Right/Left Wing and Religious Association

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

So you want the government to tell me homosexual relationships are special enough to be elevated above my friendships?
[/quote]

Romantic love over platonic friendship? Yes. Or do you make passionate love with friends?

And by the way, who the hell am I to define marriage? That question can be asked of either side.[/quote]

So it’s about penetrating another human being? You need a clap on the back for that? You need to define it as just two people inserting one body part, or foreign object, into the orifice of another? The government needs to pat you on the back?

42

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

So you want the government to tell me homosexual relationships are special enough to be elevated above my friendships?
[/quote]

Romantic love over platonic friendship? Yes. Or do you make passionate love with friends?

And by the way, who the hell am I to define marriage? That question can be asked of either side.[/quote]

Seriously, why are you trying to define it to include only sexual relationships. And, only those that involve no more than 2 individuals?

43

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Marriage isn’t about individual expression. What kind of nonsense is this. I’m not concerned simply because Jack loves Jill. So what? Who cares? They don’t need a state pat on the back for that.
[/quote]

Again, this is your opinion and I disagree. Your view of marriage is pretty uncomfortably close to the one in Orwell’s 1984.[/quote]

Are you telling me Jack and Bob’s homosexual relationship is objectively more important than my friendships? Or, hey, a 3 or 4 person bisexual arrangement?

44

[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s my view that there is no good secular reason that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman rather than a union between two consenting adults.
[/quote]

Why limit it to two? And why do they have to be people? Definining it as “two” and people stinks of theocracy. /sarcasm

45

Ah yes, the old why limit it to two, or why not a man marrying a tree?

I will write a long response tomorrow. For now, suffice it to say that the parameters are of course arbitrary–but that my proposed parameters are more inclusive while not condoning behavior that is inarguably immoral (like sex involving one person who cannot legally consent).

It’s also been asked “what is it good for then?” That is, if it doesn’t serve some purpose (in this case, procreation) then why have it at all? Well, I really don’t think it means much of anything so long as the benefits are taken care of by some other means. That’s why I’ve never really been keen to argue the gay marriage thing–because it’s all a little silly to me anyway. But I’ll write out a more thoughtful argument tomorrow anyway.

47

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Ah yes, the old why limit it to two. . .[/quote]

Well, it’s not the “old why limit it to two” - it’s the “old, unanswered why limit it to two.”

Gay marriage advocates often start from an overarching premise that government shouldn’t (can’t) be in the business of favoring one relationship over another for purposes of marriage.

Fine, but that overarching principle has no limitations and captures all consenting adult relationships. Gay marriage advocates can’t ignore this logical result of the principle they believe in.

And the only ones who can answer the question are the ones who want to do away completely with public marriage, because that is truly the only way for the government to operate by the principle that the government not favor one relationship over another for purposes of marriage.

I think these people are wrong, but at least they are intellectually consistent.

Where we usually get to is an admission that what gay marriage advocates actually want is for the government to favor certain relationships for purposes of marriage, and they simpy want gay coupling to be included in that favoritism. Fine as far as it goes, but that is premised on a different principle - the principle that, yes, the government can and should play favorites in the marriage business.

Where does that lead? To the inevitable comparisons and realization of striking social differences between straight and gay relationships. Why? Lots of reasons, but the most obvious (and most important) difference being the connection with. . .procreation. This unique aspect to straight coupling leads to a entire set of unique social and political problems, that must be addressed by unique policy.

The end result is always the same. There isn’t a compelling reason to have gay marriage - there is not a rational reason for the government to add gay couples to the “favored” position for purposes of marriage. It doesn’t solve a compelling social problem.

Again, I don’t want to derail the point of the thread, but in short form, I laid out (as did Sloth) the rational, secular reason for preserving traditional marriage. This cuts against the lazy, reductionist stereotype of traditional marriage advocates, and exposes gay marriage advocates as much more emotion-based than reason-based than they would like to admit.

That is helpful to tearing down the cheap stereotyping of political and cultural positions that give rise to the kinds of the confusion mentioned by the OP.

48

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Do you need religion to have a strong moral core? No. Does it help? Yes…[/quote]

Religion hasn’t shown to have any effect on a person’s character. A religious person is just as likely to commit crimes as the non-religious/atheist. [/quote]

Just to come back to this and why whatever point you are trying to make is not at all related to what I’m saying:

Religion does 3 things when it comes to moral code, and they are why it helps

  1. It aggregates a common set of standards
  2. It writes these standards down
  3. It gathers people, teaches them these standards, explaining the reason behind them, etc…
49

You should actualyl go and compare biblical laws to what is considered moral by today’s standards.

For instance the bible says you shouldn’t lie. Well I would argue in certain instances lying is the most moral thing you can do. The classic example I use is the Anne frank one.

If you were in nazi germany and an SS officer asked if you knew where she was (you do) would you lie?

There are other examples but the point is there is a large deviance between religious moral code and what is considered today. The fact that religion came up with a moral code long time ago doesn’t necessarily mean its a good one

50

[quote]therajraj wrote:

To encourage the model of two committed people in a monogamous relationship.[/quote]

And how is that the government’s business? Suddenly we’re making models for our citizens, just because?

51

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You should actualyl go and compare biblical laws to what is considered moral by today’s standards.[/quote]

Why? That would not, in any way matter towards my point.

While you are busy trying to prove religion wrong. I’m simply pointing out how it facilitates an action. No where have I said what moral code is right or wrong.

I don’t understand your strawman here.

[quote]For instance the bible says you shouldn’t lie. Well I would argue in certain instances lying is the most moral thing you can do. The classic example I use is the Anne frank one.

If you were in nazi germany and an SS officer asked if you knew where she was (you do) would you lie?
[/quote]

How does this, at all, relate to what I just posted?

Nor have I stated, at any time, that the moral code laid out by religion is good or bad. Not at any time have I even hinted at what morals shoudl or shouldn’t be concidered.

I’ve only said, that strong moral code is needed for E Pluribus Unum to work.

52

I’m not really going to bother responding to you any longer, you write in a manner too cryptic for me to understand

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s entirely sensible. And reasonable.[/quote]

Could very well be.

Everytime I have a conversation with CB, it ends up with him telling me I am strawmanin’ him or that I’m ignoring the meat of his posts.

Clearly he and I are not on the same wavelength.

55

[quote]Menthol wrote:
Something else that we have in US politics sometimes these days is unhinged hatred against religion. One example I ran across this afternoon ~

“Top Dem donor and kooky religious bigot J.Z. Knight rants on video: ?F**k you, Catholics?”

excerpt:

“…As of Tuesday, Democrats are deciding to take Knight?s money and run, an equivocation that could produce significant controversy among swing voters just as many are marking their ballots to decide a very close election.
The video evidence of Knight?s tirades are difficult to watch.
?F? you, you Catholics!? Knight bellows over cheers from her audience.
?We will come on you in a terror,? Knight growls in another cut. ?We will bring? St. Peter?s temple down and we will swallow it in the sea.? (?St. Peter?s temple? is a reference to the Catholic church itself.)
The entirety of hateful language used by Knight defied redaction to meet our standards for publication. For the full context, you will have to brace yourself and view the videos. We warn you use discretion when viewing these where the general public and especially small children may be present. It?s very rough stuff…”[/quote]

I think in a nutshell this is why religious gravitate to the right…They are accepted there. The left maligns, marginalizes and practices open bigotry against the religious. Not exactly a formula for winning over a demographic. The right has open arms while the left extends the middle finger, which way do you think they are going to go?

56

[quote]pat wrote:
I think in a nutshell this is why religious gravitate to the right…They are accepted there. The left maligns, marginalizes and practices open bigotry against the religious. Not exactly a formula for winning over a demographic. The right has open arms while the left extends the middle finger, which way do you think they are going to go?[/quote]

I’d also like to point out the fact that the left has for the time of this country been those who go against the basic tenets of most religions, especially Christendom. From being in favor of slavery to going against desegregation and civil rights. They have gone against the idea that all men are created in the image and likeness of God.

Now, I’ll point out that it seems the left has become accepting and tolerant. However, they have not. That is pure rhetoric, and is shown to false by the clinched fist that is their sigil and symbol. In accepting of communism in particular and liberalism in general they have taken one of the most intolerant stances against humanity, they reject the weak and voiceless, they reject the family, they reject ordered society, the only tolerance they have is for chaos and disorder and falsehood. Their only means is violence and destruction of their enemies.

The solution to this problem is rather obvious. MLK had it right, but it was lost when people lost sight of the end of his non-violence message: love. One has to turn the other cheek, man cannot continue violence when he loves.

At the front of the communist line is a man who proclaims that justice is found with a clinched fist against your neighbor, the first man turns around and punches his neighbor, the second man after being punched turns around and punches the third, and so on. Go down the line you find a Christian, he is dutifully punched in the face with the clinched fist of the communist, he turns his cheek and violence is stopped. Communism is popular because it appeals to our fallen nature, violence and chaos rather than our inherent goodness, peace and order. It is easier to react than to allow reason control our emotions.