Gay marriage with guest Jesse Cowell

[Rian]

Nightie - Yeah, Paul's a character! Well, Jesus always said he came for the sick, not the healthy ...

DU and Stick - 10 commandments/law issue will have to be another thread for me. Start one if you want, and I'll join in when I get back in two weeks.

[Rian]

This is circular. I think this line began with the argument that it does not seem reasonable to force people to practice religious tenets that they do not adhere to. I agree that you can’t make people believe in a religion. But my original argument was that if you are going to legally require people to follow a particular religious practice, then you might as well force them to be part of the religion, whether they actually believe it or not. I’m not saying we should actually do this, but that having legal restrictions based on a religion is tantamount to this very thing. We are requiring people to accept religious tenets and I consider that inappropriate.

I guess I just see things differently than you. You seem to see 2 levels - "follow a particular religious practice" and "be part of the religion". I guess I see a third - really believe that the religion is the correct view of the universe. And you can't force that.

But theft if not an exclusively Christian ideal. It’s universally unacceptable.

I disagree, but that's another thread

Right, we agree that you can’t force people to believe something, but you are avoiding the point. You are saying: “If it’s good for people, we should make them do it.” Right?

No, I'm not. You need to re-read my voting criteria post. Maybe you missed that.

So, by that context, we should make them go to church and pray and read the bible, right?

No - in fact, I specifically address the prayer issue in my voting post. Try a search on "vote" or something like that, or if I get enough time, I'll come back and put a link to it. You know how it is getting ready for trips, esp. with kids!

I'm not really trying to get you to agree with this ridiculous concept. We both agree that it is unenforcable. What I'm attempting to do is get you to see that laws based purely on religious contexts are not appropriate for the general public because of our diversity. We have to keep these laws abated for freedom of religion to flourish. The more laws that are based on one particular religion, the more other religions are opressed. Does this make sense? Ultimately, I agree that lots of religious ideas are good ideas--love thy neighbor? Yeah, that's a great idea--but the law is not the place for most of those things to be enforced. I think it is important to respect our parents, but I think a law requiring this is utter stupidity. They must earn that respect and we must be taught to respect them by our parents. There are so many facets to culture and society, so many subtle wrinkles. To think that we can legislate our way to utopia is a 19th century idea that has long past its expiration date.

I think my voting post covers this, too.

Good observation; I agree. Where these objective overlap we are all happy.

I wish life was always that easy, don't you?!

I don't think you have any reason to agree with me. And I'm sure that I don't agree with some of your votes, either.

Thanks, but isn’t that second part just tossing vinegar into the pudding? Just tit or tat? This isn’t a competition here, not a tug of war. You don’t have to one up me every time. We’re looking for common ground, if any exists.

I don't mean it as a tit-for-tat type of thing at ALL! I mean it only to show the reciprocal relation of our viewpoints, if that makes sense.

What non-Xtian world view reason should we consider to ban gay marriage?

I can't offer any, as I said before. And you can't offer any reason that I think is valid to vote FOR gay marriage.

Woo, baby, you gotta fix your quote markers!!!!!!

Again, not a competition. I’m not trying to win a race here; I’m looking for understanding of your wants/needs. When you and Wonders began this journey, you both gave me the impression there was some non-religious reason that I should consider rejecting gay marriage. I want to know what it is. Now I understand that your reasoning is purely religious and hey, I’m not bashing your for it. I’m fine with that even though I disagree with you. I have less respect for Wonders for being so coy and gutless. At least you admitted your reasoning, though it took a long, long time.

And my big point with the whole worldview issue was that what you call a "religious" reason is the same thing as your reason - they're the same animal. I can dismiss your viewpoint as being non-religious in the same way that you can dismiss my viewpoint as being religious. Both of our viewpoints express what we think is true about the universe, and neither of us have any type of reason to go with something from a worldview that we think is incorrect. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?

A "non-religious" worldview is NOT NEUTRAL.

I do think that Sue's argument from the biblical perspective should give you pause. And I also offer the argument that god would want everyone to be happy and to love one another so long as they aren’t harming others. You may disagree, but I think this is a reasonable argument.

I think it's very reasonable. The problem is, as I've said over and over, that a person's very definition of what is harmful or not depends upon their worldview. And ours are different. We have a lot of overlap, but on this issue, we don't.

I think I finished wrapping up this thread, and we might have a few new threads when I get back!

[JustJim]

But theft if (sic) not an exclusively Christian ideal. It’s universally unacceptable.

I disagree, but that's another thread

Wow, Rian... you actually believe that the belief that stealing is "wrong" is exclusive to Christianity, and that theft is not universally unacceptable? Surely, you didn't mean to say that, since if you did, you're the only human being alive who thinks that. Everyone else thinks stealing is wrong, whether they're Christians or not! ????

Jim

[Rian]

I was going to make some cultural points on the issue, but probably shouldn't have said that since I'm leaving for a few weeks. Just strike that comment - and I certainly do NOT think that Christianity is the only worldview that says stealing is wrong! Sorry for the unclear post.

[stickmangrit]

we need to have a discussion here.

rian, you keep saying that you're against forcing religious tenets on people, but that you'd happily vote for legislation that does so. you're seriously marginalizing the importance of voting. when you vote for something to be banned, you are unequivocally stating that what needs to be banned is clearly damaging to the nation, that it must be removed if we are to function as a society. voting is not an opinion poll, it is the foundation of our government. this is my chief problem with modern politics. we're not picking leaders because they have genuine credentials for leadership, but because they pray(and say so more than their opponent), or because they look good on camera, or because they seem like the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. we vote to ban marijuana, not because it poses a legitimate and medical threat, but because we're opposed to it on a personal level, or worse yet because somebody fed us a load of lies and we bought them without question. laws affect everyone, and to vote to make an action illegal is the most serious activity you can participate in as an american citizen. it is not something to be stumbled into willy-nilly. for the most part, the fact that the other christians on this board(mike especially) recognize this should tell you something. personal bias is not a credible reason to ban something. i personally feel that the KKK should be dismantled and shot, but i would never vote for such measures for the simple fact that until they violate the law, their speech is protected, and once their opinions are declared illegal it may only be a matter of time before legislation comes after me too. mike is thoroughly opposed to divorce, but he would never vote to see it outlawed because there are situations in our society that would result in extraordinary pain and suffering for the individuals forced into life-long marriage. liberty cannot be compromised for any reason that is not universally accepted and verifiable because once we start deciding that some are not as equal as others then we have taken the first steps towards tyranny.

as for the argument of banning things for the vague and indeterminate greater good, this argument falls flat as well. the second amendment is a clear example of this. does the current distribution of firearms result in an increase in violent crime? definitely. should we then outlaw firearms? of course not. you can't uninvent the semi-automatic pistol. it's still gonna be there no matter what the law says, and as useful as it is in criminal enterprise, criminals will find a way to get them. outlawing the gun is not going to reduce gun crime, it's just going to prevent law-abiding citizens from accessing them.

now most would continue the argument to state that this means we should have guns to defend ourselves from this threat, and that the founding fathers wanted us to be able to have guns. they typically don't state why. the second amendment is not there to defend us from each other, it is there as the final check and balance in our government.

the legislature and executive branch are elected by the people to govern the nation in the people's best interest. the judicial branch is there to see to it that they don't get out of hand. but, if one party could maintain power in the other two branches long enough to create a complicit majority in the SCOTUS, those who govern us would have nothing left to stop them from doing whatever was "in the nation's best interest," despite what the people have to say. nothing, that is, except the understanding that the people are armed. the final guard against tyranny in america is the ability of the people, through the rights awarded in the second amendment, to violently reclaim power if necessary. that's why we're allowed to own guns, everything else is secondary. we tolerate a certain amount of harm to society from this because the alternative is far, far worse. we tolerate the damage alcohol does because we've seen that prohibition is far, far worse. and honestly, we should tolerate civilly recognized gay unions for the exact same reason, because the pain and suffering being undergone by gays in this country is far, far worse than the nondescript "damage to the fabric of society" that currently keeps it illegal. because the removal of basic rights to american citizens is far, far more damaging to the actual fabric of our society, that of liberty and equality for all, than the alternative.

[spongebob]

I guess I just see things differently than you. You seem to see 2 levels - "follow a particular religious practice" and "be part of the religion". I guess I see a third - really believe that the religion is the correct view of the universe. And you can't force that.

I see all those possibilities as well, Rian. Seeing those options is not part of this discussion. We're talking about what a government can/should do to control the behavior of its citizens. If you base your support of a law that bans gay people from marrying on this ideal, that gay marriage is "bad" for the people involved because it isn't what god expects of them, then you are in fact fulfilling just what I'm talking about, you're putting emphasis on laws that you deem "good" by religious standards and virtually nothing else. Now stay with me here. Why pick this one particular behavior to legislate? Why just gay marriage? There are so many religious issues that you could also legislate, many of which are far more important than who someone decides to marry. Why not legislate those as well? Would this do them any good? Absolutely not. I'm just trying to make this point crystal clear. Forcing people pray is useless, isn't it? Forcing people to read their bible is useless, right? Forcing them to observe the Sabbath is useless. Even if you truly believe that if people would just do those things, their life would be better. So, by that very logic, isn't forcing them to marry only into heterosexual relationships just as useless? Can you really accomplish any "goodness" by forcing them to obey this particular and obscure religious tenet?

But theft if not an exclusively Christian ideal. It’s universally unacceptable.

I disagree, but that's another thread
...later clarification...
...I certainly do NOT think that Christianity is the only worldview that says stealing is wrong! Sorry for the unclear post.

I'm glad you cleared that up. It had me scratching my head for a moment.

Right, we agree that you can’t force people to believe something, but you are avoiding the point. You are saying: “If it’s good for people, we should make them do it.” Right?

No, I'm not. You need to re-read my voting criteria post. Maybe you missed that.

OK, I'm sorry to be insistent here, but I'm almost 100% certain that you stated this very assertion somewhere back on this thread. Maybe I was mistake. If this is not your assertion, then please restate to clarify.

I'm not really trying to get you to agree with this ridiculous concept. We both agree that it is unenforceable. What I'm attempting to do is get you to see that laws based purely on religious contexts are not appropriate for the general public because of our diversity. We have to keep these laws abated for freedom of religion to flourish. The more laws that are based on one particular religion, the more other religions are oppressed. Does this make sense? Ultimately, I agree that lots of religious ideas are good ideas--love thy neighbor? Yeah, that's a great idea--but the law is not the place for most of those things to be enforced. I think it is important to respect our parents, but I think a law requiring this is utter stupidity. They must earn that respect and we must be taught to respect them by our parents. There are so many facets to culture and society, so many subtle wrinkles. To think that we can legislate our way to utopia is a 19th century idea that has long past its expiration date.

I think my voting post covers this, too.

Perhaps it does, but in what way? Is it a justification for forcing people to follow religious practices that you value but they don't? For me, it seems there room here for everyone to have some of what they want.

And my big point with the whole worldview issue was that what you call a "religious" reason is the same thing as your reason - they're the same animal. I can dismiss your viewpoint as being non-religious in the same way that you can dismiss my viewpoint as being religious. Both of our viewpoints express what we think is true about the universe, and neither of us have any type of reason to go with something from a worldview that we think is incorrect. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?

Right, I understand that this is the way you see the argument, Rian. But this whole issue revolves around the basis of law. If our law was clearly and openly based on a Xtian context, then you would have me. But it isn't and we both know that. You can successfully argue that some subtle religious contexts are woven into our law, but these are subtle things and certainly not boldly stated. Our law is derived from the Constitution, not the bible, and even though judges may inject their own philosophies (of any kind really) into their interpretation of the Constitution, that latitude is not unlimited; it can't stray too far. And understand, I'm not "dismissing" your view point at all. I'm just saying that where legal matters are concerned, the bible just isn't the place where laws are derived. My viewpoint is largely based on my understanding of the Constitution, and that's a large reason why I have no issue with this subject. The Constitution does not rule it out and there seems to exist no compelling reason to inject such prohibitions into it, no harm that could come of it (please, pleas don't repeat your "harm" argument again). The bible just isn't the text with the power here. Were I to be a believer in Christianity, I think I would still hold this opinion, Rian, because if I still knew what I know now, I would still know that this is not a biblical issue, but a Constitutional one. So I would still disagree with you on legal grounds if not on theological grounds. And this is largely why I dismiss your entire world view dispute as not that important in this particular issue.

A "non-religious" worldview is NOT NEUTRAL.

I never said it was neutral, Rian.

I think it's very reasonable. The problem is, as I've said over and over, that a person's very definition of what is harmful or not depends upon their worldview. And ours are different. We have a lot of overlap, but on this issue, we don't.

Why do you keep appealing to this argument when it is not convincing? Some things are measurable and don't need a world view context. Gauging "harm" in social relationships should be possible without appealing to your "world view" assertion. Here's a simple example. A six year old girl is raped by her uncle. His world view believes that such things are not wrong. But objective evaluation would certainly reveal the harm in such an action. It doesn't matter what the uncle believes, this girl has been harmed. This is the kind of objective harm I'm trying to get you to understand.

And isn't it odd that you chose to repeat your same argument about harm instead of commenting on Sue's argument or my new comment about god loving people. You know, it isn't necessary to repeat yourself over and over, Rian. I understand your world view "argument", and I absolutely reject it. Repeating it won't likely convince me it has any merit, unless you add something new to consider. Not to chastise you, but I think this may be the source of much of the frustration you seem to inspire. Once we get your argument, restating it a thousand times won't make it any more or less valid. You can rephrase it for illumination, but once it's pretty well understood, there's little else you can do. Do you feel it is necessary to just continue to repeat yourself, almost word for word? If so, why?

[stickmangrit]

Why do you keep appealing to this argument when it is not convincing? Some things are measurable and don't need a world view context. Gauging "harm" in social relationships should be possible without appealing to your "world view" assertion. Here's a simple example. A six year old girl is raped by her uncle. His world view believes that such things are not wrong. But objective evaluation would certainly reveal the harm in such an action. It doesn't matter what the uncle believes, this girl has been harmed. This is the kind of objective harm I'm trying to get you to understand.

And isn't it odd that you chose to repeat your same argument about harm instead of commenting on Sue's argument or my new comment about god loving people. You know, it isn't necessary to repeat yourself over and over, Rian. I understand your world view "argument", and I absolutely reject it. Repeating it won't likely convince me it has any merit, unless you add something new to consider. Not to chastise you, but I think this may be the source of much of the frustration you seem to inspire. Once we get your argument, restating it a thousand times won't make it any more or less valid. You can rephrase it for illumination, but once it's pretty well understood, there's little else you can do. Do you feel it is necessary to just continue to repeat yourself, almost word for word? If so, why?

amen.

[spongebob]

I fixed my quotes 2 posts back. Thanks, Rian.

And for what it's worth, I do think I have identified at least three good arguments that should appeal to Xtians to support gay marriage. Actually one is Sue's biblical argument, and my argument that god would want people to be happy and finally there's the family unit argument. By banning gay marriage, we are essentially preventing people from forming legal and stable families, something most Xtian groups support for heterosexual couples very adamantly. Since studies show that gay couples can produce families at least as stable and loving as traditional families, it seems odd to me that Xtians would prefer that these people continue to exist in a life without marriage and prevent them from raising children who need a stable home. I think this argument as gotten through to some Xtians, as I've known a few who totally agree and support gay marriage now on these grounds alone.

[JustJim]

And another "hint" that God would be in favor of gay marriage might be that he apparently isn't all that fond of females in the first place, except when they might help fulfill one of his purposes. I mean, after all, God is a male. Jesus is a male. The Holy Spirit is (almost exclusively defined to be) a male. In a universe like that, where women are an after thought, to be "used" by men, you'd think homosexuality would be the norm.



Jim

[NH Baritone]

I don't believe that I've posted this predictive argument here before, so here goes.

Those opposing same-sex marriage may, in fact, be doing greater harm to marriage, and the expansion of marital rights & responsibilities may be the best way to strengthen the institution.

The current younger generations are growing up with acknowledged GLBT friends, classmates, and teammates. There is a growing awareness that gay people speak about and express love in the same ways as straight people do. Straight & gay youth recognize that their romantic/emotional lives share much more in common than earlier generations believed.

HOWEVER, when it comes to solemnizing committed relationships, gay people in most states are barred from the marital door. So instead, we do the best we can: we fall in love, move into suburban homes, and live our lives as unmarried couples. Our commitments to our partner are easy to spot, and from experience I can tell you, we are the subject of frequent neighborhood gossip.

Our example of fulfilling, loving relationships WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF MARRIAGE can easily convince the rising generations that marriage is an unnecessary component of coupling. Those young people will see gay couples' emotional commitment and life as a model for their own. And if those couples are prevented from marrying, then the role of marriage will essentially deteriorate over the next couple of generations.

So to all you marriage-preserving Christians, consider that, while it's your purview to maintain your Church's ban on gay marriage, insisting on keeping civil marriage off the books will quite possibly push the institution of marriage further from the realm of relevance for coming generations. You may, in fact, be weakening an institution that is already suffering under the weight of divorce, overwork, and financial stresses.

[mikedsjr]

I've got a question for you NH.

Growing up in a suburb, we knew of a park that it happened in. I have a friend who was arrested to prove it. I had no idea he was gay, but i guess i should have realized by how he threw the softball. And there is a park in dallas that is the park everyone knows it happens. One of the local radio shows used to do their show at night there once a week, seeing if they could pick one up...then say no thanks right before they left.

So why do gay men go to parks for sex?

[darkumbra]

I've got a question for you NH.

Growing up in a suburb, we knew of a park that it happened in. I have a friend who was arrested to prove it. I had no idea he was gay, but i guess i should have realized by how he threw the softball. And there is a park in dallas that is the park everyone knows it happens. One of the local radio shows used to do their show at night there once a week, seeing if they could pick one up...then say no thanks right before they left.

So why do gay men go to parks for sex?

Are you suggesting, even for a second, that some straights don't do things of a similar nature?

[NH Baritone]

I've got a question for you NH.

Growing up in a suburb, we knew of a park that it happened in. I have a friend who was arrested to prove it. I had no idea he was gay, but i guess i should have realized by how he threw the softball. And there is a park in dallas that is the park everyone knows it happens. One of the local radio shows used to do their show at night there once a week, seeing if they could pick one up...then say no thanks right before they left.

So why do gay men go to parks for sex?

I'm bouncing between being strongly offended by your question and the suggestions it makes about me personally (I've said several impolite things about you since I read it), and recognizing that some gay men do things like that, which equally offends me.

And you implication about gay people not being able to play ball would probably offend many others, from Billy Bean, the former Major Leaguer who came out in 1999, to the competitors in the Gay Games.

First off, I personally have an "ick" reaction to finding people engaging in public sex. (Get a room!) However, I also believe that this is a reaction to internal suffering. Gay people, specifically, are an oppressed minority. Men are told from their earliest gendered memories that if they are gay, act gay, are rumored to be gay, or even think they might be gay, they are the source of shame for themselves and their families. The idea that they could actually fall in love with another man and live an "American Dream" life in same-sex conjugal bliss requires such a cognitive restructuring that I'm not certain many of them could do it. Many of the men cruising the parks or restrooms for sex are married to women or are otherwise frightened of being "outed." (Witness Senator Larry Craig.) So for many of them, it's a symptom of internalized homophobia.

Then again, men in general appear to be wired for having sex with a large number of partners, and although some guys have an easier time with monogamy, many find it nearly impossible. And while there are many women who seem similarly randy, women seem to settle into monogamy somewhat easier. When you combine the inner urgings of male sexuality with the shame that has been heaped on being gay, it is at least understandable that some guys would like to have the least commitment to someone while having their sexual needs met. After it's over, they don't have to worry that this may effect the rest of their lives.

The question regarding public sex does not belong only to gay men. Why do straight men go to strip clubs to get a lap dance from a naked woman? Why do strip clubs exist at all? Why does "Hooters" exist openly as a place for a businessman's lunch? And then again, why do we care?

Personally, I have always valued my integrity too much to engage in that kind of behavior. I guess I'm just the marrying kind.

[spongebob]

It's always seemed strange to me that gay bars are always maligned as such, when "straight?" bars exist for the exact same reason, for people to meet and sometimes go home together to have sex. Is this not a clear double standard?

[whoosanightowl]

Soongebob wrote:

It's always seemed strange to me that gay bars are always maligned as such, when "straight?" bars exist for the exact same reason, for people to meet and sometimes go home together to have sex. Is this not a clear double standard?

Spongebob,
I think the distinction is only made in order to determine which kind of bar it is, and because the majority of people are straight, they don't have to specifically state it. It's like boys/mens clubs, girls/womens clubs, bikers clubs, clubs for people of color, clubs for certain religious beliefs, social clubs, athletic clubs, etc. If it's open to everyone in general, it would not need to be specified as a certain type of club, but since these groups are all part of smaller subcultures, it helps to define them. At least that's my take on it.
NHB,
Thanks for a clear and enlightening explanation to Mikes post, and for avoiding coming back with an angry, defensive response. It helped me to better understand the mindset of some gay men and see the similarities between them and some straight men when it comes to their sexual drives. I too consider excessive public displays of affection (anything beyond a hug and a little kiss) to be inconsiderate and tacky, if not down right repulsive, but that goes for anyone, not just gays.