Even Massachusetts has crazy right-wingers

[Tank]

"parading in the street half naked decorated in dildos" will be the name of my biography.

 

it's certainly fitting.

[TobiasFunke]

LOL, but yours should be forced on me. Got it.

MT, what laws are forcing religious people to live certain ways they religiously don't want to live?

[mtangelsfan]

MT, what laws are forcing religious people to live certain ways they religiously don't want to live?

 

Its not about religion for me.  That is my point.  Remember, this whole thread is driven by you guys.  

 

Laws are laws and they are nothing more than society's morals in legal form.  This country has a form of government where the people get to help decide what those laws/morals are.  I will continue to do my civic duty as any other american would and should do.

[Angelsjunky]

I agree with you, mt, that we can't separate laws and morality. But the key is basing this nation's laws around a morality that is as universal and inclusive as possible, and changes as new understandings emerge, rather than remain static and narrow, serving only a rather specific ideology.

 

I think you should do your civic duty and be part of the process. But why do you insist upon enforcing your beliefs onto others? Why not live the life you want to live - not be gay or have abortions, etc - but allow others, who don't hold the same ideology as you do, to make their own choice?

 

One morality is more open, universal and inclusive of different ideologies, religions, and worldviews, while another is more closed, narrow, and exclusive. America was not founded as a Christian nation with Christian values, but one that allows for Christians--and other ideologies--to try to live in harmony with each other. In other words, the nation's laws should create a platform for all of us to live (within reason, of course! I'm not talking about pedophiles or cannibals!).

[Stradling]

Mt and Nate, even though neither of you feel as though you are getting anywhere in this debate I just want to say I love reading it. It's refreshing reading true beliefs and not just someone spitting out how they are suppose to feel or believe.

[mtangelsfan]

I agree with you, mt, that we can't separate laws and morality. But the key is basing this nation's laws around a morality that is as universal and inclusive as possible, and changes as new understandings emerge, rather than remain static and narrow, serving only a rather specific ideology.

 

I think you should do your civic duty and be part of the process. But why do you insist upon enforcing your beliefs onto others? Why not live the life you want to live - not be gay or have abortions, etc - but allow others, who don't hold the same ideology as you do, to make their own choice?

 

One morality is more open, universal and inclusive of different ideologies, religions, and worldviews, while another is more closed, narrow, and exclusive. America was not founded as a Christian nation with Christian values, but one that allows for Christians--and other ideologies--to try to live in harmony with each other. In other words, the nation's laws should create a platform for all of us to live (within reason, of course! I'm not talking about pedophiles or cannibals!).

 

Again, it depends on which part of the morality you are referring to.  Are you referring to the morality that says you shouldn't kill, the morality that says you should take care of the poor, the morality that says you shouldn't do drugs or drive while under the influence, or the morality that says companies should hire people of color?  

 

You place more value on your morality, that is what we all do.  You see it as the best, which is fine.  Yet you expect me to ignore my own conscience, my own morals and go along with the crowd.  

[Angelsjunky]

Again, it depends on which part of the morality you are referring to.  Are you referring to the morality that says you shouldn't kill, the morality that says you should take care of the poor, the morality that says you shouldn't do drugs or drive while under the influence, or the morality that says companies should hire people of color?  

 

You place more value on your morality, that is what we all do.  You see it as the best, which is fine.  Yet you expect me to ignore my own conscience, my own morals and go along with the crowd.  

 

Not at all. You're not understanding me, mt. I'm not saying that you should ignore your own morals, just advocating for a position in which you do not expect others who don't have the same morals to be dictated by laws based upon your morals. Law should be as universal and embracing as possible - it should include and support a range of ethical beliefs, not just one. This isn't chaos or "anything goes" - certain things should be written in stone, like murder, rape, etc. But I'm talking about things like homosexuality that vary depending upon the ideology.

 

I place more value on my morality not because it is mine and not yours, but because it is more embracing, more inclusive - it allows for you to live your life as you wish (within reason - that is, if you aren't outright harming others). I actually don't know your specific stance on gay marriage, but if you are anti-gay marriage than I would say that your morality is less inclusive - it doesn't allow for some to live to as they choose, even though their choice isn't harming anyone else. My morality gives equal rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation; it doesn't view homosexuals as second class citizens or sinful deviants. Does yours?

 

Again, you can believe what you want to believe. But why ask others to live according to your morals? Gay marriage doesn't impact you in any significant way. To put it another way, which statement fits your viewpoint more closely:

 

1) I think homosexuality is sinful and against God's law, therefore gay marriage should be illegal.

2) Homosexuality goes against my own personal beliefs, but I don't think my beliefs should dictate whether or not two gay people should be able to marry each other.

 

Now I don't agree with the second position, but I think its a lot more tolerant and accepting. The first, however, is hugely problematic and goes against the core of this nation, re-joining Church and State (e.g. religious ethics determining legislation). I just don't see the harm in saying, "Hey, homosexuality isn't for me, but its not my place to say who can and cannot be gay, or be married."

[TobiasFunke]

Its not about religion for me. That is my point. Remember, this whole thread is driven by you guys.

Laws are laws and they are nothing more than society's morals in legal form. This country has a form of government where the people get to help decide what those laws/morals are. I will continue to do my civic duty as any other american would and should do.

I pose the question because when Nate says that he doesn't want religious people imposing their beliefs and morals on non-religious, you say and religious people don't want to have atheists/non-religious people to impose their beliefs on them.

I know religious based morality laws that are trying to be forced open secular people but I can't think of the opposite.

[mtangelsfan]

Not at all. You're not understanding me, mt. I'm not saying that you should ignore your own morals, just advocating for a position in which you do not expect others who don't have the same morals to be dictated by laws based upon your morals. Law should be as universal and embracing as possible - it should include and support a range of ethical beliefs, not just one. This isn't chaos or "anything goes" - certain things should be written in stone, like murder, rape, etc. But I'm talking about things like homosexuality that vary depending upon the ideology.

 

I place more value on my morality not because it is mine and not yours, but because it is more embracing, more inclusive - it allows for you to live your life as you wish (within reason - that is, if you aren't outright harming others). I actually don't know your specific stance on gay marriage, but if you are anti-gay marriage than I would say that your morality is less inclusive - it doesn't allow for some to live to as they choose, even though their choice isn't harming anyone else. My morality gives equal rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation; it doesn't view homosexuals as second class citizens or sinful deviants. Does yours?

 

Again, you can believe what you want to believe. But why ask others to live according to your morals? Gay marriage doesn't impact you in any significant way. To put it another way, which statement fits your viewpoint more closely:

 

1) I think homosexuality is sinful and against God's law, therefore gay marriage should be illegal.

2) Homosexuality goes against my own personal beliefs, but I don't think my beliefs should dictate whether or not two gay people should be able to marry each other.

 

Now I don't agree with the second position, but I think its a lot more tolerant and accepting. The first, however, is hugely problematic and goes against the core of this nation, re-joining Church and State (e.g. religious ethics determining legislation). I just don't see the harm in saying, "Hey, homosexuality isn't for me, but its not my place to say who can and cannot be gay, or be married."

 

It seems we are destined to miss each other's points.  Which is kind of what I said around 5 pages ago.

[arch stanton]

Having been a few places in my time I can say that for the most part live and let live is a quaint notion that is pure fantasy. It really gets other's knickers in a twist when you are blissfully living your life by other than their standards. Fight the good fight for what you believe then go about your business as you see fit. It's not perfect but nothing ever will be so I save my breath trying to tell others how to live and smile and ignore the ones who try to tell me.

 

When it comes to law it's a bit more complicated so I find it best to choose my battles carefully. What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea....?

[Blarg]

An environmental hazard. Someone should make a law against that.

[Angelsjunky]

It seems we are destined to miss each other's points.  Which is kind of what I said around 5 pages ago.

 

No offense, but this is a total cop-out - you aren't even addressing my points or answering my questions! You're just being evasive and restating your view again and again without actually engaging in dialogue.

 

I asked some specific questions and brought up some specific points and I await an actual response from you.

 

[mtangelsfan]

No offense, but this is a total cop-out - you aren't even addressing my points or answering my questions! You're just being evasive and restating your view again and again without actually engaging in dialogue.

 

I asked some specific questions and brought up some specific points and I await an actual response from you.

 

 

I will answer one question although I do not believe I owe it to you one bit.  I don't care who gets married as long as churches are never required to marry anyone they do not believe should be.  However, I have a much more libertarian nature than many of my friends.  I see the government as pretty much the enemy and not really a solution to pretty much any issue.

[Angelsjunky]

You don't owe me anything, mt, but these sorts of discussions don't work if there's no dialogue, no back and forth.

 

I'm mixed on whether specific churches should be mandated to do gay marriages. First of all, if I was gay I can't imagine being married at a church that didn't want to marry me. That seems nuts to me. That said, I don't think any organization should be able to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, just as they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based upon race. But if we look at a church sort of like a club, then I don't see why a club can't have its own rules of membership.

 

What is more important, in my opinion, is the state and federal level, which grants actual rights and legal and financial benefits. In that sense, DOMA is abominable and completely backwards, in my opinion.

[mtangelsfan]

If you are mixed on that point of view than you can see how I can be so uncomfortable with this going forward.  State and Church are separated for protection of both State and Church.  As much as you see its bad for church to dictate to state I see it bad for state to dictate to church.

 

You also know dang well that it is only a matter of time until a case like this moves forward.

[Angelsjunky]

I can see the argument for taking legal elements out of marriage altogether, although of course that would have many other repercussions. The main thing, though, is that all marriages/civil unions should have equal financial/legal benefits and constraints. I'm not as much opposed to individual churches denying service to gays as I am in states or federal law prohibiting  it.

 

But then again, I'm of the view "I don't want to be in a club that doesn't want me for a member!" Why would a gay couple want to get married at a church, or by a pastor, that is prejudiced against homosexuals?

[mtangelsfan]

why would they want a cake from a guy who doesn't want to make one for them?  There is a very small percentage of any group that isn't happy unless everyone agrees with them.

[Angelsjunky]

I agree, mt, but I also understand their frustration and being faced with such prejudice.

 

It isn't about "agreeing" with them. I don't agree with most Republicans, but if I owned a shop I wouldn't refuse them service. Homosexuality is not a worldview or ideology, its a sexual orientation. The problem, I think, is partially in the attitude that it is something to be agreed or disagreed with, like a belief or opinion. But it runs far, far deeper than that.

 

As I said up thread, its kind of like saying "I disagree with left-handedness." Now you can actually train handedness out, but only to some extent. People become somewhat crippled by trying to do so and never fully adjust to right-handedness. It isn't natural to them.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Angelsjunky

[Angelsjunky]

I think there's also a problem with the attitude of the cake shop owner. What if people had said: "Well, some people are racist and will always be racist, so we might as well accept segregation and move on"?

 

I see homophobia as an attitude of ignorance, not that different from racism or sexism. These are attitudes of prejudice that view certain segments of the population as "wrong" or "sinful" or "lesser."

 

Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, but so too do people who see such views as woefully ignorant have the right to say as much.

[mtangelsfan]

Of course you have a problem with those guys, as I have an issue with the gays who are getting married.  However I have a right to my religious beliefs as much as you believe gays have a right to marry.

 

As far as how you view my beliefs, I really couldn't care less.

[Angelsjunky]

But what exactly is your "issue" with the gays who are getting married? Why do you care? How does it effect you at all?

 

Also, can you see how your view to some isn't that far from "I have an issue with the blacks who want to be integrated, or the women who want equal rights." Its a different group of people, but its a similar kind of prejudice.

[mtangelsfan]

It's Biblical AJ.  You know this.  Why are you asking the same question over and over?

[Angelsjunky]

So do you believe that everyone in the United States should follow laws derived from the Bible? Or are you OK with the laws serving other people who don't believe in Biblical law?

[Angelsjunky]

And the reason I'm asking the same question is that "because the Bible said so" is not really an answer. I'm asking you to reason it out, to support your belief with rationality - not just because some Hebrew tribesmen said so 3,000 years ago. Why is that still relevant today? Make your argument!

[HaloMagic]

not just because some Hebrew tribesmen said so 3,000 years ago.

The fact that this is how you speak about the Bible when talking to someone of faith makes it pretty clear you will never understand issues like this from their point of view. The way you view things just won't allow it.