Same sex marriages. Your opinon? Volume two.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: You find it hard to tolerate people with unorthodox ideas that disagree with yours dont you?

What on earth makes you say that? A disagreement on the internet? Tolerance doesn't equate agreement! To tolerate you actually need to DISAGREE, otherwise you are excercising no tolerance at all.

This is the context for such a discussion.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: You find it hard to tolerate people with unorthodox ideas that disagree with yours dont you?

What on earth makes you say that? A disagreement on the internet? Tolerance doesn't equate agreement! To tolerate you actually need to DISAGREE, otherwise you are excercising no tolerance at all.

This is the context for such a discussion. [/QUOTE]It was just a question.

What on earth made me say that? Maybe it was the same thing that inspired you tell me how biased I am based on the mere fact I share my differing veiws on the internet. You can disagree with my ideas all you want, but when you start telling me what and how I am then it becomes a bit more than disagreement. You tell what it is.

[Yorick]

I was noticing a prevailing trend regarding your perception of society. It was affecting your ability to look honestly and without bias at your own society. As an outsider coming into America, the puritanical ideals - good and bad - are plainly obvious. I've been on the receiving end of some some socially rperessive ideas that have nothing to do with Christianity per se and everything to do with the puritanical foundations.

You also had earlier expressed a disbelief in the idea of collective psychology. If you fail to accept that reality, then it follows that you wouldn't accept realities like Judeo-Christian social foundations.

This has nothing to do with religious belief, and everything to do with anthropolopgy and sociology. That collective psychology exists is indisputable. It's historicly proven that the past affects a nations present mindset.

Your bias appeared to be from a desperate need to seperate your own values from Christianity. I have no doubt that your personal views are removed from Christianity and that you've honestly sought to find morality with foundations outside the Judeo-Christian worldview. You are however a product of your society, and your negative reaction away from the foundations is alone a result of your society. You cannot reject that which you are unaware of.


I mean no disrespect, and if I am offending you I apologise unreservedly and will cease talking anymore about the subject. I do not seek to be enemies with you, and wish to voice my respect for you, however much we may disagree.

Peace.
[img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: I was noticing a prevailing trend regarding your perception of society. It was affecting your ability to look honestly and without bias at your own society. As an outsider coming into America, the puritanical ideals - good and bad - are plainly obvious. I've been on the receiving end of some some socially rperessive ideas that have nothing to do with Christianity per se and everything to do with the puritanical foundations. You also had earlier expressed a disbelief in the idea of collective psychology. If you fail to accept that reality, then it follows that you wouldn't accept realities like Judeo-Christian social foundations. This has nothing to do with religious belief, and everything to do with anthropolopgy and sociology. That collective psychology exists is indisputable. It's historicly proven that the past affects a nations present mindset. Your bias appeared to be from a desperate need to seperate your own values from Christianity. I have no doubt that your personal views are removed from Christianity and that you've honestly sought to find morality with foundations outside the Judeo-Christian worldview. You are however a product of your society, and your negative reaction away from the foundations is alone a result of your society. You cannot reject that which you are unaware of. I mean no disrespect, and if I am offending you I apologise unreservedly and will cease talking anymore about the subject. I do not seek to be enemies with you, and wish to voice my respect for you, however much we may disagree. Peace. [img]smile.gif[/img] Yorick.

Actually Yorick I am a devote beleiver in Jungian Psycology, the Archtypes of the collective unconscious as well as the collective unconcious itself. I already revealed to you my knowledge of sociology and my veiws on ever changing society.

My personal values include unconditional love, forgiveness, tolerance, personal resposibility as well as civic duty to name a few. I have sought to find morality from the full range of human expression and expirience.

I do seperate myself from christianity for very distinct reasons, but I do not seperate myself from specific values I believe Christ represents. Christ is a consciousnous of pure unconditional love and peace, an archtype of the collective unconscious that represents those ideals and the potential for every person to know them,nurture them, and quietly share them by merely being.

If you look on the religious tolerance thread, one of the last posts includes a description of Unitarian Christian ideals with regards to Jesus the person and those are very similar to mine.

I think my beliefs with regards to the basis of my society are sound, I did not say that Christian ideals had nothing to do with the basis for American society, just that its is not an absolute in the equation. There is a principle involved. Too much I have heard people use this claim of christian roots to serve their own purposes, whether it is banning gay marriage or the ten commandments in the courtroom, or under god in the pledge.

For one group to claim to be the founder of the nations ideals to me is nothing but pure egotism and a slap in the face to the diverse and free society that exists here because of those very ideas. As much as you discredit puratinism, those puritans did and still do call themselves christians, and they persecute people with differing beliefs with zest and fervor.

The simple fact that congress shall make no laws to establish religion is a cornerstone of American ideals, contrast this with organized christianity through out the ages and how it has done so much to make itself the only one true religion and it should be clear to you why I must disagree that America has or is based on a christian society, even if that is generically true in a sense.

It has nothing to do with bias against the personal practice of christianity or bias against the very distinct values Christ represents, some of which I outlined above. It does have everything to do with being biased againgst bias, in this instance a Christian bias with regard to my goverment to be exact. A government which I believe should be free from any religious bias by the very virtues of its codification.

You say I am a product of my society, I agree, I am a product of a highly diverse and almost free society.

No hard feelings mate, but lets just let it go and get back to the topic of the debate and leave making judgment calls about each other out of it. Agree? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: [QB] I think my beliefs with regards to the basis of my society are sound, I did not say that Christian ideals had nothing to do with the basis for American society, just that its is not an absolute in the equation. There is a principle involved. Too much I have heard people use this claim of christian roots to serve their own purposes, whether it is banning gay marriage or the ten commandments in the courtroom, or under god in the pledge.

Fair enough

For one group to claim to be the founder of the nations ideals to me is nothing but pure egotism and a slap in the face to the diverse and free society that exists here because of those very ideas. As much as you discredit puratinism, those puritans did and still do call themselves christians, and they persecute people with differing beliefs with zest and fervor.

You're assuming I am placing the foundation of western society as a positive thing. Perhaps unaware of the many problems I have with western society. I'm not stating the foundations as a matter of prideful ownership, but anthropological fact.

The simple fact that congress shall make no laws to establish religion is a cornerstone of American ideals, contrast this with organized christianity through out the ages and how it has done so much to make itself the only one true religion and it should be clear to you why I must disagree that America has or is based on a christian society, even if that is generically true in a sense.

I never stated America is a Christian society. Never. I did not even say America was a Christian nation. There is a big difference between a nation being founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, and being a Christian society or nation.

The founders of the nation were products of a society with Judeo-Christian ethics. You can have Judeo-Christian ehtics without being a Jew or a Christian. Ethics are not faith. Morals are not a religion. Individuals with particular beliefs and values, instilled the nation with the said values - whcih onclude seperation of church and state. I am a Christian. I advocate seperation of church and state. It is precisely the values I have as a Christian, not just a product of Judeo-Christian society - that lead me to believe the importance of the seperation. Seperation is not proof of secularism, for in my case, the seperation is based on a religious ideal.

Seperation of church and state is not the same thing as individuals objectively forgoing their faith. My faith underlies any political movement on my part. It is impossible to seperate my faith from my personal beliefs, as it is a foundation for everything else. This is not the same thing involving an organised church, or religion though.

There is a big difference, and I hope I'm explaining it adequately.

Put simply, though the church and state are seperated in America, it has had a larger proportion of Christians influencing it's policy from the oval office, than has England, which does NOT have seperation of Church and state.

The seperation is precisely what allows individuals the freedom to excercise their beliefs.

It has nothing to do with bias against the personal practice of christianity or bias against the very distinct values Christ represents, some of which I outlined above. It does have everything to do with being biased againgst bias, in this instance a Christian bias with regard to my goverment to be exact. A government which I believe should be free from any religious bias by the very virtues of its codification.

Except that the codification of the said seperation can be held to be a religious ideal. Bias is inescapable.

You say I am a product of my society, I agree, I am a product of a highly diverse and almost free society.

To an extent Chewbacca. It is also in some areas a highly repressed, divided and prohibitive society. The gap between rich and poor for example, means some peoples "freedom" is greater than others. The freedom to be communist was wiped out during the cold war as a second example. The sexual repression within society has led to explosions in the opposite direction.

However, the freedoms and diversity allowed are most certainly ideals found within Christianity. Christianity is a faith built around Grace. Extending the Grace one receives from Christ, outward. It is a faith that preaches loving your enemy, being patient, being generous in spirit. To suggest "freedom and diersity" are not products of people with ethics based on Jesus changes in society is not correct. His ideas were totally revolutionary and have had far greater impact than just in the lives of those that profess to know him today.

No hard feelings mate, but lets just let it go and get back to the topic of the debate and leave making judgment calls about each other out of it. Agree? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Agreed. Fair call. Have a good night. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-09-2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: This is precisely why an alive, functioning church is of such value to people. It provides a safe community where love - real genuine affection abounds. Without the pressures of sex, long term relationships develop in a short amount of time. We can become like family very quickly. Also, by removing the sex element, it becomes more about what you can give people, rather than what can you take. People are not as suspicious of a man, believing him to be seeking to bed every woman(or man) he approaches in conversation.

Forgive me for digging up an old post, I just arrived. But Yorick, isn't it what this forum and others gives us too ? And many many kinds of human communities that do not involve religions ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: A couple of questions. Yorick, you have mentioned that love and sex are separate things. Which is fine. Homosexual couples wanting to marry don't actually ask society to acknowledge that they are having SEX, but to acknowledge the LOVE they have for each other. Yet your personal stance is to deny them that right - in a way, allowing them to have sex but not love ?

It's not about not allowing anything, it's about a society as a whole, choosing to encourage male-female family building. Society. The family building benefits extend right down to care of the elderly by their proginy.

Besides, it's the other way round. Men can love each other. Why should I be discriminated against for not manifesting my love for my best male friends sexual,y? Why should another two males receive encouragement purely because they express their love physically and I don't? You are advocating the deification of SEX, not the deification of love.
Anyone that dares suggest my love for other men is not "real love" because I'm not sleeping them, is proving my point to the letter.


So, why should I be discriminated against?

The reality is, Judeo/Islamic/Christian societies elevate one type of relationship. Not forbid others. [/QUOTE]Nah Yorick, you are twisting things. [img]smile.gif[/img] All I am advocating is the right for homosexuals to choose a lifepartner and get the society benefits given to those couples who live according to the family values you yourself want to promote.

You being a heterosexual doesn't mean you will jump on any human female around, yes ? Well, it is the same for homosexuals - those who want to marry are those who want to dedicate their sexuality to their one chosen love - and thus homosexual marriage would actually allow them and you to express love for others in a nonequivocal way - sex being, by their and your acknowledgement, out of the way.

[Night Stalker]

Mr. Harris ....

I went back and reviewed your responses. I cannot find any great parry to the questions posed by Rokken, Chewbacca, Timber, or myself. I see no coup de tat to crush any of the arguements.

I do find non-sequitors, red herrings, and ostridges with heads in sand.

I use the natual world as an example to show that homosexual behavior is natural. No, it is not used for breeding, but it does occur naturally. Whether animals practice it for social reasons or pleasure is immaterial. They practice it.

Also, a male and female in a long term monogamous endevor is not the only model for rearing offspring. In fact humans are one of the few species that use that model.

Further, if the only purpose of marriage is to raise children, then heterosexual couples that choose not to or cannot have children should not be married.

Now I can accept that marriage is a religious institution. That's fine. But what the gay community is asking for has nothing to do with destroying that institution. And since the recognition they are asking for has nothing to do with the Church, I suggest that the legal concept of marriage be destroyed. Things like visitation, succession and the like. Get rid of the gov involvement of peoples personal lives. None of those proposals change whatever hidebound notions you have of marriage.

I reitterate my unanswered questions:

What marrital "perks" granted by law (not God) would you deny gay couples, and why?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let's keep in mind there are two events, two "marriages," in a marriage: religious ceremony and legal ceremony. Religious: if your church will marry same-sex couples, good for it, if not, so be it. See the religious tolerance thread. Legal: Call it marriage, a PAC, a civil union (VT and France seem to have VERY similar systems, btw), covorting concubines, or "Bob" for all I care, but give nontraditional couples the same legal rights of inheritance, medical benefits, tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc as traditional couples. I remember hearing testimony in legislative committees on these issues. The lesbian who died alone because hospital personnel refused to let her partner into the ward to be with her. The lesbian who lost her child (of 10 years) when her partner who had adopted the child (absent a civil union, 2 people cannot cojointly adopt) died and the long-estranged parents came and "saved" the child from such an abomination as growing up with a loving lesbian mother. However much you hate gays, you are one cold SOB if you can't hear these stories and not think something needs to be done. Genetics of homosexuality? Up in the air. Scientists believe they have found the gay gene. All species of mammals exhibit homosexual tendancies. Whether it's nature, nurture, or (most likely) a mix, you cannot look at a male dog trying to mount another male dog and call it simply choice. Choice may be part of the factor, but it isn't all of it. In a world of increased divorce and increasing freedom to make our homes as we see fit, denying that these relationships are in fact "families" ultimately has a bad effect on the kids -- exactly the opposite of the assertion that recognizing gay relationships erode family values, I see such recognition as supporting family values. However you partner with others and make your home, please be responsible parents, and you deserve the social benefits of chosing to partner with someone and raise kids. Please, gay folks, adopt all you want -- lord knows there are plenty of children needing homes. Being raised by two fathers is better than being raised by none. More and more, families today don't look like Ward and June Cleaver's -- not recognizing that is hurting society. You can close your eyes, hold your ears, and scream "Nanananana" all you want, but when you stop, gays will still be here, as will stepparents, as will single parents, and as will children needing loving homes.

Chief Crusty Old Coot John D. "New Grandpa" Harris wrote: TL, I'd say "I'd kiss you"... But on this thread that might not be wise, so good post On the dogs: it is a dominance thing not a sex or reproduction thing, goes back to the wolf packs Only the Alpha male and female got to mate. So if dog "A" Mounts dog "B" then Dog "A" is higher in the pack then dog "B". We got 3 female dogs the newest will try to mount the old matiarch, and get her but whipped, but she's trying to move up in the pecking order. Besides that how can you equate a dogs's or any animals reasoning with a humans? Opps scratch that you do run around with lawyers Nature or nurture from the religious (Christain) point of view it matters not. The Bible is clear that there are certain action/activities that those who practice in such shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. It does not say that only people who participate in these actions/activities because of nurture shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. The problem in the Christain world is that there are some who wish to say: Well this action/activity applies to all who do it, but this action/activity only applies to those who by nurture do it. That point of view usally miss quotes the "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone". Taking it completly out of contex, not reconizing that the woman caught in adulty was brought to Christ IN ORDER to trick Him. The adulty was the excuse not the reason she was brought to Christ.

Okay, a gauntlet was tossed. Shame on you, Crusty Old Coot, for calling me out on a weekend, when you should know I am usually absent. [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] But, kudos to you for admitting when you are *Itching for a Scrap*

Look, I agree that the bible is clear that nature/nurture matters not -- so I will not go there. Remember, I may muse and opine about the bible, but it is not a text that directs my philosophical answers any more than any other text. Plato, Hegel, Nietszche, Robert Bork, and Kevin Eubank's philosophies probably carry more meaning of "truth" for me.

About the "nature" of dogs and why they like to hump various things, I do not doubt that the "alpha male" bit plays some role. I also think, though, that in most animals -- especially in the adolescent phases -- we see a lot of what's called "playing at sex" as they are maturing. And, I think that animals (including humans) during these times are by nature confused by new feelings and urges they only vaguely comprehend (haven't we all been there -- confused I mean, not necessarily homo-erotic).

As for whether marriage means "man and woman" and whether it relates to procreation, I think I explained myself perfectly well in the thread you wanted to smooooch me for posting. (Hey, big boy ). I think religious marriage has its meaning -- but I think religious marriage is different than legal "marriage" which as I said is a set of benefits granted by the government to those who partner in family units. Now, yes traditionally family units looked like Ward and Beaver Cleaver's. However, the family unit's structure has changed in the last 50 years -- a trend that began with women's rights which led to an increase in divorce rates and a trend which continued to advancement of the rights of others living "alternative lifestyles."

Now, whether this is a good thing is debatable, but in a free country, we have already set the stage for allowing people these freedoms -- if it *is* a bad thing, it is one that results from our fundamental idea of freedom -- so it is a bad thing we must accept, lest we rend apart the fabric of what makes America America.

Now, accepting these "alternative" lifestyles and partnerships as allowable -- i.e. we will not punish you for them -- we are left with devising a way to bring them into the fold -- to nevertheless encourage responsible parenting and child-rearing, whether it be by the traditional man/woman couple or whether it be by non-traditional single parents or man/man man/woman or man/shman couple. Denying legal benefits to these different lifestyle practitioners drives them to the fringes of society, makes them second-class citizens, bastardizes any children they rear, and is irresponsible on our part, I believe.

So, in the purely LEGAL sense, what was once called "marriage" should be redifined to be an understood set of benefits accruing to partners who couple together for (ostensibly and hopefully) life in an effort to be a family unit and, if theyplease, raise responsible children. NOw, the "pure" way to do this with eyes wide open is to nix the notion of "marriage" in the legal sense and simply call it "accrued partnership benefits" or "civil union" or whatever.

Politically, however, this does not play. So, in order to effect this needed change -- AND have it approved by the masses -- we can accomplish what is *substantively* the same thing by keeping "marriage" for men and women and forming a new notion, a "civil union" (which LEGALLY will be EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF BENEFITS), for those with alternative lifestyles to use. Yes, it is simply calling a to-may-to and to-mah-to, but if we need to have two kinds of tomatoes in order to cater to the conservative masses, then so be it. Yes, it may offend homosexuals and other alternative lifestyle people, who WANT to be so fully recognized that they not only have the benefits of a to-may-to but they are also *called* to-may-to as well.

Well, if they can't accept a simple nomenclature and semantic difference on their road to getting benefits that they legally need, then they have cut their noses off to spite their faces and I have no sympathy for them.

Again, all good social change has always happened in small steps.

Hope I answered you fully. SOrry I don't see opposite to you enough to outright argue against you.

My final point: I reiterate that legal "marriage" (i.e. partnership benefits which could be otherwise created by contracts/estates/trusts) is a DIFFERENT THING than religious marriage (which carries the meaning assigned to it by the particular church).

[ 08-09-2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Night Stalker]

Ditto!