Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Be fairer than this, Digi."BWR" said something about "marriage" and "legal stuff" because the poster [b]ArtificialGlory
brought up the topic of marriage immediately before him. [/B]
Ok, sure, w/e. I wasn't a part of that conversation, so I was unaware. It looked liked you were speaking with me at one point, so I clarified my position.
srug
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[snipped for space]
[/i]
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
[snipped for space]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/page/full/
I am a Mormon whose religious beliefs hold that it is a sin to have any sex outside of a marriage. Also, sex is only supposed to be employed between a man and a woman. There are exceptions to this (like hermaphrodites) but to call attention to the exceptions is to miss the point to just argue.
Basically, I am saying there should differences between religion and what the state does.** I think gay marriage and adoption rights for gays should be legal. Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).
As long as these things remain separate, I fully support gay rights or any rights for consenting* adults who wish to form a civil union.
*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest. 😐 It is not very Christlike. 😐
**This word is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am a Mormon whose religious beliefs hold that it is a sin to have any sex outside of a marriage.
Also, sex is only supposed to be employed between a man and a woman.
Okay.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am saying there should differences between religion and what the state does.** I think gay marriage and adoption rights for gays should be legal. Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).
Okay. I acknowledge you're saying as much now.
I'm a little curious as to why you mention religion here, though.
I've not said anything about religion.
The Thomas Sowell paper was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.
Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing religion here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything derived from religious writings to this point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
As long as these things remain separate, I fully support gay rights or any rights for consenting* adults who wish to form a civil union.
Civil unions are very different from marriage, legally and religiously.
As far as consenting adults go, the age of consent in Russia, again, is 16.
I doubt most people in America would think the average 16 year old a mature enough adult to meet your definition.
I suspect a great many people in Russia feel the same.
Originally posted by dadudemon
*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest.
😬
Originally posted by dadudemon
**This word [consenting] is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.
A lot of people can, and apparently do, feel the same way about 16 year olds supposedly able to give genuine consent.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Okay.Okay. I acknowledge you're saying as much now.
I'm a little curious as to why you mention religion here, though.
I've not said anything about religion.
The Thomas Sowell paper was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing religion here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything derived from religious writings to this point.
Civil unions are very different from marriage, legally and religiously.
As far as consenting adults go, the age of consent in Russia, again, is 16.
I doubt most people in America would think the average 16 year old a mature enough adult to meet your definition.
I suspect a great many people in Russia feel the same.
😬
A lot of people can, and apparently do, feel the same way about 16 year olds supposedly able to give genuine consent.
Why is religion being introduced into my posts?
1. These arguments are being pushed in the US almost entirely from the religious, not the secular. An extremely small amount of Americans are pushing back against gay rights for completely secular reasons. I'm American. We hare still having LGBT rights issues here in the US. They didn't magically get solved overnight, here. Glass house n'all that.
2. "Russian lawmakers and church officials still believe that heterosexuals can be 'propagandized' into becoming LGBT."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-roots-of-russias-homophobia/485634.html
I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular. Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?. RIGHT? RIIIGHT?*
Regarding civil unions:
1. [I've not said anything about civil unions.
The comment I made that you quoted was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.
Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing civil unions, here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything about civil unions writings at this point.] I'm a cheeky bastard, aren't I? 😄
To be more specific, I was talking about the legal considerations of marriage, not civil unions. Calling them "civil unions" is an unnecessary sentimentality that amounts to explicative** right-wing pandering. You can even check my posting history to see the very moment I gave up the idea of calling them "civil unions." Good times.
But, if you REALLY want to get into my point, I think marriage should be disbanded (sort of...read on) and the only thing allowed are civil contracts. 🙂 Then, all marriages would be useless under the law. Get married in a church! Who cares! It does nothing for you legally. If you do it because of your belief in God, well, by God (no pun intended, I mean actually "by God"😉, you are now married under God's law which should, in our eyes, take precedence over the laws of the land. Am I right, or what? 😉
*The point I just made is important. You want to use your secular position as a launch-pad for the many thousands of words you will probably reply to me with. It is important to your position to appear as objective as possible because, "I am approaching this from a secular perspective. You cannot attack my position because of my belief in a Skyfather! Aha!" Unfortunately, the topic is not regarding you and your particular brand of evading the motives of your position. You probably know, by now, that you cannot really argue from a religious perspective, with educated and informed people regarding the rights of the LGBT community without appearing to be an idiot (because the "God said so" argument is infantile, at best). You also implicitly patting me on the back for my religious beliefs (because they run parallel to your own regarding homosexuality and sin) is also indicative of your true motives. "But...but! Attacking someone's motives is poor form in debate!" This is not debate class. This is the internet where I can and will pick apart your motives for articulating intelligently disguised homophobic talking points. I could also get into the "secular source" you used. He's a Christian and a right-wing political pundit (and economist...and a bunch of other things...a brilliant man, really). I must say, though, his argumentation style is similar to my own but I will not pretend to place myself on his level of aptitude for arguing these points from a secular perspective. TL : DR on this footnote: IDGAF about your thinly veiled but still dishonest secular approach to the topic. If you're a Christian, don't be afraid to say why you approach a topic from a particular perspective. Don't be ashamed of your religious beliefs. Be proud of them. THEN present your arguments in purely secular form. I'll still reject them as having horrible motivations but you'll gain more respect from God for not being ashamed of Him (and me...and probably several others on KMC). 😄
**"Ahhh, but you see! It's not "marriage", per se! It's "civil unions"! Look at us, not offending God with an institution that looks like marriage, talks like marriage, walks like marriage, functions like marriage, and looks like marriage. Let's go home, boys, our job here is done. The gays still don't have marriage rights and we can feel great about ourselves for oppressing millions of people. haha! Jesus is so proud of us." 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular.
Actually, until yesterday, I more or less DID think that ...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
... and what you listed above as a supposed counterexample was exactly WHY I more or less thought that.
For the former Soviet Union, synonymous with Russia for any practical intent, had no great claim to any religion I'm aware of, yet oppressed nearly every group I can think of.
The history of Russia says no religious reasons are needed to limit peoples rights, privileges, expressions, or anything else.
The State can do it without such justification just fine.
And did so throughout much of the 20th Century.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Just the same as I think the state should not infringe upon my Church's right to teach that homosexual sex is a sin (and the state should not force us to marry non-heterosexual couples).*If a religion wants to preach that black people are not humans and Jews are ugly people, well okay, then. Let them. As long as they do not incite harm or cause harm to the people they hate, let them practice their religion. This is how I partially view the hate the LGBT community receives from religious groups, to be honest. 😐 It is not very Christlike. 😐
**This word is extremely important. That compound of polygamists they busted up in Texas probably does not fall under "informed consent" for even some of the adult females. I believe they were brain-washed and subject to conditioning that took away their ability to think more objectively about their situation. IIRC, some of the women, despite religiously and faithfully participating in that community, later cried and expressed regret about their atrocious situation. I conclude that they did not give consent even though, at the time, it fully appeared that they did. Growing up in that and decades of conditioning make it difficult to give genuine consent.
How do you separate religious bias and discrimination from conditioning, coercion, or just plain bigotry, really? It's not like the majority of religious families openly advocate their children to make their own choices and tell them to find their own truths; most are either loosely or heavily indoctrinated into their families' chosen sect. It's not quite "Crazy guy abducts young girls for a cult harem", but you can't say their world-views are shaped entirely by their own moral judgments. This is why after thousands of years we still have people adamantly fighting over 'traditional values'; even if those values are entirely selective (no gay sex, but it's okay to cut your hair at the temples, etc.).
I agree that no one should force churches to marry those they don't want to; there's plenty of other alternatives and there are priests and so on who ARE willing to marry gay couples either on their own or because their church is open-minded. But I have a concern with the loose 'allowing' of religious bodies being given an exemption from engaging in behavior that is inappropriate in a workplace, school place, or in a public area; that is not morally defend-able except as a 'faith-based practice', and brings up large groups of people to hate or distrust other groups of people for being different.
I would hope that you would express concern for a secular/atheist/agnostic household that raised their children to be bigots or created a special group having its own insular ideas and bias, and then crying for exceptions when called out for it. And for the exact same reason I'd hope you'd reconsider the idea that religious bodies should be exempt from something I like to call common decency. If a religious body hates black people, Jews, gay people, whatever, it is a sick, decadent body and should not be given an ounce of leniency.
I mean, if people can get exceptions to be bigots or call other people's lifestyles as sinful (regardless of their actual moral character as a human being), and we the people should defend this right to be intolerant, then that seems to be incredibly backwards movement. As it is here in the US, religious bodies of worship/churches enjoy non-Constitutional benefits such as tax exemption, exemption from caps on political lobbyist spending, preferential treatment in zoning laws, being allowed to license state marriage contracts, being exempt from worker's laws and so on. They enjoy a great deal of leniency already which I think is entirely unfair, because religion is still a large part of Western society.
The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
How do you separate religious bias and discrimination from conditioning, coercion, or just plain bigotry, really?
It's super easy: it's none of yours or my business. It's between God and that individual.
It becomes even easier when you subscribe to morality like a Mormon does: sins and transgressions are not necessarily the same thing.
Action 1 is performed by Person A and B. 1 is a transgression for both A and B but 1 is only a sin for B because B believes that action 1 is a sin.
A transgression is just simply a violation of Eternal Laws (God's laws) and it is entirely up to God to perfectly judge whether or not the transgression constitutes a sin. Since I am not omniscient, I have no business judging others' transgressions as being worthy of the label "sin." If you think it is a sin to do something, and you do it, it counts as a sin for you n'stuff. But not always: since everyone is different (sanity, genetics, environment, etc.), just believing it is a sin is not enough for it to be counted as a sin for you when you commit the transgression: that's still a judgement only God can judge.
This is getting into morality and ethics, though: that's for the philosophy and religion forum.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But I have a concern with the loose 'allowing' of religious bodies being given an exemption from engaging in behavior that is inappropriate in a workplace, school place, or in a public area; that is not morally defend-able except as a 'faith-based practice', and brings up large groups of people to hate or distrust other groups of people for being different.
Nah, I'm okay with it. They should get to choose how to practice their religious beliefs how they want to as long as it does not physically harm others. If you want to remove rights from them because they don't believe as you believe, you could setup a law (and make sure the majority of the voting public are on board with you...or at least the congressional public) that removes tax exemption status for any religious hate groups that meet your particular set of criteria (that list would be simple: hate based on race, gender, religious belief, uhhh...sexual orientation, age, and uhhhh....uhhhh....I'm out).
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I would hope that you would express concern for a secular/atheist/agnostic household that raised their children to be bigots or created a special group having its own insular ideas and bias, and then crying for exceptions when called out for it.
When or if I ever see one, try and imagine my jimmies getting rustled. 🙂
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And for the exact same reason I'd hope you'd reconsider the idea that religious bodies should be exempt from something I like to call common decency.
Oh HHHAAAAIL no. Definitely **** your idea of common decency. I hate that shit. It's so petty, bullshitty, pretentious, and volatile.
For example, I find it common decency to not be passive aggressive and tell me what you don't like about me or my ideas. The exact opposite is true for almost everyone else.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If a religious body hates black people, Jews, gay people, whatever, it is a sick, decadent body and should not be given an ounce of leniency.
"leniency"?
Edit - I see what you're talking about: you list some examples, below.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I mean, if people can get exceptions to be bigots or call other people's lifestyles as sinful (regardless of their actual moral character as a human being), and we the people should defend this right to be intolerant, then that seems to be incredibly backwards movement.
?
"Movement"? If you mean hundreds of years dedicated to this ideology, sure, we can call it a movement. But it's not really a social movement, imo. It's one of the fundemental building beliefs of the US (freedom of religion n'stuff).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Also, you seem to think your opinion is objective with your side comment about a person's moral character: not so. To the person that views a person's homosexual actions to be a sin, that is indicative of a poor moral character. For you, you have a different set of measures for what constitutes a "good moral character." Your set and their set can both be hand-waived as arbitrary. You're both full of shit. Once we all realize we are all full of shit with our morals, then we can agree on how to best live with each other. This is where we get our laws n'stuff.
lol
wtf am I doing...
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
As it is here in the US, religious bodies of worship/churches enjoy non-Constitutional benefits such as tax exemption, exemption from caps on political lobbyist spending, preferential treatment in zoning laws, being allowed to license state marriage contracts, being exempt from worker's laws and so on. They enjoy a great deal of leniency already which I think is entirely unfair, because religion is still a large part of Western society.
I'm okay on doing away with tax exemption status for religions mostly because my Church already separates out much of the business aspects of our organization and pays taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Management_Corporation. Most people, including some Mormons, do not know about the "for-profit" arm of the LDS church existing as a non-exempt entity. 😄 The logic is, it is dishonest to hide behind tax exemption status and run a for profit organization. So make that shit public and pay your damn taxes.
It ("it" being how a "Christian" leader justifies running a for-profit organization as a non-profit tax entity) goes like this:
God: "So, you took advantage of your fellow US Citizens by feeding off of their tax dollars to make yourself richer?"
Typical US Church Leader (TUSCL): "Well...uh...yes."
God: "And you believed this was part of Jesus' teachings about giving to the poor and laboring continually to do His work?"
TUSCL: "Well, no. We just wanted to get ahead in life."
God: "Uh-huh."
TUSCL: "No, it's not like that! We did tons of good charity work! Tons! You are omniscient, you know how many people we helped!"
God: "Uh-huh."
TUSCL: "Okay...we really got rich and prospered using Your name in vain."
God: "You sure did. Tis okay; I forgive you. But my Tommy Gun don't!"
It is a tougher battle for the "rights" laws concerning churches. Licenses to marry people? If the majority want licenses clergy to marry people, doesn't matter: let them get licensed. But the other stuff you mention: getting exempt from employment laws: that is the fault of the American Civil Rights Act. I think employers should legally be able to require their employees to dress and act in a certain way and as long as the employees can give informed consent to those rules, it should be legal. So if they want you to remove your Muslim or Mormon attire while on the job, as long as you agree to it, you should have to remove it. 😮
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.
I disagree, entirely.
I would reword your comments to the following:
"The idea that they should be disallowed to think the way they want to think - specifically if it does not degrade into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained. It is quite horrible to think there are people in the world that feel they can force others to think and feel a specific set of acceptable thoughts."
You fascist. 313
Edit - We largely agree but I take issue with "thought-police" bullshit. I hate it n'stuff. Don't legislate how people are supposed to think and feel as long as they are not committing violence or inciting violence.
Originally posted by bluewaterriderThe age of consent in over thirty of the United States is also 16.
1) What Digi showed with that video was pure, indefensible thuggery.
Don't misinterpret this post as a response to that video.2) 😬 I learned this today; the age of consent in Russia ... is 16.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Russia
Originally posted by NemeBro
The age of consent in over thirty of the United States is also 16.
There are probably lots of and lots of laws around that which make the 30 number not really 30:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
That's too much shit to read.
However, reading the Oklahoma law, you can rape someone who is your student, who is 20, but you are 18.
So, if you are 18 years old, and you make it as a high school teacher because you're smart n'stuff and graduated college early, passed the exams, etc. and you sex up a student who was held back twice and just turned 20, it is considered rape under Oklahoma law.
haha...oh man....these laws.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Actually, until yesterday, I more or less DID think that ...... and what you listed above as a supposed counterexample was exactly WHY I more or less thought that.
For the former Soviet Union, synonymous with Russia for any practical intent, had no great claim to any religion I'm aware of, yet oppressed nearly every group I can think of.
Corroboration for the above.
Although Putin is apparently a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, his baptism, according to his mom (according to Putin),
was done in secret, to hide the fact from his father, a member of the Communist Party.
Soviet Russia was apparently less kind than today's Russia, even where family was concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[Mother] told me that when she and a neighbor brought me here to be Baptized ...
they did it in secret from my Father ...
who was a member of the Communist Party ...
and a loyal and uncompromising man.
In any case, they believed that it was in secret ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3d_yxJhmjk
(relevant portion: 1st 57 seconds of clip)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is religion being introduced into my posts?1. These arguments are being pushed in the US almost entirely from the religious, not the secular. An extremely small amount of Americans are pushing back against gay rights for completely secular reasons. I'm American. We hare still having LGBT rights issues here in the US. They didn't magically get solved overnight, here. Glass house n'all that.
2. "Russian lawmakers and church officials still believe that heterosexuals can be 'propagandized' into becoming LGBT."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-roots-of-russias-homophobia/485634.html
I highly doubt you thought the issue in Russia was purely secular. Because, hey, the oppression of the rights and the killing of millions of people is perfectly okay if you're doing it for secular reasons, right?. RIGHT? RIIIGHT?*
Regarding civil unions:
I've not said anything about civil unions.
1. [b][
The comment I made that you quoted was looking at the issue from a nearly completely secular and legal standpoint.Mind you, I don't mind in the least discussing civil unions, here; I'm just pointing out I have not said anything about civil unions writings at this point.] I'm a cheeky bastard, aren't I? 😄
To be more specific, I was talking about the legal considerations of marriage, not civil unions. Calling them "civil unions" is an unnecessary sentimentality that amounts to explicative** right-wing pandering. You can even check my posting history to see the very moment I gave up the idea of calling them "civil unions." Good times.
But, if you REALLY want to get into my point, I think marriage should be disbanded (sort of...read on) and the only thing allowed are civil contracts. 🙂 Then, all marriages would be useless under the law. Get married in a church! Who cares! It does nothing for you legally. If you do it because of your belief in God, well, by God (no pun intended, I mean actually "by God"😉, you are now married under God's law which should, in our eyes, take precedence over the laws of the land. Am I right, or what? 😉
*The point I just made is important. You want to use your secular position as a launch-pad for the many thousands of words you will probably reply to me with. It is important to your position to appear as objective as possible because, "I am approaching this from a secular perspective. You cannot attack my position because of my belief in a Skyfather! Aha!" Unfortunately, the topic is not regarding you and your particular brand of evading the motives of your position. You probably know, by now, that you cannot really argue from a religious perspective, with educated and informed people regarding the rights of the LGBT community without appearing to be an idiot (because the "God said so" argument is infantile, at best). You also implicitly patting me on the back for my religious beliefs (because they run parallel to your own regarding homosexuality and sin) is also indicative of your true motives. "But...but! Attacking someone's motives is poor form in debate!" This is not debate class. This is the internet where I can and will pick apart your motives for articulating intelligently disguised homophobic talking points. I could also get into the "secular source" you used. He's a Christian and a right-wing political pundit (and economist...and a bunch of other things...a brilliant man, really). I must say, though, his argumentation style is similar to my own but I will not pretend to place myself on his level of aptitude for arguing these points from a secular perspective. TL : DR on this footnote: IDGAF about your thinly veiled but still dishonest secular approach to the topic. If you're a Christian, don't be afraid to say why you approach a topic from a particular perspective. Don't be ashamed of your religious beliefs. Be proud of them. THEN present your arguments in purely secular form. I'll still reject them as having horrible motivations but you'll gain more respect from God for not being ashamed of Him (and me...and probably several others on KMC). 😄
**"Ahhh, but you see! It's not "marriage", per se! It's "civil unions"! Look at us, not offending God with an institution that looks like marriage, talks like marriage, walks like marriage, functions like marriage, and looks like marriage. Let's go home, boys, our job here is done. The gays still don't have marriage rights and we can feel great about ourselves for oppressing millions of people. haha! Jesus is so proud of us." 😉 [/B]
I think this may be the most convoluted post you ever posted, and that's saying something.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The idea that they should be allowed to practice hatred - whether or not it degrades into physical violence - frankly is something I find troubling. No amount of special pleading should be entertained.
People have a right to their beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Freedom means being free to be a douche too.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think this may be the most convoluted post you ever posted, and that's saying something.
It's pretty easy to follow, imo. I think you're out of practice on writing papers in college.
Originally posted by Nephthys
People have a right to their beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Freedom means being free to be a douche too.
Dammit. You said what I was trying to say in just 2 sentences.
I really suck at concise writing.