Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 22>
Poll Question: What is your opinion on this?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
55 [73.33%]
1 [1.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [10.67%]
9 [12.00%]
2 [2.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 11:54
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Nope. Sin is purely a religious offence, it has no non-religious meaning or definition. Some sins are secular crimes, (such as murder and theft), but they would be still crimes if religions had never been invented, not all sins are secular crimes just as not all secular crimes are sins. Gluttony is a sin not a crime, using religious swear-words is a sin not a crime, eating blood is a sin not a crime, moaning and grumbling is a sin not a crime (1Cor 10:10), anger is a sin not a crime, tattoos are a sin not a crime, arguing is a sin not a crime (Tim 2:23), astrology is a sin not a crime, cursing the rich is a sin not a crime, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is a sin not a crime, working on a Sunday is a sin not a crime, divorce is a sin not a crime... the list goes on and so could I, religious people sin all the time, we don't throw them in gaol for it.
 
Making homosexuality not a crime did not impose on hetrosexuals, removing the prohibition on gay marriage would not impose on hetrosexual marriage.
I'm not equating sin with a democratic legal crime. There are plenty of things which could be considered wrong that aren't illegal. I am not arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed. Read my previous post to verify. I am arguing that, even if it is a religious offence, sin refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people. Had religions never been "invented," each society would still have their own conceptions of right and wrong, not-sin and sin. The moral reasoning for each society would differ, but each would have law that would vary with the current moral system. Our society views rape as wrong, but, apparently, the visigoths didn't. The only difference between prohibiting gay marriage citing that it is an offence against God and legalizing it citing that "love is love," is the moral system. By doing the latter, the government would be respecting lack of religion and the moral systems of those who do not believe it is wrong. Simply because the views of those who believe it should be prohibited are associated with a religious institution and that they cite their moral system (like all other people who have an opinion on this issue), does not necessitate falsity. The question is whether or not the government's actions are undue by respecting one moral system over another, not whether or not one moral system applies to all people, because all moral systems do. Sure those things on the list are not secular crimes, but for the reason that they have no direct connection to the law. There are no government records or tax benefits related to food consumption; otherwise, you might have police officers at every restaurant, watching you eat. The government simply has other reasons not to make those sins crimes. Marriage is acknowledged by the law, and by acknowledging both hetero- and homo- sexual marriage, or by acknowledging only one, the government would necessarily be making a moral statement. Removing the prohibition "imposes" on me in the same way that the prohibition "imposes" on you, in that the government is paying respect to one belief system over another. Homosexual marriage would not impose on an individual heterosexual marriage, and if you've read closely, I never said it would. It would, however, impose on the right of those who wish to oppose homosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage were guarded by a civil right, ministers could not refuse to marry two people of the same-sex. By marrying them, a minister who believed homosexuality to be wrong would be violating his own conscience, because the government decided to respect one belief system over another. If the majority (of the people) decided that gay marriage should be allowed, it would be the democratic and constitutional thing to legalize it. I am simply iterating that your argument— that a moral system based on religion and a moral system based on whatever else have different legal standings —is incredibly flawed.
 
1. DO NOT CENSOR MY POSTS! If you cannot cope with the word "bestiality" then don't quote the post containing it.
 
2. Sin is not morality. It is not amoral or immoral to eat pork, it is not amoral or immoral for women to plait their hair, wear gold jewelry and paint their faces with make-up, (the list goes on). Morality is not the property of a religion, sin is.
 
3. Your right to oppose homosexual marriage is not affected by law, the union can be legal and you can still rightfully oppose it, there is no imposition on you what so ever. However, refusing the homosexual couple the right to marry is imposing on their wishes.
 
4. No one is forcing a minister/priest/pastor/vicar to marry a homosexual couple - there are existing grounds for them not to marry heterosexual couples so that is not a valid argument. We are not talking about the religious rite of marriage, we are talking about the secular union of a couple as recognised by law, not as recognised by whatever god you worship, ie the legal ceremony as performed by a registrar or Justice of the Peace.
 
5. The law is not the will of the majority.
 
6. You have not iterated that my argument is flawed at all.
 


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 4467
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Polymorphia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 13:13
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and **********, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Nope. Sin is purely a religious offence, it has no non-religious meaning or definition. Some sins are secular crimes, (such as murder and theft), but they would be still crimes if religions had never been invented, not all sins are secular crimes just as not all secular crimes are sins. Gluttony is a sin not a crime, using religious swear-words is a sin not a crime, eating blood is a sin not a crime, moaning and grumbling is a sin not a crime (1Cor 10:10), anger is a sin not a crime, tattoos are a sin not a crime, arguing is a sin not a crime (Tim 2:23), astrology is a sin not a crime, cursing the rich is a sin not a crime, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is a sin not a crime, working on a Sunday is a sin not a crime, divorce is a sin not a crime... the list goes on and so could I, religious people sin all the time, we don't throw them in gaol for it.
 
Making homosexuality not a crime did not impose on hetrosexuals, removing the prohibition on gay marriage would not impose on hetrosexual marriage.
I'm not equating sin with a democratic legal crime. There are plenty of things which could be considered wrong that aren't illegal. I am not arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed. Read my previous post to verify. I am arguing that, even if it is a religious offence, sin refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people. Had religions never been "invented," each society would still have their own conceptions of right and wrong, not-sin and sin. The moral reasoning for each society would differ, but each would have law that would vary with the current moral system. Our society views rape as wrong, but, apparently, the visigoths didn't. The only difference between prohibiting gay marriage citing that it is an offence against God and legalizing it citing that "love is love," is the moral system. By doing the latter, the government would be respecting lack of religion and the moral systems of those who do not believe it is wrong. Simply because the views of those who believe it should be prohibited are associated with a religious institution and that they cite their moral system (like all other people who have an opinion on this issue), does not necessitate falsity. The question is whether or not the government's actions are undue by respecting one moral system over another, not whether or not one moral system applies to all people, because all moral systems do. Sure those things on the list are not secular crimes, but for the reason that they have no direct connection to the law. There are no government records or tax benefits related to food consumption; otherwise, you might have police officers at every restaurant, watching you eat. The government simply has other reasons not to make those sins crimes. Marriage is acknowledged by the law, and by acknowledging both hetero- and homo- sexual marriage, or by acknowledging only one, the government would necessarily be making a moral statement. Removing the prohibition "imposes" on me in the same way that the prohibition "imposes" on you, in that the government is paying respect to one belief system over another. Homosexual marriage would not impose on an individual heterosexual marriage, and if you've read closely, I never said it would. It would, however, impose on the right of those who wish to oppose homosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage were guarded by a civil right, ministers could not refuse to marry two people of the same-sex. By marrying them, a minister who believed homosexuality to be wrong would be violating his own conscience, because the government decided to respect one belief system over another. If the majority (of the people) decided that gay marriage should be allowed, it would be the democratic and constitutional thing to legalize it. I am simply iterating that your argument— that a moral system based on religion and a moral system based on whatever else have different legal standings —is incredibly flawed.
 
1. DO NOT CENSOR MY POSTS! If you cannot cope with the word "**********" then don't quote the post containing it.
 
2. Sin is not morality. It is not amoral or immoral to eat pork, it is not amoral or immoral for women to plait their hair, wear gold jewelry and paint their faces with make-up, (the list goes on). Morality is not the property of a religion, sin is.
 
3. Your right to oppose homosexual marriage is not affected by law, the union can be legal and you can still rightfully oppose it, there is no imposition on you what so ever. However, refusing the homosexual couple the right to marry is imposing on their wishes.
 
4. No one is forcing a minister/priest/pastor/vicar to marry a homosexual couple - there are existing grounds for them not to marry heterosexual couples so that is not a valid argument. We are not talking about the religious rite of marriage, we are talking about the secular union of a couple as recognised by law, not as recognised by whatever god you worship, ie the legal ceremony as performed by a registrar or Justice of the Peace.
 
5. The law is not the will of the majority.
 
6. You have not iterated that my argument is flawed at all.
 

1. I did not censor or alter your post in any way. When I quoted the existing posts, they were already censored. It was not my doing, and I have no problem with the word "bestiality."

2. The idea of religious law, at least, in Christianity, is a moral code. There are certainly context-specific laws; however, the commandment against homosexuality in the Bible, like the commandments against murder, theft, gluttony etc. applies to all people in all contexts. I won't get into the specifics in this thread, but there are many many commandments in the Bible meant to apply to all people. Morality being the "property" of religion, would depend on the moral system being right or wrong. It would not depend on the fact that said moral system was derived from a religion. There is no natural law that states that if it is derived from a religion, it is not morality, unless you are specifically implying that those religious beliefs are false, in which case, that is a discussion for another time.

3-4. The union simply being made legal is not what I'm worried about. It's the union being made a civil right by the Supreme Court, an amendment in our constitution, protected. Parts of Europe have already experienced situations like that one I describe with the minister. Furthermore, imagine a minister refusing to marry two people of a different race. He could easily be sued. If gay marriage is directly equated to interracial marriage, like it has been throughout the whole issue, then the amendment will carry the same repercussions.

5. That all depends on what legal system you're talking about. In a democracy, even a representative one, I would hope that it is the will of the people that defines the law, not lawmakers that have no regard for the people.
Back to Top
deafmoon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 260
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deafmoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 13:22
The very problem with acceptance becoming law is it yields mediocrity.
Deafmoon
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 30077
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 13:49
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Nope. Sin is purely a religious offence, it has no non-religious meaning or definition. Some sins are secular crimes, (such as murder and theft), but they would be still crimes if religions had never been invented, not all sins are secular crimes just as not all secular crimes are sins. Gluttony is a sin not a crime, using religious swear-words is a sin not a crime, eating blood is a sin not a crime, moaning and grumbling is a sin not a crime (1Cor 10:10), anger is a sin not a crime, tattoos are a sin not a crime, arguing is a sin not a crime (Tim 2:23), astrology is a sin not a crime, cursing the rich is a sin not a crime, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is a sin not a crime, working on a Sunday is a sin not a crime, divorce is a sin not a crime... the list goes on and so could I, religious people sin all the time, we don't throw them in gaol for it.
 
Making homosexuality not a crime did not impose on hetrosexuals, removing the prohibition on gay marriage would not impose on hetrosexual marriage.

Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 4467
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Polymorphia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 17:49
Dean, I'm worn out. I think I'll opt to agree to disagree, for now. You can respond to my previous post if you so choose, but I will not respond— at least, not with an argument or anything pertaining to the issue. It was a pleasure discussing with you.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 18:03
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

1. I did not censor or alter your post in any way. When I quoted the existing posts, they were already censored. It was not my doing, and I have no problem with the word "bestiality."

Then your PC or  home-network must be running some net-nanny software that is censuring the quotes because it certainly isn't the PA auto-censor that is doing it.
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

2. The idea of religious law, at least, in Christianity, is a moral code. There are certainly context-specific laws; however, the commandment against homosexuality in the Bible, like the commandments against murder, theft, gluttony etc. applies to all people in all contexts. I won't get into the specifics in this thread, but there are many many commandments in the Bible meant to apply to all people. Morality being the "property" of religion, would depend on the moral system being right or wrong. It would not depend on the fact that said moral system was derived from a religion. There is no natural law that states that if it is derived from a religion, it is not morality, unless you are specifically implying that those religious beliefs are false, in which case, that is a discussion for another time.
Applying the rules of a select club to people who are not club-members is dumb. Are you sure I cannot wear a jumper made from a mix of wool and cotton fibres? Must I really read the bible daily? Can I not trim my beard? Am I really not allowed to have long hair? Can I really not eat shellfish? No, the commandments in the bible are for followers of that religion. If by chance they happen to coincide with secular law then whoop-di-doo, at least someone had the good sense to cherry-pick the valid ones from the nonsensical ones. None of the seven "deadly" sins are specifically covered by law. Only two of your Ten Commandments are secular law - by any standard that is a poor success rate for a system of morality. Of the remaining 657 commandments in the bible the tiny number of those that are codified in common or statute law does not fare any better, moreover some of the punishments you are supposed to enact upon transgressors of some of those commandments are actually prohibited by secular law.
 
Morality is not the property of religion, sin is. Sin is not morality. This is not a difficult concept to grasp: religion does not hold the monopoly on morality, however it does hold the monopoly on sin, because sin is a purely religious construct.

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

3-4. The union simply being made legal is not what I'm worried about. It's the union being made a civil right by the Supreme Court, an amendment in our constitution, protected. Parts of Europe have already experienced situations like that one I describe with the minister. Furthermore, imagine a minister refusing to marry two people of a different race. He could easily be sued. If gay marriage is directly equated to interracial marriage, like it has been throughout the whole issue, then the amendment will carry the same repercussions.

Where in Europe specifically? Are you thinking of Denmark by chance? There a minister/priest/vicar/pastor can refuse to marry a gay couple, but the diocese must provide an alternative, this to me is not unreasonable. At represent a church can refuse to marry a couple if they are not of that religion, that again is not unreasonable. A church can refuse to marry a couple if the priest feels there is coercion involved, or there is a lack of true commitment, or if he believes the couple are not ready to marry - in those cases the couple can appeal against the decision. Some churches can refuse to marry a couple if one of them is a divorcée, this is also not unreasonable. If a church refuses to marry a couple on the grounds that they are of mixed race then that is unreasonable. HOWEVER, (I can repeat this as often as necessary) - We are not talking about the religious rite of marriage, we are talking about the secular union of a couple as recognised by law, not as recognised by whatever god you worship, ie the legal civil ceremony as performed by a registrar or Justice of the Peace... in a civil ceremony none of those marriages can be refused.
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

5. That all depends on what legal system you're talking about. In a democracy, even a representative one, I would hope that it is the will of the people that defines the law, not lawmakers that have no regard for the people.
That's adorable. Stern Smile 
 
When you find a democracy that is even remotely like that, be sure to let me know.


Edited by Dean - April 06 2013 at 18:04


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Larree View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 10 2013
Location: Hollywood, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Larree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 18:52
We, as individuals or as heterosexual couples, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  To deny a gay couple the right to marry is to deny the gay couple of their constitutional rights to share their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness together.  These rights must be protected by the constitution.  
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16448
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 20:34
From reading this thread it would seem as if gay marriage was going to be legalized in the entire world based on the US supreme court's decision.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 21:16
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

From reading this thread it would seem as if gay marriage was going to be legalized in the entire world based on the US supreme court's decision.


Maybe.  It is not legal in India yet but a sessions court recognized a union between two women in 2011, so that could pave the way for eventually legalizing same sex marriages for everyone.  I do not know that the court's judgment has been challenged in higher courts.  If it is and it passes the test, it would become law.  But that may also be contingent on a certain right wing leader currently being courted by Europe not becoming the PM in the next elections. 
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 22:58
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^  So what about the truth claim part, which both I and Exitthelemming asked about?  Do you really believe that a statement like "the world was created in seven days" is a truth claim?  Because it's a pretty outrageous one, if so, as scientific evidence has already disproved it.  Whether or not you completely accept the findings of biology, the world was not created in the manner so described in religious mythology in such a short span of time.  Fossils of dinosaurs and the earliest ones of man date millions of years apart.  What more proof is required to demonstrate that above statement would only be a wholly fallacious truth claim or objective statement if accepted as one? 

That's part A.  Part B is Alex pretty clearly IMPOSED his moral code derived from HIS religious beliefs on the other thread participants.  Here is the relevant quote.  I am not going to bother with the quote parantheses here, so bear with me there:

"No, I think the concern was on sexual immorality period... Whether that be hetero, homo, bestiality, lust in general, porn, etc."

He has pretty clearly equated homosexual orientation with bestiality.  They may both be sins according to the Bible (and as I am not a Christian, I will take his word on that) but as of today, people who are not comfortable with homosexuals consider it more of an awkward or abnormal kind of behaviour than cruelty.   It is no longer a crime to be a homosexuals but it is a crime to violate a woman.   That is the fundamental difference between the idea of wrong or immoral as derived from religion and what is illegal according to law.  

So there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion on such a topic based on one's own moral compass and simply imposing religious beliefs on the rest.  You were careful to state that you would not want your religious beliefs to take the form of law to be imposed on people but he was not.  Far from claiming an objective truth, he is simply imposing prejudices under the guise of religious belief.


"The world was created in seven days" is very much a truth claim.  The fact that something is not actually true does not mean that someone cannot claim it to be true.  The point I'm trying to make is not that Christianity is true (although I certainly believe it is) but that a religious truth claim is inherently objective, not subjective.  It is not a feeling, it is not a private matter; it is either true or false in the real world, and anyone can make a rational argument for or against it's veracity.

In the case of your example, you can provide evidence to prove that the universe was not created in seven days.  Because it is an objective statement, you can apply reasoning to it to prove it false.  You can't do the same thing to a subjective statement. 

I do not consider Alex's statements to be imposing anything on anyone.  He would be imposing his opinions on others if he threatened some kind of action against them if they disagreed.  He is merely stating an opinion about how he thinks Christian morality should be imposed on others.  You may disagree just as much with the sentiment involved in both, but ideas should be fought with other ideas.  Not with ridicule or dismissal.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 23:17
But why is it ridicule of religion to suggest Jesus is a homophobe?  Surely a God who hates homosexuals must be one?  That is the 'secular' position and surely a stout believer of Christianity is free to disregard it.   In the larger context, considering homosexuality as something 'wrong' would be understood as homophobia.   Religious faith cannot be a shield or cover to that. 

Coming back to truth claim, it can be a truth claim when the person has made an effort to learn the facts and derive an inference through an objective process.  It may still be wrong due to faulty logic but at least the process....Whereas, as Dean said, religious belief is derived from religious text and no reasoning is applied to it.  Merely stating it assertively would not make it a truth claim.   Proof being that even if I demonstrate to a believer that the universe was not created in 7 days, he cannot and would not be able to agree with me because his religious belief states otherwise and he is bound to abide by those.  Statements of religious beliefs can neither be proved nor disproved because they are, well, beliefs and not inferences derived from factual analysis.   
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 2530
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 23:28
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

"The world was created in seven days" is very much a truth claim.  The fact that something is not actually true does not mean that someone cannot claim it to be true.  The point I'm trying to make is not that Christianity is true (although I certainly believe it is) but that a religious truth claim is inherently objective, not subjective.  It is not a feeling, it is not a private matter; it is either true or false in the real world, and anyone can make a rational argument for or against it's veracity.

In the case of your example, you can provide evidence to prove that the universe was not created in seven days.  Because it is an objective statement, you can apply reasoning to it to prove it false.  You can't do the same thing to a subjective statement. 

I do not consider Alex's statements to be imposing anything on anyone.  He would be imposing his opinions on others if he threatened some kind of action against them if they disagreed.  He is merely stating an opinion about how he thinks Christian morality should be imposed on others.  You may disagree just as much with the sentiment involved in both, but ideas should be fought with other ideas.  Not with ridicule or dismissal.


Hmmm... I believe you are twisting definitions to bolster your claim. I'm quite sure I know the definitions of both "objective" and "subjective", and in the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

To be "objective" means that one is not influenced by personal opinion, beliefs or feelings when considering facts, and that said facts are viewed impartially without the jaundiced eye of prejudice; ergo, a "religious truth claim" is not "objective" in the least.

A "religious truth claim" such as "the world was created in seven days" is highly subjective, and is based on a belief or opinion without verifiable evidence or scientific scrutiny to warrant acknowledgement of its factual claim.

"Religious truth" is a matter of faith, not objectivity or scientific research. It is not based on "proof" because there is no proof, there is only belief and opinion. That is why when one trusts completely in something they cannot see, touch or smell it is referred to as "blind faith".
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 01:44
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

From reading this thread it would seem as if gay marriage was going to be legalized in the entire world based on the US supreme court's decision.
Maybe, in the UK the Same Sex Marriage Bill is in progress, currently at the Report stage in the House of Commons before its Third reading, after that it has to be passed by the House of Lords and then receive Royal Assent. Anything that happens on this subject anywhere in the World can have a bearing on how it progresses from here, just as the result of the UK law can have knock-on influence elsewhere.
 
For the concept of same sex marriage to have any validity it has to be as international as opposite sex marriage currently is, a couple marrying in  Canada has to be recognised as married in every other country in the World.
 
Individual countries are no longer isolated communities no matter how emotionally backward they are, they exist in an interconnected global environment where new laws are rapidly adopted from one country to the next, for example the anti-smoking laws spread around the World in very quick succession, as did the laws banning incandescent light bulbs.


Edited by Dean - April 07 2013 at 01:59


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 48518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 01:54
Somehow I doubt U.S. civil law decisions have much impact in most other countries, but I could be wrong.








Edited by Atavachron - April 07 2013 at 01:55
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 02:02
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

From reading this thread it would seem as if gay marriage was going to be legalized in the entire world based on the US supreme court's decision.
Maybe, in the UK the Same Sex Marriage Bill is in progress, currently at the Report stage in the House of Commons before its Third reading, after that it has to be passed by the House of Lords and then receive Royal Ascent. Anything that happens on this subject anywhere in the World can have a bearing on how it progresses from here, just as the result of the UK law can have knock-on influence elsewhere.
 
For the concept of same sex marriage to have any validity it has to be as international as opposite sex marriage currently is, a couple marrying in  Canada has to be recognised as married in every other country in the World.
 
Individual countries are no longer isolated communities no matter how emotionally backward they are, they exist in an interconnected global environment where new laws are rapidly adopted from one country to the next, for example the anti-smoking laws spread around the World in very quick succession, as did the laws banning incandescent light bulbs.

True. And the views of homosexuality have been of of the biggest sea changes in social opinion since...well, name something. 50 years ago Alan Turing was castrated just for being homosexual. Now, as evidenced in this thread and majorities throughout democracies, homosexuals are not only embraced and thought of as no different from heterosexuals in any areas that matter, but now seem poised to claim no real legal distinctions at all.

And look, some may have objections to homosexuality by religion or other codes one follows, but now you usually need to count yourself in the minority position among the general population, and you're basically a fringe group with younger people because homosexuality is a non issue with my generation. You're the "Alien Abductions Are Real" sector of social policy opinions. Dear as you may hold your beliefs, and sacred to you as they may be, much of us find them repulsive and discriminatory, and just because you believe them fervently does not mean we won't make fun of them. And given the real and clear damage Christians and Christian-influenced policies have done to homosexuals in the past, you should be grateful if us making fun of you is all we do. These kind of opinions deserve to be shouted out the the rooms where laws are made.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28002
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 02:05
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Somehow I doubt U.S. civil law decisions have much impact in most other countries, but I could be wrong.

Not that I'm a legal scholar or anything, but the Constitution seemed to be pretty influential. Plus the US seems to have a really passionate discourse for these kinds of issues, and if it gets us talking, it could get other countries talking. Plus watching us is like a spectator sport.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 02:17
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Somehow I doubt U.S. civil law decisions have much impact in most other countries, but I could be wrong.
I'm sure they do. I've already mentioned anti-smoking legislation - that spread from California to the rest of the USA and then went global within 10 years. No matter how parochial a country is, the effects of the laws it passes have international repercussions. In this instance the USA is not leading the way, Same Sex Marriage legislation started elsewhere (The Netherlands) and is spreading rapidly, currently 11 countries have passed same sex legislation and a further 16 different countries are in the process of debating/passing laws regarding same sex marriage. I doubt this would be up for discussion in the USA if it were not a current topic in the rest of the World. Of course all eyes are on the USA to see what they will do.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 48518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 02:45
Well yes, anti-smoking is a hot and very Californi-esque issue, and surely the US does not lead the way in gay union (whoops, I mean marriage) or other human-enlightened legislation which I guess is why it feels like this one will have a minor influence--  them Europeans and Americans is crazy.

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33332
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 03:41
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Well yes, anti-smoking is a hot and very Californi-esque issue, and surely the US does not lead the way in gay union (whoops, I mean marriage) or other human-enlightened legislation which I guess is why it feels like this one will have a minor influence--  them Europeans and Americans is crazy.

The USA does often lead the way on human rights and the influence it has on the global community cannot be underestimated, however it has historically been slow on various forms of equality and that makes it of interest to the rest of the World.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 48518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2013 at 03:44
you mean slow relative to its constitution and Bill of Rights
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.174 seconds.