships with each other? What about pedophiliac marriage? The age of consent in many countries around the world is as low as 13; isn't it hateful for us to bar significantly older adults from taking willing spouses at young ages? I know you'll probably try to call this a straw man argument, but it isn't because it gets to the heart of the problem of officially recognizing gay marriage - that doing so obliterates the original purposes of having the institution of marriage in the first place, and having done that, there's no logical reason why the institution of marriage should be denied to other possible sexual groupings of people. The whole point of marriage was to create stable bonds between the two halves of our species so that they could pool resources and work together to birth and raise the next generation of children. Governments realized that it was in their best interests to promote and protect marriage and correspondingly recognized marriage and included it in the basic framework of governance. You are free to disagree with this understanding of marriage, as indeed most everyone still participating in this thread does, but recognize too that if you choose instead an understanding of marriage as the mere conference of special rights and benefits, there is no logical reason why marriage shouldn't also be extended to sexual groupings of people that even the most die-hard gay marriage supporters would find repugnant. Show nested quote +
That's the problem with a statement like "across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history." "All" is a pretty strong word. Saying "all prime numbers are odd" is actually false, just because of little ol' number 2. Similarly your statement is incorrect. Something like "the vast majority of marriages throughout human history have been heterosexual" would be correct.
I also wouldn't consider the Emperor of Rome insignificant myself.
Fair enough. As for the Emperor of Rome, however, I will note that Nero is widely recognized as having been a seriously disturbed and psychopathic individual; he "married" a man because he was the emperor, and no one says no to the emperor, especially when he's as likely to cut your hand off as shake it. Show nested quote +
Religion and philosophy have their place in our society and in human thought, but it's not in the laboratory.
I'd have quoted the entire section but it was quite long and all I had to say in reply is that if there is in fact more to speciation than I have been able to find on my own, then I'm quite happy to have evolution taught in public schools as a proper scientific theory. As it is, I have yet to find anywhere a sufficiently plausible theoretical model for how a fish becomes a zebra a billion generations down the line. But I do think it is overly simplistic to say that ID boils down to finding the gaps in evolutionary theory and then saying "that's where God is". Many of the questions posed by scientists who support ID are eminently valid ones for which, to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists have yet to formulate any answers, theoretical or otherwise (such as the problem of irreducible complexity on a molecular level - and no, exaptation does not explain how the molecular pieces of a ribosome could have come together for some other purpose only to magically chance upon the awesomeness of being a ribosome). But I digress. Show nested quote +
I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Anyone is free to vote like a complete jackass if they want to, and I'm free to call a spade a spade if I want to. Democracy does NOT mean you can't call people out if they take stances you find reprehensible. It seems like you're objecting to me objecting to other people's positions/voting behavior. You can have your opinion on an issue, but I can have my opinion on your opinion.
You're definitely right that you and everyone else is free to call me out for opposing gay marriage. But the manner in which that "calling out" is done is what so often devolves into hypocritical bullshit. If you want to say that you disagree with me because you believe that homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships and should be accorded the same rights and benefits, fine. But to claim that my position is bad or illegitimate simply because it is based on my religious beliefs is hypocrisy because the opposite position isn't based on anything better (and I direct this not at you in particular but to liberals in general). Why do you support gay marriage? Because I believe in equality for all people. Why do you want equality for all people? Because of the following 32 reasons, all of which boil down to equality being a good thing. Why is equality a good thing? Because ... um ... because it is. Why? Because it just is. Well, why is it better to support good things instead of bad things? Because I think good things are better than bad things. Why? Because. That, right there, is the opposing viewpoint's foundational religious belief on this matter. At some point, every value preference must be rooted in a belief that is accepted without question or further basis, be it religious in origin or not. So to claim that religious voters, like myself, who vote their values, are somehow imposing our religion on others while non-religious voters, who vote their values, are not, is complete and total hypocrisy. They ARE imposing their religious values on others when they vote - they just don't see it as such because they don't organize their values and beliefs into coherent, internally consistent religions like religious voters do. Show nested quote +
No, that's another straw man argument. At this point I'm starting to think you're an atheist trolling the forum... either that or you don't know how to have a discussion without being extremely combative.
Exactly what about my argument makes it a "straw man"? When a liberal (not necessarily you btw) blithely declaims that religious nutjobs like me are ruining the country by imposing our religious values on everyone else, how is that not also a statement that my religious values and beliefs are somehow less legitimate than the values and beliefs of those who disagree with me? Everyone says that I am imposing my religion on homosexuals when I deny with my vote a homosexual's ability to marry his sexual partner, but no one seems to understand that they too impose their "religion" (i.e., value and belief system) on me when they vote to recognize and support something which I want society to reject. No, I am not being forced to marry a man, but I am being forced to live in a country that officially recognizes and accepts and promotes homosexual relationships - something which I do not want.The whole point of my original post and these succeeding replies is to counter the notion that religious values and beliefs are a less legitimate source of political preferences than a-religious / atheistic / "secular" / "rational" / spaghetti monster values and beliefs.
I also don't want hateful bigots like you voting in my country, but I'm not about to deny you your civil liberties just because I don't like your behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
