posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm inclined to agree, beverly. I'm just trying to determine at which point revolt becomes a valid response to a democratic majority.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
...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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
*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.
posted
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.
posted
*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.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
