Grr I hate living in the bible thumping texas..Follow

The problem is that many of the "moral values you happen to get from your religion" are completely illogical and are only considered wrong because the bible says so.


Murder and theft would still be considered crimes without religion. I'm pretty sure Caveman Oog got pissed when Caveman Blorg killed his mate and stole his club. Logical thought processes and philosophical ideas like deontologism and the categorical imperative can be used to craft ethics and morals without relying on the arbitrary bible.

The secular would not likely land at the conclusion that cheeseburgers should be illegal because eating meat and milk at the same meal is not kosher.





Edited, Tue Oct 11 13:15:37 2005 by trickybeck

They probably would in a time before pasturization and preservatives when eating bad meat and drinking bad milk would kill you.

I'm willing to admit that a lot of religion has outmoded ideas. The impact of this on society is fairly limited, from my point of view, when compared to defining a familial unit.

Also...

I'm not sure you want to bring about a comparison between arbitrary crap going on in the bible and going on in our own legal system. That could get messy.

Both are attempts to mold a social system/contract out of a set of beliefs. The beliefs hinge on different points and principles but the motive is still similar.

I was reading "Islam and the West" by Bernard Lewis and I just passed over the line:

"It's not good enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid -- that is, to exercise authority. The same principle applied in general to the holy law, which must be not only obeyed but enforced. Thus, in the view of many jurists, a Muslim must not only abstain from drinking and dissipation, but also must destroy strong drink and other appurtences of dissipation. For this reason, in any encounter between Islam and unbelief, Islam must dominate"

Somehow it made me think of certain parts of this thread.

When it comes to legislating morals though I think it is important to have a deeper understanding behind the reasoning than "because god says no". We dont make Murder a capital offense because God told Moses to put it on his top 10 list of bad thing. We make it a capital offense for a much more universal reason.

If you want to make the argument that the termination of a fetus at any stage is a crime and should not be tolerated you need to go beyond the argument "god doesnt like it". Some have using various arguments and failed over the years.

In the end you have to live with it. I don't like white supremacists and I wouldn't be opposed out lawing white power movements. Fortunately or unfortunately they are allowed certain freedoms and liberties and I'm not allowed to legislate how they live or think based on my morals and ideals.

bah hope this doesnt come out as a DP

Ok. Granted. *Some* of them aren't. But many actually are. Most religious rules are just morals and ethics wrapped in a differnet package. Whether you think killing is wrong because God says so, or because of a complex philosophical approach to ethics, or an evaluation of the socio-economic effects of murder on a society is completely irrelevant to the conclusion that murder should be illegal. Ultimately, you derive that conclusion because *most people* agree with it. Why they do so isn't nearly as important as the consensus itself.




Ok. But then what's the litmus test for that? Shouldn't that apply to ideas that *only* result from specific religious belief? See. I agree with you completely on things like the world being created i 7 days, a mere 4 thousand years ago. That's a specific belief. It sppears from one wholly religious source. And it has no evidence beyond that to support it. But if an idea is shared by multiple religions (not just Judeao/Christian btw), or it's shared by people who are not religious, then can we call it a "religious" view? Even if some people hold it because of religion does that mean it's *only* a religious belief? To me, if there's any valid justification for something that does not rely completely on a religious source, then the fact that religioun teaches it is secondary to its value.

Heck. I'm agnostic. I believe that most religious beliefs are rules folks came up (for good reason at the time), and they just used religion to get people to follow them. Unless you believe in the religion, then you must assume that the rules were generated by man, right? Someone wasn't really chaneling god when he came up with them, right? So, presumably, that person had a non-religious reason to make the rule. And some of those reasons may certainly still apply.

let's go case by case.

Abortion. Is this about whether "god said so" or not? Is it a stretch to believe that a developing fetus should be protected by societies rules? Again. Can you confidently argue that no secular philosopher will argue that abortion is wrong? If not, then does that not mean that there is a non-religious argument against abortion? And if so, then does that mean that the religious folks are imposing their religion on you? Or maybe that their religion just happens to hold a particular viewpoint on something, but it's not specific to their religion at all?

All I have to do is find *one* person who opposes abortion for non-religous reasons, and your argument that it's an imposition of religious belief falls appart. You can still argue that we should legalize it. I've never disagreed with that. It's the argument that the anti-abortion folks are wrong becuase their viewpoint comes from a religous belief that I just find ridiculous.

Gay Marriage. Heck. I've already won this one. I most certainly am not opposed to gay marriage because of any religious opposition to gays in general. Thus, there *is* a non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage. You are welcome to disagree with that reason (and many do), but that's not the point I'm making. I'm countering the idea that opposition to gay marriage is wrong becuase it's based on a religoius belief.

Again. There only has to be *one* non-religous based argument to state that the position is non-religous. The fact that lots of religious people hold a particular view is coincidental. Just because some people oppose gay marriage because a book tells them gay people are "bad", does not mean that other people can't oppose gay marriage for completely legitimate and non-religious reasons.

Prayer in school. Creationism. Ok. You basically win with this one. However, I still feel there's a lot of rhetoric on this as well. My main point on this one is that both sides treat it like a fight in which they must "gain ground" in whatever direction they're going.

When I mentioned this earlier, it was in conjucntion with other social effects. Yes. We should not have those things in public school. But then citizens should be free to choose private schools if they wish. When every citizen is taxed to pay for education, but cannot choose to spend that money on a private school, we are making it harder for those who wish to raise their children with prayer and religous instruction. Think about the Democrate economic "solution". Increased taxes. Increased government servies in return. That's all great. But since we have that whole "separation of church and state" thing, that means that we're taking money away that could have been spent by individuals on private alternative, and putting them into secular government institutions.

How many people, who can just barely afford to send their kinds to a catholic schools today say, would not be able to if we raised taxes enough to pay for socialized medicine? Or more/better public schools? Or more after-school programs for kids? Or more meals programs for the hungry? Don't get me wrong, those are all separate issues that deserve their own attention. I'm simply pointing out that there is a very real effect on the rights of parents to educate their kids in a religous environment as a result. So yeah. There is an issue of preventing creationism from being taught *at all*. Not just in public schools.

Pay attention to ballot initiatives and school standards laws. Many of them over the last 25 years have been, perhaps not specifically targetted at private education, but have definately had a negative effect on them. I've seen people trying to push to illegalize home schooling. The debate over school vouchers wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a very real desire by many people to send their kids to private schools, but who just can't afford it. Testing standards and requirements make it more difficult on private schools since they have to pay more per student to meet requirements for licensing as a school. Heck. Look at the grading scales for "standardized" measurments used for college entrance requirements nationwide. Notice that you only get credit for a small number of "philosophy/social-studies" courses. Guess what catagory religion classes fit into? So private schools muust limit the number of those classes in order to graduate students that will qualify for a university. Most require more courses of their students per year in order to fit them in, which makes it harder to compete.

There are lots of little rules and laws and standards that negatively effect private schools, especially religious based ones. So arguing that no ones trying to remove the rights of parents to allow their children to learn creationism, or learn in an environment where prayer is allowed, is not quite accurate. Remember the "or prohibit the free exersize thereof" part of the ammendment? Ultimately, when we push for a world in which most spending cash is taken from individuals by the government and handed back in the form of secular governmet services, you end up doing exactly that. And that's most definately an agenda of the Left wing...

As do I. Additionally, there are definately valid reasons for being for legalization of abortion. It's just that most often, the argument ignores those and turns into a "I'm right because I've got religion on my side" versus "You're wrong because you've got religion on your side" debacle. It would be nice, if just once, the issue could be debated on the actual social merits of abortion rather then the people who happen to make up the bulk of each side...



It was very nice! You should have read it. Really...



You're both right and wrong here. First off, it just seems silly to discard the mountains of evidence showing that children raised in sinble parent homes suffer in comparison to those that dont. Clearly, there's a hell of a lot more children in that state then those growing up in the non-standard family of a pair of gay parents. There's very littls on same sex homes because it's incredibly rare. Just relating my own experiences, I know *one* lesbian couple with children. I literally know personally a few dozen hetero families. And I'd wager that I'm in the minority in that I even know a single same sex family with children.

You are right that we don't know the effects though. But I don't see how that's specifically rlated to marriage. Remember, that my whole point is that marriage as a government institution exists as an incentive for couples who may produce children to form into a stable economic unit on the off chance that they *do* produce children. It's specifically intended to reduce as much as possible the number of children born to single poor women by giving them a motivation to marry *before* that happens.

All children born to or adopted by gay couples are by choice, right? That's not the "problem" you need marriage to solve. Presumably, a destitute lesbian isn't going to go get herself artificially inseminated, and if she does should the government (and therefore the people) pay for her to do it? And you can't adopt if you're poor, so that's right out the window.

Again. The point is to acknowledge that people tend to have sex. And when hetero couples have sex, statistically children are produced, whether they can afford them or not. The creation of a status of marriage can reduce the number of children born into poverty as a result. This concept simply doesn't apply to a gay couple. They can't "accidentally" produce a child, so there's no reason to provide them an incentive to form that economic unit before that happens. And given the vast mountains of data that shows the benefits of having two parents, that's a valid thing to create an incentive for.


Create a civil union status. One that includes all the joint rights a couple might need for themselves. Make it available to anyone. I've got no problems with that. And there's nothing stopping people getting those from having a marriage ceremony and even a church wedding. Just leave the legal status of "married" alone. It does serve a valuable purpose, and I believe firmly that purpose will be damaged greately by changing it to include couples that as a group cannot produce children.

And before you go there, let me point out that while certainly some hetero couples cant or wont produce children either, we can't effectively test that. Requiring people to get an expensive fertility test would also destroy the whole incentive part. The very people you want to encourage to get married the most wont be able to afford them. If you pay for it federally, then you eat into the value of the institution as well. Does it cost more per year to test every single hetero couple who seeks a marriage, or to give the economic bennies to them all anyway? Remember that the tax benefits help the most with single income couples, which is most likely to occur when one is at home caring for the kids. Two working professionals with no children don't gain anything tax wise from being married (and in fact can end up paying more depending on how much they earn). Um. And even if they don't have to pay, tests will reduce the number of people who'll marry just because it's one more hassle. Also, given the accuracy level required, about the only people excluded would be post menopausal women. I'm pretty sure the feminists wouldn't agree to that one...


It's just an ugly can of worms that does not need to be opened. Every single time this topic comes up, the same arguments about why gay couples need marriage are used. And every single one of those can be solved with a separate civil union status. Why not endorse the solution that actually addresses exacty the needs of gay couples? It just makes more sense.

I would reply to the Double Post that Ate Cincinatti above, but as of my second attack yesterday, I'm on a constant Percocet dosage until I can get in for my surgery, and there's no way I'll be conscious that long. As it is, the coherency of this post may suffer a bit, and I have no idea if I'll be able to continue the dialogue for long.



Yes, I will grant there are fewer pregnancies amongst gay couples, but what of the gay people--and there are many of them--who have children from het relationships they tried to maintain prior to coming out? Shouldn't a gay mom who is a custodial parent of children from a previous relationship be entitled to the same benefits she would receive in a het marriage with her new partner, and if she does not receive them, is there not the chance that it is her children are the ones who will ultimately suffer for the lack of it?



First off, most research shows that the #1 factor in child welfare is living in a home where there is no strife. A child in a two-parent home where there is conflict will have more difficulties on virtually every front than a child from a peaceful single-parent home. Having two parents is not necessarily the best situation in any given home.

Now, if you're speaking of just economic benefits, yes, two parent homes are usually (not always) ideal. But then would it not also be true that for the children of a lesbian mother or gay father from a marriage made prior to the parent's coming out, economically they will be better off if their mother or father can marry his or her new partner and forge a new "economic unit" that will provide better security for the children, than if the parent remains single?



Here's the problem with that idea: "separate but equal" DOES NOT WORK. We proved that with the Jim Crow laws of the early to mid 20th century south. When you engage a "separate but equal" policy, you are automatically creating inequality and categorizing a targetted segment of the population as second-class citizens. It doesn't work. The back of the bus is not as good as the front of the bus. Forming civil unions may on paper confer all the benefits of marriage, but it's NOT marriage and by being in an civil union, its participants will be subject to all sorts of subtle discriminations that participants in a marriage are not.

The fact is, your definition of "marriage" worked well 100 years ago, but not so well today in an age when couples have many more reproductive options than they once did. It assumes the "catch as catch can" approach to conceiving children and childrearing that existed prior to people having the ability to plan their approach to parenthood. It's not applicable to a large portion of the population now, gay or straight. Lumping a portion of the population into the category of second-class citizen just because they can't "accidentally" produce a child is absurd.



Except that you are taking the 21st century approach to saying, "give them black boys their own water fountains, they're just as good, and then they don't need to use the water fountains us 'decent' folk use."

Any way you cut it, it's discrimination.

I know it doesn't add much to the argument (then why am I going to say it?) but personally I feel that the phrase "seperate but equal" gets a bad rep. The facilites in question were never equal and in any situation that'll cause the problems. If the facilities had been equal it probably would have forestalled reform for years.

Note, I'm not saying that would have been a good thing. The social harm caused by the hatred forcing the seperation over a more extended period of time would probably cause even deeper racial strife than we see now. However, in non-malicious circumstances, I fail to see how things that are both truly seperate and truly equal are a harm to anything.

I will admit to being a religious man and growing up in a religious household and I'm not the least bit ashamed of being a Christian person and I find the remarks by Kati and a few others here to be insulting at best. Oddly most of the intolerance here is coming from those unwilling to excuse the mention of God in this thread. My particular denomination does not believe in bible pushing although our doors are always open for new believers we do not go around saying that unless you join us you will go to hell.

However, religious conflicts aside, it is morally WRONG to support gay marriage. My reason is quite simple. Two persons of the same sex cannot have a child. Marriage between a man and a woman is the NATURAL way despite how people often times try to push off. Explain to me how you can say gay marriage is ok based on that simple fact. Also, the entire reason we have AIDs in this country is because of gay relationships.

Actually without monkies we wouldn't have AIDS. Of course we wouldn't have people either... so I guess its doubly true.

Three reasons:

1. We're the conservatives, remember? It's up to Liberals to push for legistlation enacting social change.

2. When civil unions are presented, they get as much, if not more, negative response from Democrats. They say it's "not enough", or parrot the "separate but equal" argument above.

3. There's a huge concern among many conservatives that a civil union will just be used as a stepping stone to an expansion of marriage. There's a degree of entrenchment which would probably disappear if Liberals weren't so obvious that this is just one step to gay marriage.

Give you an example of this from Vermont



And...



So that's not really an unreasonable concern, is it?...

Um. All that aside. You are aware that the committee chairman who pushed for a civil union solution in Vermont was a Republican, right? Not saying that Republicans "pushed" the bill, but he certainly could have burried it if he'd wanted, but didn't. Just checking...