Suzie Q.: "I have neighbors and relatives who are homosexual. I love them and treat them with respect. However, I don't agree with their lifestyle choices, and don't think they should be allowed to further damage my society by getting married. They should learn to resist their sinful urges, and embrace Jesus Christ as their savior."
Me: "Suzie, I think you're a great person, and I totally respect you. However, I think the religion you follow is overbearing and dangerous. I don't think that your religious beliefs have any place in my society, and I'd like to restrict your ability to practice them. Ideally, I'd like it if you would realize how foolish and wrong-headed your beliefs are, and accept the superiority of purely secular ways of thinking."
I've grown increasingly tired of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument on the part of people who want to limit the rights of homosexuals. I have to wonder how they would feel if 90% of the world did unto them as they do unto others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What part is dangerous? Do you fear people having a different opinion from yours?
Seriously. Your reponse is calling them names and telling them they are wrong. That's not actually an argument.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
If you start from the position of there is no god, it's essentially the same argument, isn't it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why start from that position?
And...no.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
*shrug*
So, you don't think my line counts as an argument, but you think that Suzie's does?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your straw man?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Your straw man?
I'm sorry, but could you explain this? I'm not quite sure how it fits in.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Kat, I'm assuming person B doesn't believe in god (or at least the Christian iteration).
I get that person B is being more vehement and attacking person A, but when you boil both of them down don't you get essentially the same thing? Or did I just not get enough sleep last night?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You made up a person (straw man) in order to counter it. Naturally, you put in the mouth of your straw man only the words you think you can counter. This empty person is supposed to stand in for the real people whose arguments you wish to destroy.
If you are looking for a real characterization, then I'm afraid it fails because you do not understand where the other side is coming from. If you are looking for a place to get kicks out of vanquishing a shell you created, knock yourself out.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob, actually, I do agree. I changed my mind. The empty straw person in the beginning and the angry retorter have the same lack of argument.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Wow, kat, you've never heard anyone express the opinions that Suzie Q. expressed above? You really think she's just a figment of my imagination?
So, then, what would someone expressing this "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument REALLY say? As someone who understands that point of view?
Because, honestly, I've seen this exact line repeated almost verbatim time and time again, both here and in my everyday life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ayelar:
I love my kids.
I don't let them be selfish.
I don't let them hurt each other.
I don't let them treat my wife or me with disrepsect.
I hate these behaviors and attitudes-- which my children persist in doing-- but love them all the same.
I DO tend to agree with you somewhat in regards to this particular issue though. I worry that the critics of homosexual marriage do NOT love the opposition, despite what they say.
In other words, it is possible to love the sin, hate the sinner, but the implementation of that attitude is rare. IMO.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar, do you really want to know? Because I do understand how things get reduced to sound bites and the real meaning falls away. And how when you disagree with someone, it can be hard to imagine that both can have a coherent, internally-consistent, ethical opinion and arrive in such different places.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Edit: And the thread has moved on... That's what comes with posting when you're all flu-ey. I'll leave it, just 'cos it took me so long to type in my addled state.
Kat - I think Ayelar's point is if you accept the first argument (ie "it's ok to restrict other people's behaviour based on my religous code/ideals) then you should also accept the other (ie "it's ok to restrict other people's behaviour based on my moral code/ideals).
And I completely agree with the point she's making.
I don't agree with some religous ideas. But I would never argue to prohibit people from practising those religions (or, less radically, those facets of the religions) based on my beliefs. Just as I find it completely unacceptable that people try to regulate civil law/behaviour on the basis of their religous beliefs.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I am curious, kat, yes... because I just can't see how someone could believe that denying a person equal rights and telling them that they're going to hell qualifies as loving them. I really can't.
I can't promise that I'll agree with your stance, though. So yes, I'd like to hear it, but caveat poster... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, what elements of Person A's argument would you say are unrealistic?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ayelar, let me just say that I can see your point. This is exactly why, while I think homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, I am not sure if it is right for me to tell them they can't be married.
If %90 of the world felt as you presented in what (I hope) was a hypothetical point of view, and they thought my hypothetical religious practices were dangerous to society, they would probably try to restrict them, and I would be very upset by that.
Is that not what happened with the Latter-day Saints and the practice of polygamy? On the one hand, the Saints should have had the religious freedom to practice polygamy as it is part of the religious beliefs. But %90 (or more) of society believed it was harmful to society. So it was strictly outlawed. Many suffered, many families were broken because of that decision. But the Saints obeyed the laws of the land. Still do.
So if gays are allowed to marry, then shouldn't people be allowed to marry more than one individual if it is a part of their religion? (As I have stated before, I am not particularly interested in being in a polygamous marriage, but I believe in its doctrinal significance). Of couse, my church is not the only religion that believes in polygamy. Muslims do also. Yet in this country, a Muslim man would be forbidden to take another wife. Can you support gay marriage and yet deny a Muslim his religious rights?
[ March 08, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*nods*
For some people, their religious code is the only basis for their belief. Whether or not the source of a belief should disqualify it is a subject for a different thread.
For other people (and here I am thinking of OSC in particular), their belief matches their religious code, but the reasons go beyond an incomprehensible edict. They have sociological and ethical reasons as well.
Should those sociological and ethical objections be dismissed because religious objections lie among them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So yes, I'd like to hear it, but caveat poster...
Other people have said it well enough.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kat - no, not at all.
But then the sociological and ethical objections are open to debate - much more than religous arguments are.
And we've all seen what happens then...
*winces*
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
kat, I think that, for me, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument works. Yes, I think it's fine to feel that way.
Until...
Until one starts wanting to write one's religious beliefs into the law. Until one starts believing that it's okay to actively discriminate based on this belief. Until one starts treating the target of one's beliefs as less than a full human because their religion says so.
That's where it really breaks down for me. That's where it crosses the line.
I don't think it's any more appropriate for a religious person to try to limit the rights of gays than it is for me, a non-religious person, to try to limit the rights of Christians.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Imogoen: Yeah.
---
I do agree with Scott. Like most grand, true, and divine attributes, the incidence of loving someone completely without embracing that which you believe will harm them is sadly much lower than is claimed (or aspired to).
Ayelar: *nods* That's fine. I just don't like straw men arguments. Except for...well, OSC in Ender's Game and the like (and Beren's wonderful thread), I've rarely seen the opposing argument characterized accurately.
Adds: And I've never seen the other side characterized accurately in anger.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
rant:
See, this is why I wish democracy was WORKING right now. I don't care where you got your ideas or why you think it's right. The point of America should be that we put things to a vote. If the majority of the country has some religious reason for not allowing gay marriage, and it gets VOTED against, then I'm sorry, but that's how America works. If you don't like the result, you can do whatever you want to reform things, because that's ALSO how America works. But don't sit around complaining about the method we used to come up with our argument, that's pointless...and where does it lead you?
It leads to people trying to stop us from making decisions based on our religious convictions, which is OUR prerogative. They try everything they can think of to convince us that faith isn't as good as "logic" and shouldn't be considered.
And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority, and if the majority is religious, then so be it. The point of America is NOT to make a government that's the least offensive or annoying to you...that's not in the Constitution.
If, one day, the majority of America begins to decide things based entirely on secular reasons, and THAT becomes the majority of the people, then also so be it. (I may move to a private island though. )
But at this point it doesn't matter because things aren't even coming to a vote in the first place. And that's where my real concern lies. Not in the arguments for or against each side, but in the fact that we aren't even choosing the laws.
Liberals want something done? Go to the Supreme Court and they'll do whatever you want.
Conservatives want something done? Just get Bush to write up some "policy" that gives freedom to your side.
Why aren't we up in arms about the way things get decided in our country today? Why isn't THAT the main concern??? I can tell you that I'm alot more scared about that than anything else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For other people (and here I am thinking of OSC in particular), their belief matches their religious code, but the reasons go beyond an incomprehensible edict. They have sociological and ethical reasons as well."
Kat, OSC has admitted that he's come up with sociological and ethical arguments precisely because he wanted to justify his faith-based positions. I suspect that this is true for the vast majority of people who have "sociological" arguments; they're looking for ways to justify a foregone conclusion.
The remarkably small percentage of atheists who think homosexual marriage is a bad idea implies that, at heart, this is a religious issue.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Until one starts treating the target of one's beliefs as less than a full human because their religion says so.
You will have to explain what you think qualifies as "human rights" in this situation. Do you think that if I don't let two eight-year-old children get married, I'm not letting them be full humans? Since when is marriage a human right?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:they're looking for ways to justify a foregone conclusion.
That's human nature, Tom. Most people start with the conclusion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority...."
Hm. How do you feel about Islamic fundamentalism, out of interest?
-----
As a side note, PSI, I submit that refusing to permit gays to marry is PRECISELY like refusing to permit eight-year-olds to marry; you are telling them that they are no more entitled to social recognition of their relationship than two children incapable of granting informed consent, and that society must be protected from them.
[ March 08, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Do you mean in relation to what happened in the Middle East?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: However, I think the religion you follow is overbearing and dangerous. I don't think that your religious beliefs have any place in my society,
While nobody on this thread said this as themselves, as a religious person, I often feel this attitude coming from others. Such as in conversations like this. When I am told "You are free to believe whatever you want, but it is wrong for it to influence your actions/voting/polcies/etc." I feel like I am being told the above quote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I mean in general. Should a country, like Iran, be allowed to dictate that a minority be required to wear heavy, restrictive clothing? Can a country, based on its democratic majority, require that all women be subjected to some form of surgery?
At what point do the voting rights of the majority stop short of persecution of the minority?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think both the straw man positions given are fairly common viewpoints, but most holders of those viewpoints make it sound a lot better.
quote:I've grown increasingly tired of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument on the part of people who want to limit the rights of homosexuals. I have to wonder how they would feel if 90% of the world did unto them as they do unto others.
You'd rather they hate the sinner too?
My suspicion is that you're not really mad about the "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument - that you're actually angry with the "homosexuality is a sin and should be banned" argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think, for me, the hard part is the leap from "X is a sin" to "X should be banned."
[ March 08, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "And yet, it doesn't matter, because the point of a democracy is to create a government for the majority...."
Hm. How do you feel about Islamic fundamentalism, out of interest?
Tom, what does this have to do with it? If the majority of people in a country believe in Islamic fundamentalism, then it makes sense for that to be the strongest shaping feature of that government. Doesn't mean I personally have to agree with it. Doesn't mean it might not be a valid act of war for my country to work to abolish such a government. This is an issue, though, that I don't know enough about to have an official opinion on.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom: Here's what I think:
The majority of a country should be able to make laws that the minority will have to follow.
That country should in no way bar those people from leaving the country if they choose.
I know that things aren't always as cut-and-dried as this, but it pretty much sums up my feelings.
PS: You should know that my political views have changed drastically in the past month or so. I need to start a thread about this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The majority of a country should be able to make laws that the minority will have to follow.
That country should in no way bar those people from leaving the country if they choose."
Should other countries be required to accept the people who leave the first country?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:As a side note, PSI, I submit that refusing to permit gays to marry is PRECISELY like refusing to permit eight-year-olds to marry; you are telling them that they are no more entitled to social recognition of their relationship than two children incapable of granting informed consent, and that society must be protected from them.
Well, I think it's quite possible that a majority of Americans feel a gay marriage isn't entitled to be recognized any more than the marriage of two children. So, if we can do it to children, why can't the majority rule the same way on gay marriages if it feels those are equally unworthy of the term "marriage"?
Children are just as much a minority as homosexual individuals.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
At one point, PSI, it was the Majorities view that people of African Heritage should be enslaved by those of European Heritage. At one point it was the majorities view that Euopean Americans had the right to forcibly remove Native Americans from thier lands, herd them into underfunded and underfed reservations, and force them into Christian Schools where they learned English, Christianity, and the fact that they would always be inferior to thier white masters. At one point it was the Majority view that Brittney Spears is a good singer.
The Majority is a cruel master. The Mob is an ugly beast when seen from the eyes of those outside.
There are basic human rights, defined in our constitution and our Declaration of Independence (which I know has no place in this countries legal system) that can not be taken away from any minority by any majority.
The question remains, is marriage one of those rights?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And if marriage IS one of those rights, what does "marriage" mean?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, it's precisely because I think marriage is NOT one of those rights, and because I don't think the government has any compelling reason to recognize marriages, that I believe the idea of civil marriage should be eliminated and replaced with personal incorporation.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Well, I think it's quite possible that a majority of Americans feel a gay marriage isn't entitled to be recognized any more than the marriage of two children. So, if we can do it to children, why can't the majority rule the same way on gay marriages if it feels those are equally unworthy of the term "marriage"?
Children are just as much a minority as homosexual individuals.
Tres, I don't think anyone doubts that this COULD be done. As we see with the proposition for an amendment banning gay marriages, "we" absolutely could put this into law.
The question, then, is whether or not it is right to treat two consenting adults who contribute to our society as though they were 8-year-old children.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have no argument that the majority has been wrong (or what I would consider wrong) in the past. All I'm asking is that things be reformed in a legal, democratic way. If people start making sweeping changes that don't include the citizens, regardless of whether the change is good or bad, then all the citizens lose out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI, at what point does tyranny become too onerous to bear?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What do you mean?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Gettting back to the main question, I was going through some old school books when I ran across this debated argument:
quote: Is it holy because God loves it, or does God love it because its Holy.
The reverse of the argument is:
quote: Is it a sin because it is bad, or is it bad because it is a sin.
The first argument was asked by Socrates, 600 years before Christ.
The second is just a restating of the Conservative Christian argument versus the Liberal Christian and non-Christian argument.
The Conservatives argue "Homosexuality is bad because its a sin."
The Liberals argue "if its not bad, its not a sin."
Then each side tries to repute the others argument. The Liberals question the bible verses that proclaim homosexuality as a sin. The conservatives turn to sociology to find theories saying homosexuality is bad.
Both are usually defeated by the opposition.
I don't know what I am trying to say with this post, except to maybe shed some light on what we are arguing, and the fact that at its base, this argument has been going on longer than Christianity itself.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Let's not be misleading here: It's not a question of treating adults like children. It's a question of treating a marriage of two gay adults as equally invalid as the marriage of two young children.
One of the arguments given in this case is that people have a fundamental right to marry who they want, and that we cannot define marriage in a way that excludes marriage from certain minority groups. The children example illustrates that this argument fails - that we can claim certain marriages just aren't valid marriages, because we do precisely that to children. Unless we're prepared to call our ban on child marriage tyranny too, we can hardly automatically say that limiting gay marriage in a similar way is tyranny.
This means the issue should now turn to "are gay marriages valid?" (rather than "isn't everyone entitled to marry?")
[ March 08, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Uh....yeah. What Tres said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The Conservatives argue "Homosexuality is bad because its a sin."
Or, homosexuality is a sin because it's bad for you.
God doesn't make up rules just for kicks and to aribtrarily see us restricted. They exist because he knows the best way to make us ultimately happy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tres, just in case that child-marriage thing was directed at me--
I wasn't contesting gay marriage. I was contesting the idea that it's impossible to hate the action, but love the actor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI: I mean, at what point does the rule of the majority become so evil and/or repressive that the minority is justified in ignoring or rebelling against it?
------
Tres, it's the idea that the idea of a homosexual marriage is no more comprehensible to some people than a "marriage" between eight-year-olds that many of us find most insulting (and depressing) about the whole thing.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
PSI, I agree with you on the democratic processes. I am pretty ticked off about people in authority making these decisions regardless of whether they have the support of the majority.
quote: The question, then, is whether or not it is right to treat two consenting adults who contribute to our society as though they were 8-year-old children.
Whaa? This is a pretty big leap. No one has claimed that the reason for being against gay marriage is the same as being against 8-year-olds marrying. Only that just as one is considered unwise, the other is also, for DIFFERENT reasons.
The point is we already put some restrictions on marriage in some circumstances, and the many citizens of our country feel that gays should be restricted also. I am against writing off their opinions as somehow invalid or even comparing them to racial monstrosities. Where race is concerned, as I understand it, people either felt their race was superior, or that the idea of associating with another race was distasteful.
I really don't think those are motives for most of those against gay marriage (no doubt it is for a fanatical minority) and I am tired of the accusations that I or others have that motivation when we simply don't. Being against a race and being against homosexuality are quite different in this way. I do think that comparing it to being against a religious belief has some interesting validity. (See my above argument).
People have a right to their opinion, and people have a right to try and sway opinions. We all have a right to disagree with each other. We all have a right to vote.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is what I meant about argueing the other's side. Do you really oppose Homosexuality because its bad for the participants, or because God said it was a sin?
I have never heard of any arguments that married couples should refrain from the same acts as homosexual couples do. I have heard a lot of people with proof that it isn't unhealthy.
The most unhealthy part of homosexuality is the number of partners a person has. Legalizing gay marriages would cut down on that number, and in essence, be healthier for the people involved.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I could be wrong, but I think that katharina's point is it causing unhappiness in a more long-term sort of way than simple health hazards.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: PSI: I mean, at what point does the rule of the majority become so evil and/or repressive that the minority is justified in ignoring or rebelling against it?
Revolt is a valid way of dealing with an oppressive government. I don't think anyone is going to revolt over this issue, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm inclined to agree, beverly. I'm just trying to determine at which point revolt becomes a valid response to a democratic majority.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I mean, at what point does the rule of the majority become so evil and/or repressive that the minority is justified in ignoring or rebelling against it?
Assuming we are starting from a democracy here, then I would say that the minority has some options.
1. Political action, involving legal assembly and voting processes.
2. Leaving the area in question.
If the society has lost its sense of democracy to the point where it no longer works, then that's a whole different story. I would say at THAT point, rebellion can take place, in regards to taking back the country.
But in order for that to work, there has to be an agreement between both parties that something is badly wrong with the democratic system in question.
I think that democracy is in place to allow people different choices. But, it's not there to make sure everyone's options make them sublimely happy.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Or, homosexuality is a sin because it's bad for you.
God doesn't make up rules just for kicks and to aribtrarily see us restricted. They exist because he knows the best way to make us ultimately happy.
Well, that's what you believe. I don't. The thousands of gay couples out there who want to get married don't.
Why does your belief automatically trump everyone else's? If you're allowed to tell me what to do based on beliefs I don't share, why shouldn't I do the same to you? Like, prevent you from going to church on Sundays?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'm just trying to determine at which point revolt becomes a valid response to a democratic majority.
Well, I certainly don't think the government failing to legally recognize your marriage is anywhere near that point. Nor is the government using too broad a definition of marriage.
quote:Why does your belief automatically trump everyone else's? If you're allowed to tell me what to do based on beliefs I don't share, why shouldn't I do the same to you? Like, prevent you from going to church on Sundays?
Well, in a Democracy, the majority belief ends up trumping everyone else's - except in certain cases of guaranteed rights - such as the right to practice religion.
So, no banning of church-going. However, you are allowed to legislate stuff like not letting me steal, or kill people, or drink and drive (even if I think there's nothing wrong with that stuff.)
[ March 08, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually Ayelar, I believe that God does try to show us the way to be the happiest in the long run.
I'm just not sure denying the love of two men or two women is what God had in mind. It is in the human translation of God's will where problems occur.
Beverly, you say that Gay couples are not as happy, in the long term, as Straight couples.
I could argue that with you, bringing in examples and studies, debating if the recognition of their life style would eventually make a difference.
The truth is that I don't know. I look at people I know, straight couples going through terrible times because of each other, and gay couples that are more content and happy than me, and I realize that I really don't know who is or who isn't happiest. They will all put on a pretty face for thier friends.
Who am I to judge?
What would I want done to me by others?
If a law was passed today saying that I could not marry the woman I loved, but had to marry either some government approved mate, or remain unmarried, I would get upset.
I know what I would want done to me by others, so that is why I treat others this way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* I was pointing out that even Dan's well-considered, calm characterization of the thinking of those who consider homosexuality to be against God's plan for us didn't capture all the possibilities.
[ March 08, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See when I saw Ayelar's initial argument, I didn't actually view it with response to gay marriage at all.
There are a multitude of other "smaller" as it were "sins" that fundamentalist Christians can't get past, even though they claim to be able to try. I realized I was raised in an extreme environment, but it does exist. Look at my Grandma's letters.
This goes as far as "If someone is divorced they aren't a Christian in the first place" and we will "Love the Sinner back to Jesus". This is a totally totally condescending view of the world. This also goes for living together. I have tested the "hate the sin, love the sinner" premise in my own family, because I'm doing something they generally believe is sin. The premise falls apart really fast when you see how for all they tout the idea, they can't actually apply it in their own lives. My parents really don't cope well at all dispite their proclamations that they made since my childhood. (stuff like, well if you get yourself pregnant like so and so(which I haven't) we will still love you) The only person of that crowd who has truly shown love me, is also the one that is divorced and had to go through the same ostracization herself.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So while I know people truly believe the "Hate the sin, love the sinner" argument, on an individual basis to me it is always suspect because they can say it all they want. They have to prove to me they aren't a hypocrite in their own life before it actually has any weight. The people who can actually do that on a personal level are few and far between. I do think we have a few of them on Hatrack though. And the ones who actually do do it are so guileless that they don't comprehend the fact that most people who are saying it are likely far more hypocritical than themselves.
AJ
[ March 08, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow, this really shows me how different everyone's minds are.
I was thinking that, when I got pregnant out of wedlock, the only person that really showed love to ME was a cousin that had wanted to make sure we repented.
That would probably be offensive to some, but we found it much more caring than all those people who pretended not to care that we screwed up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:TomDavidson said: Kat, OSC has admitted that he's come up with sociological and ethical arguments precisely because he wanted to justify his faith-based positions. I suspect that this is true for the vast majority of people who have "sociological" arguments; they're looking for ways to justify a foregone conclusion.
quote:Dan_raven said: The Conservatives argue "Homosexuality is bad because its a sin."
Both these statements move past what many believers consider to be an important point: an action is named a “sin” because it is bad. However, the ways in which it is bad may not be clearly understandable to us humans. Therefore, when such a believer has sufficient (to him) theological proof to consider some act a sin, there is an immediate acceptance of the corollary that the act causes some harm. “Sociological” and “ethical” arguments are attempts to articulate that harm.
The divide Dan spoke of occurs because some people believe that, given sufficient theological proof, an action should be considered a sin even if we can’t articulate what the harm is. Thus, it’s not properly stated, “Homosexual actions are bad because they are sinful” but rather, “Homosexual actions are sinful, so we know they’re bad. We just need to discover why.”
Because human understanding is limited, this articulation of harm may not be perfect, or even very good. But it’s fallacious to consider it an attempt to “justify” a foregone conclusion. Rather, it is an attempt to determine why a given, accepted fact exists. General relativity wasn’t an attempt to “justify” gravity, it was an attempt to explain it. We “know” objects fall down. General relativity says they fall down because the presence of mass warps space-time such that “down” is the easiest way for matter to move. Similarly, believers “know” such-and-such action is a sin. The social and ethical explanations are attempts to explain why it’s a sin.
All that being said, the problem comes down to what relation human law should have to individual understandings of morality. There are three major problems:
Not all people agree on what constitutes sufficient “theological proof.” Forget about problems between differing revelatory sources; even Christians who use mostly the same scriptures interpret them very differently.
Not all people agree on what constitutes enough “badness” to either criminalize an act or to use public resources as an incentive for people to act otherwise. Even if we take the current popular position that only those acts which harm someone other than the actor should be criminalized, we have to define what constitutes sufficient “harm” to justify it. There’s even less consensus as to what constitutes a sufficient benefit to allow necessarily discriminating incentives.
Given all that, I think Ayelar’s opening sequence is a straw man. Even people who articulate it that way have a lot of unspoken assumptions underneath that make the argument less ridiculous than Ayelar’s presentation makes it. I have never heard anyone use “hate the sin, love the sinner” arguments to justify a particular political position. Rather, I have heard them use it to counter attempts by others trying to show why the belief that a particular action is sinful is “bigoted” or “judgmental.” It is in the blurring of the “sin” and “bad” connotations that the argument loses focus. The fact that such confusion exists at all is a strong warning to any person with strong moral beliefs not to impose on others their imperfect understanding of the relation between sinful actions and societal harm except where necessary. That’s why laws that have an identifiable victim are the least controversial, and laws deemed more or less “victimless” are more controversial. As much room as possible must be left for all people to act within the dictates of their conscience. There’s a lot of squishy middle ground regarding tradeoffs between different people’s rights. Until someone explains in a more articulate fashion why letting two guys get married hurts someone else, I can’t see how homosexual marriage falls into it. Dagonee Edit: Wow! A lot of posts got added while I drafted this...
[ March 08, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly, you say that Gay couples are not as happy, in the long term, as Straight couples.
I could argue that with you, bringing in examples and studies, debating if the recognition of their life style would eventually make a difference.
Dan, I would consider this lifetime part of the shortrun. My statement definitely qualifies as religious in scope. But then, I have always felt that the issue at heart here is religion. I don't expect to convince anyone that homosexuality is wrong if they don't believe in God. I also don't expect to be convinced that it isn't wrong unless I were to stop believing in God. There is more to it than that, but I think that is at the heart of it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Banna, let me first say that I think your Grandmother has said some hurtful and manipulative things in the name of her religious convictions. But let me also say, as a parent, that part of showing love is often to strongly oppose what your child is doing. I soooo disagree with the sentiment that a loving parent lets their kids do whatever they want.
Just as I believe God tells us not to do things while we aren't able to fully understand why, I as a loving parent must forbid my children from doing things that they don't fully understand the wrongness of either. I love them, and I do it for their happiness and the good of society. They are still free to go against my wishes, but they might just get punished for doing so. I believe that when God punishes man it is either for the good of that man or the greater good of society, His other children.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
First of all Dagonee RAWKS!
Secondly to address Beverly
quote: I soooo disagree with the sentiment that a loving parent lets their kids do whatever they want.
I never said that parents should let their children do what ever they want. I agree children should be disciplined. I even approve of spanking. While I lived in my parents house, I tried my hardest to obey their rules, (though I was never good enough). As an older teen, and as an adult, I knew that my views on morality were different from theirs. I don't truly think this reflects on their parenting, since overall all of their children are well on their way to becoming productive members of society. Sometimes kids just don't believe the same things.
I'm sorry it hurts them but now that I am an independent adult I'm not going to pretend I agree with them when I don't. The reactions of so-called "christians" to this "rebellion" on my part (which I don't consider rebellion but the result of long and hard thoughts and observations) is what I'm talking about in this context.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also it isn't the realm of humans to mete out such "punishment" it is God's realm. In my own experience, I'm living a far more productive sane life than those of my friends who did get married because they weren't supposed to have sex until they did marry. I DID seriously consider how my major life decisions would affect me long term. If something does go sour with my current relationship, I'm not going to try to blame anyone else, or say that I should have listen to God. I will accept responsibilty for my part in the debacle and move forward from there. Financially I know we have both made sound decisions so that if something did go sour we would both be farther ahead after the split than we would have been had we remained single.
AJ
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Beverly I love the analogy of God as the parent, laying down the rules and administering the punishments when needed, but always with love.
I just have problems with my older sibblings that keep wagging their fingers at me and saying that "We know what Pop really meant, boy are you in trouble now."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Banna, you are an adult now and they no longer have the same authority over you that they did when you were a child.
quote: Sometimes kids just don't believe the same things.
I'm sorry it hurts them but now that I am an independent adult I'm not going to pretend I agree with them when I don't. The reactions of so-called "christians" to this "rebellion" on my part (which I don't consider rebellion but the result of long and hard thoughts and observations) is what I'm talking about in this context.
This is an important point. If you DID think that what you were doing was wrong, I could understand their behavior a little better. They have to understand where you are coming from, they think something is wrong, you don't.
If they want you to change something in your life, they would first have to address your belief system. If you don't believe as they do, then there isn't much they can do about it--except make you miserable, which I don't agree with.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I just have problems with my older sibblings that keep wagging their fingers at me and saying that "We know what Pop really meant, boy are you in trouble now."
Wonderful imagery!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Banna, I do hear you about the rebellion. There was a contract for some family business my dad wanted me to sign last year, and I wanted to see a copy of the whole thing before I signed - on general principle.
He literally accused me of rebellion. For that! I don't even want to tell you what he said when I did/considered doing things he really disagreed with.
I think what annoys me more is that my brothers didn't get that. My brothers made choices he didn't agree with, and they just got disapproving looks and said nothing. I wish they had gotten more attention - maybe the middle one wouldn't have gotten so lost. My mother didn't have the same double standard, which I appreciated, so I wasn't aquainted with my dad's until I was in my twenties. It's terrible, though, because you are faced with choice of either living your own life and making your decisions and losing your family, or else giving up your life and keeping your parent's approval. There shouldn't have to be a choice like that.
[ March 08, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See this is what I don't understand Kat, you understand the differences and isolation and terrible choices so vividly in this context, and yet you don't understand that those feelings are exactly how the gay community feels as well.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
...you know, I defend a side, and I believe what I say, but there isn't a post on Hatrack that states exactly how I feel about it, and what I think someone in that position should do.
And short of Lead, no one has asked me in person.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OK then, I'm asking you. I thought I'd been asking you all along, but I guess you didn't see it that way, even though you asked me just as personally.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head* I think we've actually hit a story and an opinion that I won't share on Hatrack.
If you want to call me, my number is 469-879-1306. I've temporarily lost my phone again, but I think it's in my apartment. I'll be there tonight.
*thinks* I'm not disavowing what I've said. It all fits. It's just like... just like I don't discuss my love life on Hatrack because I don't want it used for evidence for or against anything in any debate, I won't talk about this.
[ March 08, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If you aren't willing to discuss your personal experiences on a subject on Hatrack then why do you ask others to share about their personal experiences on that same subject? It doesn't make sense to me.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*confused* Doesn't everyone still have a choice? I share personal experiences all the time - it isn't a general policy. Just a specific one in this case.
I mean, I talk about my dad, and I know the way I've said things has earned me disapproval in some cases. That's part of the price of making things public, and I'm willing to do it.
[ March 08, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant you had a personal experience on the gay marriage issue.
The conflict with parents issue is intensely personal and that I understand, and I understand not relating the gory details.
But that same intensely personal feeling is how gays feel about the gay marriage issue.
(back to work, only able to type in short bursts today)
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me too.
No, that is what I meant. I do have personal feelings about the issue, though not gay marriage specifically. The stuff with my dad I'm actually more willing to make public, because I'm both more emotionally invested and needed sympathy when everything blew up, and because I'm very sure of myself as to how I feel about it.
The other I'm not. It's tentative, I could be wrong, I'm not sure, and it's not really my story to tell. I'm sorry.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Yeah.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think we've actually hit a story and an opinion that I won't share on Hatrack. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)