Subject: ...uh.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-06-27 20:42:00 UTC
Because... it's morally wrong to harm people, and oppression does so? Bwah?
...if a moral system does not see oppression as morally wrong, I do not see how it could be called moral.
The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, to legalize gay marriage nationwide! About tine! *throws cakefetti*
Now, we can start to move on from this topic. I mean, we have a few years, but son we can start to move on to actually important things, like how we are going to encourage manufacturing here in America, or how we are going to handle the intelligence gathering we have been doing, rather than if two consenting adults want to live together and be recognised for it!
I know it seems like I am dismissing how important this is for many people. I am not. I am thrilled for my homosexual brothers and sisters. I just thought the answer was so obvious, we would have been able to move on by now.
Now, as for the discussion we are having below... I'll get to that later on.
I'll chip in my two cents on the issue. I think it was the right result and I also think that the legal reasoning is adequate. I am a little disappointed that Chief Justice Roberts did not join the majority. As a 5-4 decision, they are always subject to attack, a 6-3 would have been more authoritative. I am also disappointed that it took this long. A few years ago the Court faced the same issue in Windsor, but they kept their holding narrow. The fact is that all of the law that Justice Kennedy cited existed at the time of Windsor and had not changed.
I will say though, that from a jurisprudential standpoint, the dissent was not wrong at least with regard to that this decision was taken out of the hands of the public. Scalia was not wrong when he said that this decision had the Court acting as a Super-Legislature. Though I do not think the situation is as dire as the dissent makes out. The Court has acted in that way since its inception, so I think it is over stating the risk.
Then last comment on this, I am disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. The first problem was he cited to the Dred Scott case. Which was superseded by Constitutional Amendment, namely the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. You do yourself no favors when you cite to the case that found slavery constitutional. And then he brought up the slippery-slope argument. These are just bad legal arguments to make. Because it means that neither the facts, nor the law is on your side.
This is breaking the rules left and right. We're not allowed to argue about religion, according to the PPC Board Rules. So, I suggest we stop and leave our views with ourselves.
When I first came around here, ten years ago, we had debates like this with some frequency - they got heated from time to time, but things were pretty respectful on all sides. Then, maybe five years or so back, we had a lot of arguments where people got really ticked really quickly and things got out of hand - those put a dent on everyone's desire to talk.
But this has been well within rules and respect, and I'm really psyched to see everyone being so ...good to each other, for lack of a better phrase.
Section 1, Article 4: "We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into personal attacks, flaming, or any form of disrespectful conduct for any reason, everyone involved should step back and clam down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely."
Since this debate has not escalated into any of these things, we're allowed to continue debating.
Unlike everyone else, I'm not thrilled. To be honest, I'm horrified that this happened. But I'll leave it at that.
...mais passez-moi ce maïs soufflé, s'il-vous-plaît.
זה באמת לא מנומס במיוחד.
J'vais me la fermer maintenant.
/is yanked offstage by the Shepherd's Crook of Too Many Languages, which was probably stolen from Iximaz/
Esh, you're the exception rather than the rule. I don't know French and — as far as I'm aware — neither SeaTurtle nor domirossi know Hebrew.
No, don't answer that, I know for a fact that two of you don't. ...actually, wait, now I'm curious. domirossi, do you by some chance know any Yiddish? Because that would be pretty interesting.
Actually, I should probably make a post about 'how many and which languages do you speak (and what's the story behind that)'; it'd be pretty interesting. Or have we had that already? Even if we have, though, there've been a lot of newbies lately...
But yes, I know I'm the exception. That would be why I got yanked offstage, no? :)
~DF
I'm genuinely curious.
If your objections are politically motivated, and your concern is that federal government doing what federal government is supposed to do, then I can't help you. Small-government, corporatist conservatism is anathema to my own beliefs, and anything I say on the subject is biased in favour of those beliefs. I will say, however, that the economics of scarcity that fuel right-wing capitalist ideology are by their very nature finite; these economic structures, and by extension the corporations whose existence they prop up, will eventually go away - and with them will go a lot of the impetus behind social conservatism, because there simply will not be the same level of vested interest in maintaining an unequal status quo.
If it's religious, I'm rather more sanguine about things. The old order of churches is, as far as I'm concerned, just getting in the way at this point. While I of course respect the rights of the religious to practice their faith however they choose, I do draw the line at them getting to dictate secular government policy. Not everyone shares your Christian faith. Hell, not all Christians share your Christian faith. I daresay if you met a Leveller or Cathar you'd find their beliefs and politics entirely antithetical to your own, and don't get me started on the spat between mono- and diphysitism. Equality means people being equal, and that means the queer community getting the same rights and privileges as the religious one. That means marriage. That means legislation against discrimination. That means, in short, treating all the citizens of the world as equal.
Let me make something absolutely clear: LGBT* marriage equality is a start. Social progressivism doesn't win until we stop talking about white men who shoot up black churches as "troubled loners" who had "lots of black friends" in high school, until the suicide rates among teens is equal regardless of trans status, until there are no more martyrs. That's what this is a part of. No more people dying for things they cannot avoid.
Except gingers. Man, screw gingers. =]
Yes, it is for religious reasons, and yes, I understand that there is divisions among Christians on this issue. But I view same-sex marriage as wrong, believing that marriage should be between man and woman only as Biblically ordained. I'm not saying I'm going to hate and despise homosexuals. I will still love them as Jesus commands, just not agree with them.
To put this succinctly without saying what I think is wrong with religion (because a) that's a can of worms I don't want to open, b) it'll take a lot of time and c) nothing good will come out of it), you've a right to believe whatever you want. You don't have a right to force that belief on others any more than others have a right to force their beliefs on you. Therefore, you can think it's wrong if that's what you believe, you can hate gays if that's what gives you your kicks, but you cannot prevent them from marrying. Think about it this way: what would you do if the boot was on the other foot, so to speak, and it was religious marriage that the SCOTUS ruled to legalise after years of discrimination, and someone would have said they're horrified?
I promise. I'm just stating my view and defending it. You have nothing to worry about.
Would you also defend an inverted position (like I've described in my previous post)?
-If you don't, you imply that discriminating against gays is OK, but discriminating against religious people isn't, and that's a) selfish, b) hypocritical and c) silly, because it basically says "discrimination is OK as long as it is not against me or my group".
-If you do, there's little reason for you to be horrified specifically by gay marriage; rather, it means you're horrified by discriminated groups being a bit less discriminated against, and that's... I don't even know what to call that.
You said it yourself - arguing about social progressivism with the religious right is like arguing about quantum physics with a yak. The other party doesn't understand it and will simply wander off to do exactly what it did before.
I'm not trying to argue progressivism, social or otherwise, with anybody. That's your cup of tea, not mine. What I'm trying to do is to fathom some of Silenthunder's thought processes via the prism of hard questions.
This is probably uncharacteristically hostile for me, but this is a subject that really gets me going.
So. Let me guess: Your logic is that one line from Leviticus, right? About how it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man?
Let me just say this right now.
The book of Leviticus is almost completely outdated in today's society.
See, there were a lot of laws laid down for the Jewish people back then that would frankly be horrible today.
You're a girl, right? According to Leviticus, you're nothing but a slave for making babies, to be broken and thrown away at leisure. You have a house? Get rid of it; women aren't supposed to own land. Helping your husband fight off a home invader? Better learn to cook one-handed; you're getting a hand cut off. Have sex before marriage, even if you were freaking raped!? It's your fault and you're being put to death.
Isn't that horrifying? That's all from the Book of Leviticus. God was telling people to do this.
He obviously mellowed out by the New Testament; Jesus taught us to love everyone, women got their own rights, and everyone agreed that the victim shouldn't be punished for rape.
And yet people still think that homosexuality is an abomination.
You can't pick and choose here. Either you follow all of Leviticus' strictures, or you follow none of them.
There's a reason I left the church.
I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily angry and hostile, but this is a subject that just really gets me going.
A lot of things get me going, and I rant with a vengeance.
However, the Bible also talks about homosexuality in the New Testament. Romans One and Corinthians Six. I would recommend using a newer translation for the latter, though, because the word in the KJV is "effeminate." Newer translations have a different wording to avoid confusion.
Also, the line about rape is not valid, as far as I know. One of King David's sons raped his half-sister, which started a war, but as far as I know the only thing that happened to the poor girl was that she wore different clothes. The war was actually one of David's consequences for his polygamy, if I'm remembering correctly.
Ie., the son of David who thought the rape of his sister was wrong was punished, not the one who committed it.
was killed too. Absalom was punished because he tried to usurp the throne of God's chosen king. That isn't to say that his complaints weren't valid-- another of David's sins was that he didn't control or discipline his children as he should have. If David had followed God's commandments in the first place, the entire tragedy wouldn't have occurred.
Most current translations have him repeatedly talk about homosexuality as a sin, but some argue that it might have been about paedophilia or more generic sexual perversion.
I'm personally not convinced, and think he was indeed talking about homosexuality in at least some parts of his writing. But then again, I also think he was a con artist who ruined Christianity. I mean, everyone has their own opinions.
Meanwhile, some argue that, according to the Gospels, Jesus approved a homosexual relationship.
... so I'm relying on others scholarship here rather than my own, but if I recall correctly, the particular words that Paul uses in his various lists of sins are used nowhere else in the Bible and are not the 'usual' words used at the time to describe men having sex with men. (I deliberately don't use the term 'homosexuality' because it's really a modern-ish concept of orientation as opposed to behaviour).
One possible interpretation of them is as a catch-all reference to all same-sex behavior, however it's also possible that the reference is to more specific situations. Because of the unusual choice of language and lack of context elsewhere, it's hard to say what he intended.
I mean, people must only use "Judaeo-Christian" to refer to the two belief systems to annoy you, right? They're like chalk and cheese, if cheese was made of a slightly different colour of chalk.
"Judeo-Christian" is a term used mainly by Christians. It's a common idea in modern (and American) Christian society that Jews are basically... uh... Christians without the whole "Jesus" bit. That Jews are just sitting around waiting for a Messiah, because they don't realize he already came. That's actually not even remotely how it is, though, and it's a pretty insulting view of the Judaic religion and culture.
The Christian idea of what Judaism is is radically different from what Judaism actually is - as Desdendelle (or Maslab, if he was still around), I'm sure, could tell you far better than I could. I highly recommend you do some research of your own by talking to actual rabbis, rather than taking Christians' word for what another religion is all about.
A lot of people from both religions would have you believe that they have nothing to do with each other.
Christians today still use Leviticus to decry homosexuality, while ignoring the other laws written there.
What is your religious basis for homophobia?
And remember: Jesus wanted us to love everyone, no matter who they were.
I don't mean any offense to you personally, but people using religion as an excuse to be outright hateful... that's one of my real-life berserk buttons.
*deep breaths*
I... I think I need to calm down a bit...
So. You obviously don't subscribe to it yourself, but a lot of Christians think that gay people should be exterminated.
While that's horrible on a general level, I can understand it a bit more deeply, because people like me were sometimes treated similarly not two hundred years ago.
I'm autistic. I have multiple mental disorders that all interfere with my social development (Asperger's, ADHD, depression, maybe more). In today's society, people help folks like me, because God knows we need it.
19th century and before? We were murdered, or locked up for life, because people thought that we were possessed by demons.
Hardline, fanatical "Christians" (and I use that term very loosely) will always find fault with anything that's not their definition of "normal." A few hundred years ago, if you weren't a wealthy, heterosexual, neurotypical, white man, then you were second-class at best, property if you were lucky, or demonspawn at worst.
Now, historical developments have led to people accepting more. The poor and homeless receive aid, autistic people get the help they so desperately need, and women and people of other races have rights.
Take a gay person, and take me, and transport both of us to the 19th century. We would both be despised and shunned, if not murdered, for not being normal. The people of that age would see no difference between a man who loves other men and a person who thinks in ways that ordinary people don't understand.
What is so wrong with homosexuality that isn't wrong with me? By the way, I have several arguments ready. You've already heard my argument against religious reasons.
As someone who's both, I can say that nope, they're both just my neurology! My brain doesn't understand what people see in guys at all (no, not yuck, just... meh) any more than it can decide not to have sensory problems.
So, hi, fellow autist! :D
So I understand completely. I went through the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. I would have died in WW2 as well, since I was born early = disabled. Also, look to my argument where God teaches people in stages. It takes a long time for people to change traditions, and God is patient enough, knowing we're His stubborn kids. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I'm using the "holier-than-thou" standing. We sin even after becoming Christians, and it's better to acknowledge that and learn from the past.
Pretty sure a small minority of Christians - and I mean very small - think LGBTQ people should be exterminated.
Most subscribe to conversion therapy instead. Which, y'know, degrees of terrible, but that IS a distinction that must be made.
Most Christians I know take a live and let live approach.
I should say, "most Christians who believe non-heterosexual sex is a sin" go for conversion therapy, not extermination. But not even they are in the majority.
Also, "Christian" and "queer person" are hardly mutually exclusive terms.
I also know that it involves rape as an attempt to "cure" them, which is just as bad.
Christian-established institutions that use one of the most horrifying things one human can do to another, and they think it's the right thing to do.
THAT is why I hate people who treat homosexuals as aberrations. They often become monsters themselves.
Yes, a rigorous academic regime, an accepting community, a desire to help others, and raising millions of dollars to help find a cure for diseases like Cystic Fibrosis is horrifying.
I misread your statement. I thought you were referring to Christian Institutions as a whole. Not the specific ones.
I thought you were saying that Christian institutions were one of the most horrifying things. When I first read your comment I did not see the "that use" section of it.
In some places, it does. Look, I'm an androgynous genderfluid bisexual, and a historian: I am well aware of the atrocities regularly visited on LGBTQ people. I know that evangelical ministries go to other countries and offer financial support for necessary services in exchange for laws criminalizing queer people and "behavior". I know about "corrective rape."
But that is a tiny minority of Christians. Please bear that in mind - I highly doubt that anyone on this 'Board is advocating for these kinds of things. We've only ever had... one or two people who even fell into that camp remotely, and they're long gone. Relax, please.
(Also, my god, chill with the using "homosexuals" as a noun, dude. It's a very straight thing to do, refer to a large and diverse group by a scientific name for one subset of the population. :P LGBTQ is usually pretty acceptable, or QUILTBAG, or MOSAIC, etc.)
I just... like I've said, prejudice REALLY makes me angry. Just the knowledge that there are people that downright monstrous just completely ticks me off.
I really do need to learn when to shut off the valve when it comes to my emotions...
Why do you specifically disapprove?
If you do not mind, I would like to pose a question to you. It is similar to one that was posed to me a few years back, at a time when I thought similarly.
So you obviously see marriage as fundamentally religious then. But why? Look at it from a historical perspective marriage was primarily (and in some places still is) arranged and made for political or personal gain. Daughters were little more than tools. So is it really religious in nature?
Now to take is a step further, marriage itself, is essentially a government benefit. It is economic in nature. It provides tax breaks, certain support rights, and other gains provided by the government or by operation of law. So again I ask is it really religious? Or is it an institution created by governments?
You do not have to answer if you do not want to, and I certainly am not trying to change your mind. It is just something to think about.
Granted, the motivations for marriage may have differed over the centuries (e.g., for love, for political gain, etc), however, the nature of marriage has not: one man joining one woman and creating a new family unit that is distinct (albeit not totally separate) from the ones that the spouses came from.
That said, the question of whether marriage is religious or secular takes on a whole new meaning.
We social conservatives (among whom are conservative Christians) view marriage thus: it is an institution that predates even the concept of the State. The state did not create the institution of marriage, its functions vis-à-vis marriage are in recognition of the institution: it recognizes marriages and helps enforce its concomitant rights and responsibilities. (This explains, for example, why the State historically required grounds for divorce.) As marriage predates the State, and was not created by it, the State has no power to redefine what a marriage is.
However, since social liberals (among whom are not a few atheists) see the State as the be-all and end-all, it only makes sense that they believe that marriage is a creation of the state. From that foundation, of course the State can redefine marriage if "progress" so requires!
In many pre-Roman cultures in the Western world, (including several mythic figures mentioned in the Old Testament), one man married to multiple wives was pretty much the standard.
The American Indian* concept of marriage varies from culture group to culture group, but I can't recall a single group that saw marriage the way you're defining it here. Many groups (especially those with a strong agricultural tradition) had the concept of matrilineal descent - in marriages that were heterosexual, the children did not go to the father's clan, but to the mother's - they were raised mainly by their mother's family, brothers, sisters, and grandparents. Gender was not seen as a binary, mutually exclusive concept; there are several cases of women who were warriors and hunters taking wives.
What's really frustrating about the idea that marriage hasn't changed in centuries is that historically, it hasn't even stayed the same in America. The 17th and 18th century were notorious for marriage being a fairly fluid concept (as in, lots of divorce and moving in/out, lots of different marriages was kind of the norm), and in some of the communes that came out of the First and Second Great Awakenings, marriage was a community sort of affair - or abolished outright. Marriage has changed over and over and over again in the course of human history - even a cursory look at history will demonstrate that.
You are correct that marriage predates the American state. We see it as a religious institution that is recognized by the state. Therefore, the state absolutely gets to decide what kind of marriage to recognize. Just like churches get to decide what kind of marriages to recognize.
Was there such thing as marriage before the Christian Church? I would say that it clearly was. Lets look at Rome or Japan or any other civilization before Christianity. There was still marriage, again predominately for political, economic, and other very secular means.
Or put another way, is a non-Christian Marriage a marriage? And if it is, why should the religious (mind you a Christian Definition) apply? What makes it any more valid than say the Hopi Definition or any other Native Group? Or over say the Hindi Definition or some other definition from any other Non-Christian Group?
Was there such thing as marriage before the Christian Church? I would say that it clearly was. Lets look at Rome or Japan or any other civilization before Christianity. There was still marriage, again predominately for political, economic, and other very secular means.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Christian God created marriage (though that is what I, as a Christian, believe): I said that marriage predates the state. And though the concept is easier to believe if you are religious, one does not specifically have to be a Christian to believe it.
In fact, your very own words help to lend credence to me: one could go to Japan or Rome, and even though the words or the motivations may be different, the concepts of "husband" and "wife" were universal. How could it be that this institution could be so universally understood unless its roots went deeper than even the divisions between ethnic groups? So it does not matter whether you believe that the first married couple was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or some couple of cavepeople that hit the hay one day and decided to live together thenceforth (à la modern-day "common-law marriage").
Unless I am missing some context, I believe that I just answered your first paragraph and voided the second.
Let me get specifically at this universal definition. There has been in several indigenous cultures this concept of a "Twin Soul", I think it was it loosely translates to, where it was a recognized same-sex union. Not to mention in Greece, how it was specifically encouraged (particularly among the Spartans). There really has not been one universal definition. Marriage was not marriage until the State gave some credence for it. It was the legal definitions that conveyed certain benefits, and made it marriage.
Prehistory it was no different than how other animals view relationships, or in other words it was not a relationship. It was a means to an end. It was the rise of civilization that created this thing marriage as an institution. It was the State deciding this union had some value, namely inheritance is easier, child legitimacy is easier to determine, better tax revenues, etc. The only reason it was really defined by the State originally as Man-Woman was because of very rigidly designed and defined gender roles. Remember for many of these cultures women were there to basically do housework and pump out babies. Further if you look to more women dominated cultures, for many of them there was no real marriage as it is understood by contemporaries.
This thread will be dropping off of the front page soon, but you raise an interesting argument that I don't want to leave as the last word. If you don't mind giving me your e-mail address, I'll gladly continue this conversation by e-mail. Also, could you please point me to some of the cultures that you are talking about in your post?
As for my email address, it's sonofheaven176ATgmailDOTcom (of course, substituting the words with the appropriate punctuation marks).
Because frankly, I am tired of discussing it. Maya, Aztec, Olmec, Inca, and Illiniwek, all have some variation of it. I am also certain the Iroquois and Cherokee nations had some similar belief, though I am not certain. Of course, orientation is more of a Western Construct anyways. But as I said, this is the last I am saying about this.
The Colville (and Okanogan, Yakama, Nez Perce, Klickitat), Sioux, Yurok, Hupa, Wampanoag, Mohawk, Anishinabe (aka Iroquois), Algonquin, Cherokee (including when they numbered in the millions and built cities across the East), Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Cree, Hopi, Pueblo, Dinè, Apache (my god did the Apache - their women warriors were famous, and often took wives), and probably more I'm forgetting.
It's also a concept - or was - in most of pre-colonial Africa, and Thailand, and pre-colonial Korea, and pre-Meiji Japan. Also in the very early medieval period there's some evidence same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the church for a brief period before the Council of Nicea (I've a friend trying to find sources for this as his senior thesis).
The fact that multiple Biblical figures had upwards of a dozen spouses and concubines is, of course, completely immaterial.
When something is wrong, it takes God a long time to teach people different. So He taught in stages. King Solomon having many wives was a bad idea. God told him so. That's in the Bible, the book of Second Samuel specifically. but I'd suggest asking a more experienced person.
Hey, should we stop now? No religious wars, remember.
It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6-18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed incest in the early centuries of humanity. If Adam and Eve were indeed the only two human beings God created, their sons and daughters would have had no other choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation would have had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah would have had to intermarry amongst their cousins. The reason incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html#ixzz3eJDTziIu
You, uh... you do know that blips in our DNA is what drives evolution forward, right? That's how we managed to go from the early humans (say, homo erectus) to modern-day humans (homo sapiens).
If the genetic code was "error free", then that would kill the evolutionary process.
If God created the world and the things on it (as I believe, and Silenthunder, as far as I know) then evolution is false.
Take this for example. About half way down the page. Pope Francis says the creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
XVI, to be specific. In 1950, 1996, and 2006, respectively.
The Catholic church believes in Evolution as much as the rest of us. Sure, they have God give the spark of life, which may be scientifically inaccurate, but science does not have an answer for the absolute origin of life yet, so we can let that slide. For some reason, it is protestant churches who force Creationism as a theory. That and orthodox Judaism, but we are currently being America-centric.
Now, who am I to say you cannot believe what you want to? It is your life, your choices. I will not begrudge you in the least for believing in something I do not. However, I would suggest for any creationists to actually read what Evolutionary Science has to say, not what fellow creationists have to say. To start, read this book.. It is a wonderful introduction to evolutionary science, that explains concepts in a clear, easy to access format.
Once you have done that, feel free to research more on your own. Or not! You do not have to believe in Evolution. That is your right. I just want you to be truly informed before making those decisions, rather then let others make those decisions for you.
"Eppur si muove." ~ (probably not) Galileo Galilei
hS
I think I will. I want to study the topic as a whole.
I don't think I'll say much more about it on here; I'm not well-versed enough in the proper defenses to be... much of anything, really. However, I will say that I am not a Catholic. The Pope can claim whatever he likes, but I don't have to believe him.
And thanks, again. I'm planning on doing quite a bit of reading in the future.
And his causal theory. Which can actually go back even further to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
but I don't think it's true. I mean, I could argue evolution until the cows come home, honestly. But Genesis tells what God did, and (with the exception of Revelations) it's fairly clear when the Bible is being literal and when it's using figurative language. The Genesis account is meant to be literal, to the extent of my knowledge, and the knowledge of many heads much wiser than mine.
Doesn't Genesis contain two separate creation accounts? Both are at least partially inconsistent? Also keep in mind, from a religious standpoint, Pope Francis is the head of Roman Catholic Church.
But then going on to the actual science part of it, as SeaTurtle below points out, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that supports evolution.
There is overwhelming proof of the mechanism behind evolution and it's prominently featured in natural history museums all over the world. Scientists have rigouroulsly fact-checked each other's work and made sure that they're publishing the most accurate information possible. Why is only one 2000+ year old book all the evidence you need to discredit volumes upon volumes of data collected using the cutting edge of technology?
Speaking of which, who peer reviewed the Bible?
Stopping now? I've been in a lot of similar debates, and they never get anywhere. The religious person basically says, "God wrote the Bible and He cannot err, therefore what the Bible says is fact", and arguing with such an argument is pointless; it's a disagreement about postulates, not anything you can apply logic and/or reason to.
Like I said, till the cows come home. I think logic can be applied, but at the end of the day, you can't scientifically prove either position. Scientists can't recreate evolution any more than they can recreate creation.
Click the picture to learn a thing!
Oh man, that is fascinating! I see that article is from 2008. I'mma go find more information about what's happened since. Starting on Wikipedia, apparently.
~Neshomeh
Richard Lenski is an incredibly intelligent man.
Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.net (with the tagline "The Trusworthy Encyclopedia" [sic]) and general God-botherer, is not.
Let's watch what happens when the latter accuses the former of fraud.
It. Is. GLORIOUS.
*wipes away tears* When will people learn the fastest way to get attention to something is to raise a big stink over it?
Since he can do that better than me. What I will do is say a couple things about the Bible itself:
The Bible is in no way coherent. There are two Creation stories, two accounts of the Ten Commandments, and that's just for starters. That's about as coherent as saying "I love you" while stabbing someone's face.
It also doesn't meet criteria for reliable historical documents like cross-referencing — bits and pieces of it do, but other parts, not so much.
Also, as an aside, whatever English translation you're bound to be using is going to be choke-full of mistranslations and other goofs. Let's take your own ASV and look at Isaiah 7:14. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
That's blarney. The Hebrew text says,
לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל.
I mean, it is true. I'm not gonna give in.
And, um, I've read the Bible, and I haven't noticed two of anything. With the rest, it has been proven to be sound. Translation, yeah, it can get a little rough, but we can thank dynamic equivalence for that. Sorta. Like I said, I'm no Bible scholar.
Seriously? You haven't read the Bible as closely as you think.
The first Creation story can be found in Genesis 1-2:1-3. The second comes immediately afterwards, from Genesis 2:4 till, roughly, Genesis 2:23.
The first account of the Ten Commandments can be found in Exodus 20:8-14. The second account can be found in Deuteronomy 5:6-18.
Those accounts aren't even identical!
As to translation issues, if the Bible was just another book, they wouldn't have been such a big deal, but since it's purportedly the Word of God, you cannot dismiss them as "dynamic equivalence", especially when plainly wrong translations are involved.
Last but not least: saying that "it's true and I know so" means that arguing with you is a waste of time; it means you won't change your opinion, no matter what; you're blind to whatever's out there.
Oh, also: I don't actually hurt myself, no more than a person who goes to punch his pillow does.
I was trying to make a joke.
Yeah, just looked at a Bible, you were right. Two accounts, you were right. It's been a while since I read Genesis. In addition, why do we have four Gospels? Each shows a different perspective.
Again, you're right. That was a very not-good idea of mine to say that. There are different translations, and they differ. However, most Bibles are fairly accurate, and more than accurate enough to bring a person to Christ.
And yes, that's why I'm saying I don't want to do it. I'm not going to change my view, you're probably not going to change yours, so we'd just be hurling our ideas back and forth.
You're right about one thing and wrong about the other.
I might change my views — they're far from rigid; through my life I was a deist, a militant Dawkinsist atheist and, finally a weak agnostic atheist (which means, roughly, that I don't know whether god(s) exist, tend to default to the 'doesn't exist' position and think it's possible to know the answer to that question) — when presented with sufficient philosophical evidence, which, so far, I have not seen.
You, by your own admission, won't change your views no matter what. Therefore, arguing religion with you is pointless and a waste of time.
That's why I said so. That's why I didn't want to do this in the first place. I shouldn't have kept commenting-- I should have stopped. I don't have enough restraint.
The 'arguing religion with religious people is a waste of time' conclusion is nothing new to me but I still continue to do so. Oh, well. Everybody has their faults, I'd guess.
PS: — gives you a —.
Thankee. Hey, we're still friends though, right?
I must admit that I am more than slightly pissed off right now — religion is one of my Buttons — but that'll pass in due time and I'm not the sort of person to keep grudges, so yeah, I guess so.
I get flustered when things like this come up, because as I showed I don't know my defenses well enough, and I'm not terribly good at debating to begin with. Then I become defensive in a bad way, and that's a recipe for Not Good. I'm sorry I made you mad, I really am.
They're different accounts that show different aspects of what made Jesus both God and man.
Matthew: Represented by a lion, Matthew's story portrays Jesus as King. If memory serves, he's a lot more authoritative in this one.
Mark: Represented by a bull, this is supposed to be Jesus as Servant. This one tells more of the things that he did for other people.
Luke: Represented by a worshipper, Luke's account is Jesus as Man. Luke was a doctor, and he naturally wanted a full account of Jesus' human life.
John: Represented by an eagle, John's tale is Jesus as God. This is the most spiritual of the four Gospels, telling of how Jesus existed even before he was born into our world, as a part of God.
How do I know all this? I used to be a Christian, though I've drifted toward deism.
If evolution were true, there would be overwhelming proof in the fossil record. Even Darwin was getting discouraged by the lack of evidence.
Hundreds of Bible scholars and secular historians. It meets the criteria for a reliable historical document, is completely sound, and when the current text was checked with our oldest surviving manuscripts they were practically identical. Not to mention the sheer wonder of a book, written by forty different people across hundreds of years, being so coherent.
There is a unique trait in dental orientation, exclusive to mammals (if I am not mistaken, thought it might be primates), that can first be found in the Therapsid Reptiles. Anthropologists have been able to trace this dental orientation. After that, someone with far more knowledge in the field can fill in.
I am a bit clearer when tracing back. The proper classification of humans is (at this point I believe) is Homo sapiens sapiens. Now I am sure you are familiar with Neanderthals. These hominid species is properly classified as Homo sapiens neaderthalensis They were a very closely related species, in fact humans were capable of interbreeding with them. That means they shared genetic traits, otherwise interbreeding would not have worked. This means there needed to be a common ancestor. This was Homo heidelbergensis. Its fossils were first discovered in 1907 (after Darwin had died). The fossil record also supports that H. heidelbergensis came from H. ergaster and H. erectus. Both were discovered after Darwin's death. Those were predated by H. habilis (also post Darwin) then there is also the Australipithicines. The later part of human evolution is well documented.
The fact that you can't just show me a crazy amount of evidence is telling. Really, though, Des is right. I extended an invitation of off-Board discussion to SeaTurtle on the subject of the Bible, but I don't think a debate on evolution alone will do much.
I will say, however, that evolution was disproved in a court of law by William Jennings Bryan. I'm sure there's transcripts of it floating around somewhere on the web; you might find them interesting. I haven't looked at them personally.
Dolphins
Horse
Birds (check out that tail!)
Elephants
Cats
Armoured dinosaurs
Every single animal I typed 'xxxx evolution' in for gave me, somewhere on the front page of Google Images, a diagram of that kind.
Please note that none of these are claimed to be direct chains - Mesohippus is not (as far as I know) proposed to be the direct ancestor of the modern horse. What it is is another branch, from an earlier time, which preserves features of the common ancestor.
As for "missing links" - once you've found it, it's not missing, is it? So Mesohippus is a formerly-missing link between Hyracotherium and Eqqus - until it was found.
The fact that I can show you a crazy amount of evidence, really easily - is that also telling?
hS
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Tikaalik.
You may not know it, but you are looking at one of paleontology's greatest achievements. Over years of digging up bones and fossils, we have become very good at discerning what evolutionary stage is supposed to be at each rock layer. So good in fact, a team of researchers said that in a very specific rock layer, we would find the first "walking fish." One trip to Canada later, and what did they find in that exact rock layer but this beauty. Do you want to know what it would have looked like alive? Here you are!
See those fins? He used them to push himself unto land and walk around. Kinda like mudskippers, but for longer periods of time. Don't know what a mudskipper is? Here you are again!
And this one is still alive! Here, I'll prove it! Have a video!
See, there are plenty of "missing links" if you go looking for them. Nature is fascinating, is it not?
Want to see a funny video involving Muskippers? Yes, yes you do. Here you are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw
I imagined opera.
I am now imagining the two mudskippers performing the Pearl Fishers' duet.
It is pleasant.
Saying that evolution was disproved in a court of law, specifically an American one, is a) Americanocentric and b) completely irrelevant, because whether evolution is right or not is not a legal question. It's a scientific or philosophical one.
You are referring to the Scopes trial. The result of the that trial was that the Court found Scopes violated the Tennessee Statute which stated that teaching evolution was a crime. The trial ended because Scopes was no longer employed by the State and thus no longer subject to the law at issue. So the court dismissed as moot.
Now, subsequently there was a case Epperson v. Arkansas. There the Court specifically held that a statute to ban the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional. And later in Edwards v. Aguillard the Court effectively said that evolution is the appropriate theory, any use of creation theory in public schools violates the establishment clause. But at no point did any court actually say the theory was disproved. The closest they ever came was in the Aguillard dissent, where the stated that Evolution was a theory, just like creation and as such requiring both theories did not violate the establishment clause
This is one of the anti-evolution arguments that annoys me the most, so I'd just like to take a moment to set something straight:
The scientific definition of a "theory" is not the same as the colloquial meaning of the term.
What most people mean when they say they have a theory is more like a scientific hypothesis, which is basically an educated guess. Once enough experiments have been conducted that back up the hypothesis—or more accurately don't disprove it, because the point of a proper scientific experiment is actually to disprove its hypothesis—then it may graduate into a scientific theory, which means it is recognized by scientific consensus as fact. Unless, of course, something comes along to disprove it. It's always possible. But once an idea is recognized as a scientific theory, that means the vast majority of evidence supports it, so it's really not very likely to be disproved.
Note that a scientific theory is not a step below a scientific law. They can both be referred to as scientific fact—they just describe different things. Gravity is a good example of scientific law: if you jump off a bridge into an abyss, you will fall due to the effects of gravity. It is what happens, and you can't disprove that. Now, how gravity works, that's covered by scientific theory, which can be modified or even disproved with enough evidence. Laws are what happens, theories are how they happen. Evolution, therefore, is both a law (changes to a species happen due to various factors over time) and a theory (adaptation, natural selection, genetic mutations, etc.).
So please, if you must argue against science, whatever you do, at least don't make THAT mistake. It's annoying, and it makes you look stupid.
(Not YOU, [Evil AI], just in case that needed saying. I know you were just stating what the argument said. I just wanted to explain why it's a bad argument. {= ) )
~Neshomeh
Interesting fact, I actually used to think that way about 10-15 years ago. I had a "science teacher", though I use that term very, very loosely, seeing as said teach argued against evolution, and turned a discussion on the Scopes Trial into a mock trial were we (the students) found that creation was the appropriate theory and that evolution was wrong. Of course a year or two later I was confronted with evidence to the contrary, and I realized that my former position was untenable at best.
I'd been told differently. I apologize. Really, though, I don't want to debate evolution. I don't. It won't get anyone anywhere.
The Scopes Trial was just a mess. It was specifically designed to challenge the law, in the trial court it was just spectacle, no real law was going on. When it finally found its way to the State Supreme Court, they found out that there was a small error in the process, they overruled the lower court, dismissed the case and basically said never speak of this again.
is that the source I got it from ought to have been reliable, and was not. Anyway, thanks for setting the record straight. We're still friends, right?
Which is why you can't rely on stuff that's just been handed to you. If you want to be smarter, you have to check these things for yourself. You can't just go on what other people tell you, whether they lived now or several thousand years ago. This is why science is structured in the way that it is; it's based on being able to check everything that someone claims so that we can be sure it's actually happening and not just something someone made up for whatever reason.
Rationalism and piety can and do coexist; there's no reason why one should disavow the other. You can believe in whatever you wish, and you should, if you're of the opinion it helps you do the least harm (there's that phrase again!), but treating the Bible as the only source of truth is like treating the writings of Pliny the Elder as the only source of which animals exist in the world.
And I used to think that the Scopes Trial said the same, then I finally decided to read it. The best explanation is this:
"The Court is informed that the plaintiff in error is no longer in the service of the State. We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case. On the contrary, we think the peace and dignity of the State, which all criminal prosecutions are brought to redress, will be better conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein. Such a course is suggested to the Attorney-General" Tennessee's Chief Justice Green and his order.
The whole thing was a bad example of US Law. I think at one point the defense ended up calling the prosecutor as a witness, the whole thing was a mess.
And that is an easy misconception to make. The law which forbade the teaching of evolution was upheld. Though it was on a technicality, and the State never brought an action under that law again. The even repealed it before the US Supreme Court struck any such law down.
And yes, it generally takes a lot more to upset me. Especially if I have the lawyer hat on.
Don't blindly believe everything people tell you; check it.
I was homeschooled by very conservative Christian parents, and given only creationist textbooks for most of my education. The claims in those books all held together really well until I encountered evidence-based science and discovered that the creationist textbooks had lied to me and misrepresented the scientific position about . . . yeah, pretty much everything. It was a hard lesson to learn, but it has taught me to check and check and check. So maybe the experience wasn't wasted? Hopefully not, anyway.
Personally, I think the reason the religious have such a problem with science is that religion is, by it's very nature, unscientific. It isn't overly concerned with finding out new things - indeed, down that path lies heresy and setting fire to people, and it's a pain to get the burn marks out of the carpet. Instead, it is concerned with one single, massive book, which is True, made up of smaller books, which are also True. Everything in the Book is True, and by extension everything in the smaller books is True, except the bits that Aren't True that over the years have been discarded. Science's constant peer-review process and refining the knowledge, to the extremely religious, is therefore akin to writing more of the Bible and must subsequently be viewed with at best confusion and at worst outright vitriol.
At least, that's my take on it from experiences with my own local God addicts. They scare me and repeatedly tell me that I'm going to spend eternity in torment for something I can't help, so, er, yeah, my conversations with them tend to be a little on the brief side.
The entire Scopes Trial was basically a sham. And also by the end of it the Tennessee State Supreme Court basically said, "Let us never speak of this again". Epperson remains the actual law on the issue.
'cause, you know, he's in law. Um, also, I have proven myself to have very little restraint, but really, I'd prefer to not debate evolution.
On Neanderthal there is some dispute over if they are properly classified as H. neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neaderthalensis. I stated the minority position. The majority position is that they were a closely related hominid to humans, that shared a recent common ancestor.
When a child undergoes puberty, do they go to sleep one night and emerge as a teenager the next morning? Of course not-- the process is far too subtle for that. But if we were to track the aging process by means of a photograph taken every year on that child's birthday, we would see a definite gradual change from 13 to 25 years old. If we were to say "aha! Missing link!" at any point in the process... Well, no. It doesn't work that way. It's a continuous process, like driving up a slope. It is not like climbing rungs of a ladder.
The Bible is undeniably a historical document, yes. It is categorically not a scientific text, however. As such, we cannot base our understanding of the origins of life on this text. Besides, there are plenty of other modern religious texts that flat-out contradict the Bible's version of the creation of the world. What makes them less valid than the Christian verion of events? What about all of the old religions? Did they have a valid point anywhere in their teachings? Did they have the correct interpretation of events? Why not?
If you really want to debate the reliability of the Scriptures, I'd like to do it off of the Board.
...until Canada Day, so my access to the Internet is a little spotty at the moment.
On the other hand, I do want to discuss this a little further. This is very interesting! Please feel free to tag me via email or something when you're ready.
Please help me understand your position. What makes you say that?
I am heterosexual. The only way homosexuality would bother me is if I was the target, and I would make it very clear that I'm both straight and uncomfortable.
Oh, and my best friend? Pansexual. And he knows I'm straight, knows I'd be uncomfortable with that kind of attention, and he always respected it.
If you're worried about people of the same sex trying to put the moves on you, just let them know that you're not interested. They'll back off. And if they don't, it's not indicative of homosexuals as a whole; that's common even in heterosexual individuals. It just means that person's an asshole or a creeper.
And also, the unwanted attention thing goes both ways. I've talked online with a lesbian who once had a creepy stalker who thought he was in a budding relationship with her. RoahmMythril has more to say about this incident.
Bottom line: There's nothing to be scared of that wasn't already there.
While it may be a gut reaction to homosexuality, there is another possible reaction. This is a really heavy handed decision by the Court. There are I think legitimate concerns about the Federal-State relationship. Marriage rights had traditionally been governed under State Law, but between Windsor and the recent decision, it is forcing a Federal Standard on the States. So this is arguably a violation of the 10th Amendment, of course these arguments were made during the desegregation era and they failed, but that still has a basis for concern.
Further there is also a Federal Separation of Powers issue as well. This is essentially the Court Legislating, which is beyond their power. Then of course there is, what I am certain is the Scalia/Thomas argument, that this is basically the Court amending the Constitution without actually going through the Amendment process. Of course that has never stopped the Court before mind you, but it does add another precedent for them to reach a bit further. It could theoretically get to the point where the Court decides that they have enough precedents where they can wholesale amend the Constitution at will.
And that is something that could horrify people. Because it gives far too much power to one branch of the Government. Of course I do not think this decision has that effect. Frankly I think this should have been decided quite some time ago. After Loving v. Virginia in the 50s the Court found a fundamental right to marriage. And it is virtually indistinguishable. Really the only difference was in Loving it was interracial marriages rather than same-sex marriages.
A few years back, the act that forcibly disallowed military benefits to be given to anything but a heterosexual couple was removed. As was Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the general set up where homosexuals in military service would be discharged upon their status being discovered.
In further support of service members who wished to marry, shortly after both of these items were taken care of, the US military allowed its service members to take an amount of 'free' (as in, not counted against them) leave so that they could go to states where same-sex marriage was legal to be able to marry.
The military is, of course, a federal level institution.
I do not see this decision as upsetting either the balance between Congress and the Court or between States and the Federal Government, but I do see that as an argument that can be made. And it was an argument that was made before the Court, and though I have not read the opinion yet, I suspect that Justices Scalia and Thomas both accepted that argument.
But to the argument I was making, there is no Federalism issue with regards to the military, because (as you said) it is a Federal Institution, though the military does complicate things because it has its own law. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice is sort of corollary to main Federal Law, not unlike the Federal Rules of Evidence or Civil Procedure.
But again there is still an argument to be made that it violates principles of Federalism or Separation of Powers. But if it is not clear, I do not think any of those arguments are going to be successful. And the Court did not think they were either.
Then a heaven where that love is forbidden is not for me.
Someone can still be opposed to the decision without it being because of religious reasons or homophobia. For example they could be opposed on Federalism Grounds. Which is a fair stance to have. One could also have trouble with this decision on Separation of Powers Grounds as well. It is essentially the Court Legislating, which they are not supposed to do (though they've been doing it since 1791).
But one can still be opposed to the decision without it being for hateful reasons.
But that wouldn't really be a case for saying point blank that you're 'horrified'. That implies that you not only think the decision was badly-made (legality-wise), but also that you think the outcome is a negative. Otherwise you'd say something like 'I'm really pleased at this outcome, but come on, Supreme Court! That's not your job. For the Constitution's sake, I hope this gets overturned and then settled in a completely different way.'
If you get given a box of chocolates because someone thinks it's your birthday, you don't say you're horrified at the chocolates. ^_^
hS
At least not in my perspective. I have seen cases where I have liked the result, but he legal reasoning was so bad, that I would have rather the Court come out the other way. Would I use "horrified" to describe it, probably not, but others might.
Though now that I think about it, I agree with a lot of the Court's Establishment Clause Decisions, but I am horrified by the legal reasoning behind it. So...actually it could be, it depends on how bad one thinks the reasoning is.
Kindly remember that for many of us, we're excited because we can, at long last, marry the people we love. Or see people we love, together for decades, married. For some of us, it's just one more step towards acceptance.
Son of Heaven seemed to have trouble with this concept when last we spoke privately, but I'm very out about it these days: I am neither male nor female. I cannot marry someone of the "opposite" gender or sex, because no "opposite" to my gender or sex exists. I've known since I was about four years old that my gender was not female or male. I have dated both men and women, and have been seen as a straight and gay couple, depending on where and what we both happened/happen to be wearing.
For me, this says that I won't have to pretend to be a person I'm not in order to marry someone. I won't have to spend the rest of my life pretending to be a man, or pretending to be a woman.
I understand if you disapprove of my… um… existence, I guess? But I fail to see how anyone can be horrified by a decision that will never directly effect them - this decision really only applies to people who want to get married and couldn't before. So you don't have to be all that unhappy - just ignore it, if it bothers you so much. Maybe you'll get used to it.
1) Kindly remember that for many of us, we're excited because we can, at long last, marry the people we love.
Of course, I cannot speak for Silenthunder, but I doubt that he will diasgree with me on this:
I am not saying "you don't have the right to celerate the ruling"; it's just that I personally do not see the ruling as something to celebrate. So we're just putting it out there: not everyone is in accord that Obergefell v. Hodges is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
2) Son of Heaven seemed to have trouble with this concept when last we spoke privately, but I'm very out about it these days: I am neither male nor female. I cannot marry someone of the "opposite" gender or sex, because no "opposite" to my gender or sex exists.
Mini-Boarder aside, this paragraph makes as little sense as when we first spoke. I've asked you to please explain clearly how you could be neither male nor female. I understand from our e-mail exchange that your perception of yourself may change from day to day. However, unless you are hermaphroditic, then biologically you are either one or the other.
However, I am risking being insensitive with those last two clauses, so for respect's sake, I will refrain from pushing the topic any further, and I apologize if I have offended you, VM.
3) I fail to see how anyone can be horrified by a decision that will never directly effect them - this decision really only applies to people who want to get married and couldn't before.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. We are all but told the words of the Borg: "Resistance is futile." Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to, religion be damned.
That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality. >>
"whether"? "going to"? Society as a whole already does think that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality, and that's why gay marriage is being legalised, to reflect this. That's a fact, and if you say it isn't then you're just plain wrong.
See here for proof, and make sure you hover the mouse over the picture to read the alt-text.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. >>
You mean, because everyone's out of step except you...? That was already clear.
And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. >>
Ah, now I see the reason for your confusion. You think that time runs in that direction. For the rest of us, it's the other way round. First society accepted homosexuality, then the politicians were forced to legalise gay marriage as a result.
Once again, see here.
I've asked you to please explain clearly how you could be neither male nor female. I understand from our e-mail exchange that your perception of yourself may change from day to day. However, unless you are hermaphroditic, then biologically you are either one or the other.
We went in circles a few times with this, and as far as I can tell, the only way you would accept that I am neither male nor female was if I could say that I was biologically intersex (that's the right term, btw. Hermaphroditic is indeed rather offensive.). I explained that it didn't matter what my biological sex was, my gender was fluid/neither.
I don't understand - I truly don't - how it is that you said, multiple times, "unless you are hermaphroditic" or someusch, yet never made the connection that there was a definite reason I didn't want to talk about my sex with a stranger. I am intersex. It's not something I talk about publicly, since my body is my business and nobody else's, but I really am.
Thing is, who cares? I'm not going to drop trow and prove it for every person who wants to demand proof that I'm "allowed" to be neither male nor female. This is the thing our society doesn't seem to be able to accept about sex/gender. Sex is just as fluid and non-binary as gender. It's not like, sexually we have men and women and that's it, so all these genders are just made up. Sexually we have men, women, and many many many people who occupy spaces in between, or are neither, or both. Gender-wise we have men, women, and many many many people who either occupy spaces in between, or are neither, or both.
but I made three points, and you've only replied to one. I would like to know what your thoughts are on the other two.
To be honest, I thought my response was fairly clear in... well, literally everything I've said in this thread. But sure, let's talk.
I'm going to skip over first to your apology.
I honestly did not know that it was a sore spot: I thought that you were just being unclear in some kind of an attempt to put the spotlight on homosexuality without any reference to the person that I am talking to. I acted in ignorance, and I apologize.
I'm truly not trying to be ungracious, but I feel uncomfortable accepting this. The fact is, you start off "Finally, a clear answer," to which my response is: I gave you a clear answer from the very start. I'm not going to go hunt down the emails we exchanged, but "I don't want to answer that," or "I'm neither male nor female" WAS a clear answer. It was a clear, definite answer that you refused to accept.
Second - God, I hate to do this, as it undermines the assumption of trust we tend to make in this community, but my point stands. "My gender is neither" is an adequate answer, and the fact is, you still have no idea if I'm telling the truth or not. I am, as it happens, but again, what does that actually mean? No one I meet in person knows what my biological sex is unless I tell them, either. My sex - and literally everyone's sex - is their own business and nobody else's. So in that respect, I WAS trying to make a point. Not a point about homosexuality, but a point about gender. The point was "My sex doesn't matter, any more for me than anybody, lay off." I could've told you right away, and again, in a way I did, but really, my point stands: it's none of your business whether anyone's sex matches their gender.
I'm aware this is going to sound rude, but let me be perfectly clear: is it any more rude than a politely-worded request for someone to inform you what their genitals look like? It doesn't matter that I'm intersex: if I'd come out and said I was biologically male or female, or trans and didn't want to disclose, it would still be none of your business.
Now. Your other two points.
I am not saying "you don't have the right to celerate the ruling"; it's just that I personally do not see the ruling as something to celebrate. So we're just putting it out there: not everyone is in accord that Obergefell v. Hodges is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
See, I might really dislike one of the faculty in my department, right? I'm still not going to show up to their retirement or tenure party and remind them that I'm not happy about the celebration. When the College Republicans on campus are having a party to celebrate something that went their way, I don't show up and tell them I disagree; I choose a time and place that's appropriate, rather than walking in and telling them "Hey, I'm just putting it out there, but I really wish the open-carry law hadn't passed."
I think Huinesoron answered your other point very well, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
And... again, how does that affect you? Yes. We are one more step towards full acceptance. I'll say it again: how does this affect you? You are presumably not gay. You are perfectly welcome to continue being not gay, and attending a church, and voting for politicians, who agree with you. You can wear a shirt every day that says "Love the sinner, hate the sin," or "I'm Straight and the rest of you are going to hell," or whatever you like. You can go to non-gay bars. You can stand in front of gay bars with signs that say "I wish this place didn't exist" or, again, whatever you please. Yes, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the majority of society disagrees with you. So? The majority of society disagrees with me on a lot of issues; for example, the fact that non-gender-binary people exist. As a general rule, I sort of continue existing, and it does not effect me in the slightest*. Another example: my religious beliefs fall into a sort of weird place between religions. I disagree with the majority of society about things like the nature of God, etc. It doesn't effect me.
And when placed in those terms, the reason we Christian conservatives are fighting tooth and nail is as clear as crystal. And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows. We are all but told the words of the Borg: "Resistance is futile." Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to, religion be damned.
No. It really isn't clear as crystal. What are you fighting? That people who aren't you and don't agree with your beliefs will... uh, continue to not be you and not agree with your beliefs? You're fighting for the laws and moral codes of your specific sect of your specific religion to apply to everyone. Including, I might add, the people who lived here for tens of thousands of years before any Christian set foot on these shores - gender and marriage and sex and sexuality are seen from a completely different worldview by the Plains, Coast Salish, Plateau, Basin, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeast tribes. (The Arctic are the only place I know where marriage... kinda sorta resembles European tradition.)
"Either assent to the prevailing orthodoxy, or the will of the state will force you to,"
I'll say it again - force you to WHAT? Not throw people who are gay in jail? Not stone women who get divorces? Not stone men who lie with men as with women? What are you worried about being forced to do? The majority of the population still identifies as straight, dude. Nobody's going to force you to do a single thing.
*that's actually a blatant lie - it effing sucks, getting a dirty look no matter what bathroom you use, having to explain to people every other day when they ask what you are, like, biologically, though, getting passed up by the bus because the driver didn't like what he saw, wondering whether that guy who's been giving you dirty looks in the bar all night is going to follow you out and go after you, etc.
Because that was so out of line of SOH that it's not even marching band anymore, it's just playing a tuba on the moon.
*offers Bleepolate*
"Gender" is mental, "sex" is physical.
People can have a biological sex that doesn't match their mental gender identity. That's what a transgender person is: Someone who is physically one sex, but mentally another gender.
I don't make claims to understand it all fully. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but, for instance, I think genderfluid means someone who can mentally identify as male or female at different times, or as neither.
What is it, exactly, to be "male"? I mean, I know I identify as a cisgender heterosexual male, but while the first two words in that descriptor are pretty clear to me, the last isn't. Does it mean that I desire girls? If so, lesbians and bisexuals are males, too, and I don't that is the case. Does it mean I do male-ish things? What are those? What does that say about tomboy-ish girls?
So, yeah, now I'm confused.
It's actually a really exciting subject to get into! When you think about it, every single society and culture has expressed gender completely differently from one another, so our concept of what is "masculine" and what is "feminine" are completely formed by our culture, and that changes so quickly. That's one of my favorite things about studying history - you see things change so much, so quickly. There's this book I read a while back - Hunting and the American Imagination that explores JUST the concept of hunting in American history. We think of it as a masculine part of history that goes all the way back, but was it really? It's so much more complicated than we realize!
Colonial (ie, pre-revolution) history especially you see it in - there are so many primary source documents from missionaries who are agonizing over the gender expression of the tribes they're trying to convert! Often their concern seems to be FIRST to "fix" their gender roles, then the rest - religion, etc. - will follow. So the big one I remember is the Wampanoag, Algonquin, Mohican, Pequot, etc. in the Northeast. Women owned land, rather then men; men had rights to the hunting grounds (it's notable that by "women" and "men" I mean those who identified as women and men - it was tied to gender, not sex, for them). This drove the early Pilgrims up the wall, because when men were in camp, they didn't farm - because to them, it was unmanly to do so! But the Pilgrims saw it as a lacking work ethic, and were horrified that the women didn't sit around cleaning, but worked in the fields. Yet this is how they'd been doing it for years - they saw it as the Pilgrims having weird, messed-up gender roles.
Another one I learned about very recently was the history of Tokyo before the Meiji Restoration - the idea of "Edo Manners," or business manners. Historically, homosexuality and bisexuality were completely accepted in the city of Edo - and because the city was centered on business ideals, that's where the gender roles were centered, too: women were seen as "naturally" better at management, while men were seen as likewise "naturally" better at sales.
The more you study history, the more you realize that what gender means is completely relative to the culture, and it's not even remotely inherent.
Specifically, I've been wondering where in the Bible God actually says that men have to wear pants and go to work and women have to wear skirts and stay home and cook or whatever. I went so far as to read Genesis up until Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden, and I noticed something interesting:
He doesn't. Not until after the Fall, anyway.
Before the Fall, all it says is that Woman was to be Man's complement and helper. Nowhere does it say that Man has a penis and Woman has boobs, and anyway, Adam was made in God's image, and I can't see God having much use for mammalian genitalia. AFTER the Fall, though, that's when God curses Man to painful labor in the field and Woman to painful labor in childbirth and makes "long garments" for them, whatever that means, and THEN they have sex. Oh, and body shame was only a thing after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. So basically, as far as I'm concerned, gender roles were tacked on after the fact as a punishment for Adam's sin of disobedience. Adam and Eve were supposedly perfect before the Fall, so it seems to me that if we're striving for a more perfect society, we ought to strive to do away with strict gender roles.
As for "male and female He created them," that's plainly overlooking all the species that reproduce asexually or are self-fertilizing or use parthenogenesis or change sex for one reason or another or have the males bear/rear the young or are otherwise incredibly much more diverse and fascinating than most people realize. It's clear to me that the humans who penned the Bible only had their own experience to go on, whether they were divinely inspired or not; they couldn't have written "male and female and etc." if they didn't know about the etc. But maybe they would have if they did.
Oh, and BTW, biologically speaking, "female" is the default setting for humans. Maleness is an optional add-on.
~Neshomeh
PS. Okay, sex-determination is more complicated than that, but it's basically true, and it was nice and pithy. {; P
Gender is hard.
Gender isn't binary, and gender doesn't conform to stereotypes, and gender is... basically what you make of it. Binary genders are necessarily reductive, and are assigned at birth. I think, at heart, it's something you have to figure out for yourself.
I can't tell you how to be you; I can only tell you how I'm me. =]
"I realise I really upset you when I bullied you into revealing something deeply personal, but you haven't responded to the other things I said!" That's... really what you're going with?
Anyway, if you really want a response: I think this is an appalling statement.
And anyone at the front lines of this knows that the assertion "It won't affect you" is false. Even you hint at the real issue in your first paragraph: "it's just one more step towards acceptance." That's the core issue here: whether we, as a society, are going to say that homosexuality is as equally valid, morally, as heterosexuality.
'Anyone at the front lines'? What, like... the people who were fighting 'tooth and nail' to be allowed to marry the people they love? No? You mean the people who were fighting to control other people's lives?
As to the rest of your premise: yes, that's the core issue. Whether you can accept that an attribute or stance you don't share is just as valid as your own, or whether you will continue to claim that 'anything I don't do is inherently evil'. And you are on the wrong side of that.
And I am not speaking in hypotheticals here, it is clear from Europe and even here in the United States as well that wherever gay marriage goes, forced acceptance thereof follows.
Hi! I live in Europe! I have never been forced to go to a gay wedding; I have never been forced to have gay sex; I have never been forced to observe gay sex; I have never been forced to write articles in favour of gay people; I have never been forced to do literally anything except for not try to impose my own view of the world on people who don't share it.
In my view, you are dangerously close, if you haven't already done so, to violating Article One of the PPC Constitution, which states:
The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.
You are not only saying that gay people should be legally discriminated against - you are also saying that they are morally inferior to you. That's an attack, in my book.
hS
That said, please allow me to address the last thing first, as I dare not take an invocation of the PPC Constitution lightly.
I admit that I can be very blunt in the way I word things. In VixenMage's specific case, I see that I have been offensive. However, I honestly do not think that I have been attacking anyone in this thread. All I have been doing since the second I entered into this conversation is respond to opinions and give my stance, unpopular though it may be. If I have attacked anyone, please make it clear and I will unqualifiedly apologize.
That said, please allow me to contradict something in your post:
"I realise I really upset you when I bullied you into revealing something deeply personal,"
I must object to your characterization of what I did. I specifically said in my post: "However, I am risking being insensitive with those last two clauses, so for respect's sake, I will refrain from pushing the topic any further, and I apologize if I have offended you, VM."
Granted, in hindsight, I could have been clearer, but I had intended to mean that I was not pushing VM to answer and that I was not expecting VM to answer. And when VM did and revealed that it was a sore topic, I apologized for the hurt I caused.
Granted, in hindsight I should have just given an apology with nothing else. Therefore, I apologize again: I'm sorry, VixenMage.
But the right not to be discriminated against is much more important than your right to discriminate against someone on a religious basis.
In all such matters you must ask yourself "what would I do if the boot was on the other foot?" which, in this case, means "would I be horrified if SCOTUS decided to finally legalise religious marriage after years of discrimination against religious people?"
Because, frankly, if you don't want to be discriminated against when you're the minority, you mustn't discriminate against other groups that are now minorities; otherwise, you're a selfish hypocrite and no more.
I'm also kind of amazed that SOH considers legal protection from discrimination to be "forced acceptance" like Christian demagogues in Europe and the US haven't been forcing everyone to accept their own religious beliefs under threat of hellfire and damnation.
First off: Thank you. Finally, a clear answer. I did not know that "intersex" was the proper term, or that the issue was so personal to you. Which leads to the second part:
I'm sorry that I've hit at such a sore spot.
I honestly did not know that it was a sore spot: I thought that you were just being unclear in some kind of an attempt to put the spotlight on homosexuality without any reference to the person that I am talking to. I acted in ignorance, and I apologize.
The ShyIon: I cannot pretend to think that I know Silentthunder's motivation, except perhaps to say that not everyone in the PPC is thrilled at the decision. And I, at least, applaud that: the PPC is not here to force anyone else to subscribe to a particular political agenda, so even though it is apparent that the majority of us are politically liberal, the fact still remains that conservatives exist in the PPC, and that should be acknowledged, even if the law as currently extant says that we are on the wrong side of history.
"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step
of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex
marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe
in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.... Five lawyers have
closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage
as a matter of constitutional law.
"Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (Roberts, J., dissenting)
But I have no idea why you desire to advertise to the Board that you desire to dictate whether two consenting, non-related adults can get married based only on their genitals. You are free to feel that way, but it's rather not the time. I *do* wonder how y'all think you're going to get a Constitutional amendment through? No one is gonna force you to get married to someone of the same sex. No one is going to hold you down and paint rainbows on you.
My girlfriend (who I hope to pull into the PPC someday, mwa-ha-ha) and I will just be over here, being all rainbow-y ourselves, I guess? Not that we're planning on getting married any time soon, of course, but it's nice to know we'd be *able* to, ya know? Being acknowledged as a person with the same rights as other people is nice. :P
Our vision of marriage is the same vision of marriage. Only the wrappings are different. The love is the same.
I think it's fairly clear to anyone reading my entries on this thread, but I'll go ahead and put this here.
I consider myself politically conservative (gasp!).
Which means that I support the ability for people to marry others of the same sex. (I'm sure at this point there are many people going 'wait, what?)
See, to begin with, Roberts (and Scalia as well) have made statements and have written dissents in the past that indicate that while they hide themsides behind Originality (which, as AIUO has stated, is taking the view of following the original intent of the Constitution's writers and then ignoring all changes in social and modern structure since then) is indicative that they're using their own prejudices against such. They've done this in the past, and will do so in the future.
You are confusing political conservatism with moral (namely: religious) conservatism.
There is nothing wrong with moral conservatism- orthodoxy serves well as having some kind of baseline- but morals should never be confused and mixed up with ethics. Is it religiously moral for members of the same sex to enter sexual relationships with each other? According to several religions, no, it is not, no more than it is for two members of the opposite sex to have sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Is it ethical to prevent two, consenting persons from entering what is in this day and age largely a civil contract of law, through which many benefits are obtained, in the name of moral conservation? No, it is not.
Additionally, the United States of America was- and still is, despite the attempts by many- founded on the basis of Freedom Of And From Religion and the Separation of State From Religion. Religious views should not impact on the governance and laws of the state.
This decision does not force churches to marry same sex couples against the will of the priests.
It does not force anyone, against their will, to enter a same sex (civil) marriage.
Real political conservatism is when the state does its best to limit its impact and intrusion upon the rights of the people. Real political conservatism is not when the state's laws are used to oppress and otherwise limit the rights of people. Passing laws against gay marriage and claiming it in the name of political conservatism is (quite frankly) a farce.
While I can appreciate that you're personally uncomfortable with the thought of gays marrying legally in our United States of America, please don't confuse it with being actually politically conservative. Just admit it for what it is: moral conservitude or quiet homophobia.
that there's something wrong with religion being connected to state. Why would you say that?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The interpretation of those words has been a mess. Particularly with establishment and free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent with what they mean.
Lemon is the test, but when it gets applied you get things like, prayer at the start of a public school day violates the establishment clause, but prayer before a legislative session does not.
If six years from now the President decrees that everyone should worship only him on pain of death by lions, how would you feel about that?
How about if he demanded that you perform sacrificed to Jupiter in your church every Sunday? The threat of that happening in Jerusalem sparked off one of the Jewish revolts against Rome.
Or maybe you'd prefer Judaism, and be forbidden from preparing food (plus sundry other things) on Saturday?
Oh! Or Ramadan! You could be required to fast for thirty days each year. Up for it?
'Religion being connected to state' tends to only be popular when it's your religion. When it's one you disagree with? Nooooot so much.
hS
it's interesting you bring that up. As long as what they ask doesn't directly contradict Scripture, then I'm to obey. I'd go to the lion's den. Whatever the penalty was for not performing the sacrifice, I'd suffer it. No law in the Bible says I can't not prepare food on Saturday. As for the last one, they'd probably just kill me, or force me to pay extortion money.
But, in regards to America, the Founding Fathers were all either Christian or had a deep respect for Christianity, and intended America to be a Christian nation. Free enterprise and Christianity together makes a rich, happy, and giving society. As long as the Christians are doing what they should, that is.
I apologize for my mistake, though. Thank you!
... the Quran.
Yep, the Founding Fathers were fans of Islam.
Look up the Treaty of Tripoli when you've got a spare minute. That puts a little of the modern panic about Those Scary Muslims into perspective. =]
I think you'll like it. Written by President Adams (who was one of the founding fathers, mind you) he said: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Now, trust me, I have a very large rant on this topic coming soon. I just need to build up my sources first. But, suffice to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Adams here. AI (Can I call you AI?) if you want to build up sources for what the Founding Fathers were or were not, feel free. I might need some more solid sources.
And yeah, that was a sentiment that was widely echoed by the other founders. Off the top of my head, there is Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, which created the separation of church and state language. Another one is Madison's Letter to William Bradford Jr. 1774, Madison's Letter to James Monroe, 1785. Parts of Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention also talk heavily about it.
Frankly though, ultimately it does not matter if the founders were Deist, Christian, Agnostic, or whatever, the Constitution itself was a document of the Enlightenment. It was heavily grounded in reason. It was heavily inspired by John Locke's Social Contract (in fact some parts are copied directly from it). Religion was only there in the background as a right they wanted to protect. They specifically were opposed to any kind of establishment, their writings make that clear. I think that leads to the interesting question of how secular the government must be. And that is were I diverge from the Court. Personally I think they overused the Establishment Clause and underused the Free Exercise Clause. But that is a discussion for another time perhaps.
I am not even an American. But there isn't a question of how secular a government must be, because the answer, whatever the state, is "completely". We live in a multicultural age, and all cultures - and therefore all religions - must be treated equally in the eyes of the law if you are to claim the status of civilised society. Picking one religion over another? That naturally engenders a system that benefits one set of people to the detriment of another, which is not what a government should do.
At least, in my opinion. But I'm a socialist, and I'm not an American, so my opinion on American politics is something most Americans immediately discard. =]
I just do not like the reasoning. I fully believe in Separation of Church and State, but in my view the Court overused the Establishment Clause and created a highly subjective test that leads to wildly inconsistent results. Like prayer before starting a school day violates the Constitution, but prayer before a city council meeting does not. Or how a non-denominational invocation by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violates the Constitution, but a prayer at the start of legislative session does not.
I think the better approach would have been to use the free exercise clause. I think most of the same results would have been achieved with less inconsistency. I agree that government should be secular, but I think the problem is, the way the US Courts have used the Establishment Clause, it has been insanely over-broad and has led to inconsistent, and even dangerous results. A good example comes from a few years back. There was a site, that was on Federal Land, and the government wanted to build a highway through it. It would have destroyed the land. That site had been a holy site for several Native American Tribes for centuries, and only came into the possession of the Federal Government during, well not one of our finest moments (forced migration of Native Americans). But even after the Government took control, it was still used by these tribes, and had been for years.
The Court held, that the government could pave the holy site over, basically committing cultural genocide. Congress stepped in and made it a national park, preventing any development on it, so it worked out, but it almost did not. If the Court over the years had been using Free Exercise rather than Establishment, that case would have had a different result, one that I think is the right result. That is why I do not like the way the Court has used the Establishment Clause.
That's why I imply there might be a sliding scale of secularism. Congress should never have had to intervene in that case. But the Court too often forgets the rights of Free Exercise.
"I am using the concept of judicial overreach to cover for my own prejudices and trying to reframe the conversation from one about the dismantling of the engines of systematic hate to one about rather dry legal quibbles."
If you seriously have a problem with the most powerful branch of the judiciary having and using power, I can't bloody help you. =]
There were two clauses that were supposed to work together to protect religious freedom in the United States. For a time they did, but around the start of the 20th Century the Court changed, and started to broadly interpret the Establishment Clause, but it lead to two effects, that I have some issue with. The first is a highly subjective test that can lead to inconsistent results. Again school prayer being a violation, but legislative (you know an actual governmental function) prayer being proper. I do not know about you, but I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense. The second result, was because of how broadly the Court interpreted the Establishment Clause, they basically abandoned the Free Exercise Clause. And ultimately it came to a single case, that I think was a wrong result.
Which was of course, the Native American Case I mentioned above. It was land that the Government illegally acquired when they forced the Native Americans off of it. It was an incredibly holy site for several Native Americans that they had used long before the US even existed. They continued to use it even after the government took it, such that if a party could take ownership through Adverse Possession against the government they would have. The government decided to destroy that site by building a road through it. The Court let them do it. I do find that as a problem. I think that is a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Congress intervened, however, made the land a national park and prevented any development, thus preserving the site. So the right result managed to be reached, but by the wrong methods.
What I am saying is that through all of the decisions the Court has made on the topic, had they used the Free Exercise Clause in concert with the Establishment Clause, they would have reached the same results, but on better legal grounds. The Free Exercise Clause was supposed to be the main tool when dealing with questions regarding Freedom of Religion, and the Establishment Clause was supposed to be a fine scalpel designed for surgical excisions to cover the gaps Free Exercise did not. Instead the Court turned it into a meat clever to hack away blindly, which led to the inconsistent results.
Or with another metaphor, imagine a religious freedom question as being a dead leaf on a tree. Prior to recent developments the Establishment Clause would be used as a pair garden sheers to cut off that single dead leaf. But the Court has broadened it to such a point were it is now a chainsaw. So now you cut down the entire tree. Yeah, it gets you the same/right result (getting rid of the dead leaf), but is it really the best way to do it?
I think what EAUO means is "the same result could have been achieved in a better way, one that is more consistent".
I am for Separation of Church and State, I think using the Free Exercise Clause as the starting point (it would have required a broadening of it, but not as much as they had to broaden the Establishment Clause) would have lead to the same results in most cases. The ones it would not have, would then be able to be reached with a narrower Establishment Clause. Instead we have a highly subjective test that is ultimately decided by what five attorneys think an "excessive entanglement with religion" is. It leads to inconsistent and bizarre results.
As I said, a prayer in a public school violates it (which I agree with), but a prayer before an actual governmental function (legislating) does not. Frankly I think that is a nonsensical result. I mean seriously, if you ban it for the lesser (School) you should ban it for the greater (legislation).
Isn't that where this thread started? ^_^
hS
Which is why I said it wasn't even a question. =]
The main basis of the Constitution was not religious at all. What the framers did not create from on their own was influenced by Locke, Hobbes, Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and Montesquieu.
If one were to look at some of the correspondences between the founders, particularly Madison and Jefferson, you will see that they believed that they way Great Britain was operating, with the Church of England, was problematic. They saw religion as a vessel that could act as an oppressive force, where a majority could destroy the rights of a minority (of course a bit hypocritical if you look at some other provisions). But this idea of protecting minority rights was firmly ingrained in the minds of the founders.
Basically what I am saying here, is that the founders, Madison and Jefferson in particular, saw religion as something that could oppress the minorities. That is why the Establishment Clause was created. They also so the risk of interfering with individual practice rights, hence the Free Exercise Clause. Madison was more concerned with actual establishment, his writings specifically talk about the risks of the Church of England, but Jefferson took it a step further. Jefferson in a famous letter brought up the idea of a "Wall of separation between Church and State".
As history has shown, the Court has adopted Jefferson's understanding. But really the bottom line is if religion is connected to the State then you run the risk of an easy vessel for the oppression of minority rights. I am not saying that it would, but the risk is there.
That oppression is morally wrong. What would lead you to say that?
Oppression of any sort is wrong. I don't believe in not hurting people because some divine being says it's wrong. I don't hurt them because you don't hurt people.
But why is it wrong? It's not just wrong because it's wrong; there has to be a reason. That's what I'm trying to get at it.
No, wait, you're trying to assert your own moral superiority. Forgot you'd already said that. Let me break my opinion on this business down, then:-
Suffering is anathema to human existence. It is not enough to do good; morality involves doing the least harm. And while hurting someone is actively harmful, the denial of rights to people and their treatment as second-class citizens for whatever reason is passively harmful. It doesn't matter whether or not you go out to shoot black people or firebomb abortion clinics or any other form of active harm; you are not opposing a system that treats these crimes in an unequal way, and you are therefore not doing the least harm. You passively benefit from an unequal system, whether or not you directly engage with it to keep it going; that is not doing the least harm.
If it is to call itself such, an enlightened, civilised society must be compassionate and egalitarian, and that does not mean according special privileges to straight, cisgender white people who believe in a particular holy book. It means actual equality of gender and race and sexuality and gender identity. It means that the fundamental dignity of all human beings is protected, and not just the dignity of of straight cismale WASPs. Only then can society be equal. Only then can society move forward.
And frankly, if I may say so, your right to be discriminatory is lesser than my right to not be discriminated against. Much, much lesser. So show a little Christian charity and forgive my lack of tolerance for those who do me active harm. As for those who only contrive to hurt me passively, though, well... I'd like to quote from your book, if I may:
"Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
I truly am. So I forgive you for your opening comment, and I ask for you to forgive me too.
And while I stand by the thought process behind my opening assault, it could and should have been worded better. I apologise.
You're 100% forgiven. I don't think I've conducted myself as well as I should have in this thread, and I'm trying to remedy that. Oh, um, sort of on the subject that this thread was started about, would you mind answering a question for me? It's sort of involved. I keep hearing a lot of terms get thrown around about the topic of gender identity, and most of them confuse me. I have the barest basics— gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual. But then I hear all of these OTHER words get tossed out and I have absolutely no idea what anyone is talking about, like, from your own post, "cisgender." I can guess at what it means, but I don't know. Would you mind giving me a rundown? I'm thinking that I could coverse a lot better about the topic, and with less chance of hurting someone's feelings, if I had my terms straight.
First off, "transsexual"? It's not a word that's really used any more. The proper term is "transgender" because nonbinary people exist. Nonbinary, for reference, is a catchall term refers to people outside of the conventional gender binary; there are subdivisions like agender and genderfluid, but I primarily want to cover the basics.
Transgender people identify as a different gender (not necessarily the opposite gender - there's that nonbinary thing again) to the one they were born as. Cisgender people identify purely as the gender they were born as.
Basically, people are generally raised to believe that gender is like a light switch. This is not the case. It's more like a dimmer switch. You've got to find the right light for you.
I hope this gives you a little insight.
"Nonbinary," especially. I had a sort of dim idea as to what several of the terms used were, but I wasn't certain at all.
This sort of thing is part of what I mean when I'm talking about doing the least harm. Now that you have a bit more of an idea of what goes on in the world of what I like to call the queer alphabet soup, you're less likely to say something offensive by accident. There's probably going to be people who take offence anyway, we're a bit hair-trigger in that regard (chalk it up to being constantly under threat of exposure, I suppose), but yeah.
Mind you, this IS only the most basic overview I can give. You're best off looking at this in more detail - Wikipedia's gender portal is a good place to start. After that, well, Google, prolly. Just keep learning. Learning makes you smarter, and smarter people have more and better fun. =]
Yeah, I'm still working on not offending people. The surly conservative within me who likes to jump on nearby objects and scream "FREE SPEEEEECH!!" just 'cause she can doesn't help matters. I'll check out that gender portal thing-- knowledge is power, after all. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil. >:) Mwahaha.
Tone it down, please.
*indicates PPC Constitution*
Did you actually read my post? There's nothing to tone down, aside from my attacking the concept of societal inequality. Unless you mean the title, which was derogatory, but only because Alleb's use of rhetoric struck me as a bit on the specious side.
And of all the responses being given to Alleb, with or without the title, yours was indeed the most heated for little reason- you jumped in where you had not been prior with wording and phrasing that is intended to smack down.
We don't need to actively turn this into a pile-on.
I wasn't here for it. I was in an arcade trying to stop screeching children and the dot-eyed incompetents that spawned them from smashing irreplaceable glassware for the entire afternoon and evening. I know it's not quite military service, but nobody expects you mob to smile while you shoot people.
For one: You can always, always start off from the start. Your time zone gives you some advantage in that sense, and there are others who fell in to pursue this debate after you as well.
For two: My work has absolutely no bearing on this, thank you very much, and I would rather you keep out of my business- my business being my military service- if you insist to use it to hoist up how miserable you are and to implicate things about what I'm doing when it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand.
That's exactly what I did. I read things on this board. I was under the impression that that's what the board was for. Nobody had given quite the answer that I would have given, which covered multiple salient points about my personal morality from a socialist perspective. Which is why I posted it. My opening remarks were overly derogatory, I admit (you'll note I apologised for my vehemence elsewhere), but I stand by the spirit in which they were made; Alleb's use of an appeal to morality was something I held to be disingenuous and I felt obliged to respond with a clear, full description of my personal morality in the context of her original question - which, lest we forget, was "Is oppression actually wrong, though?".
As for point two, that was a preemptive defence of my position against people accusing me of first-world problems. This probably backfired. While I personally hold extreme pacifist views, I accept at times there really is no other resort and I have the deepest respect for the sacrifices of service personnel. I did not express this clearly and apologise for causing you offence; it was not my intent to slander your profession.
And just so you know? The people who were my tormentors were Christian. So I don't believe religion is any kind of morality chain.
But basically, I don't ever want another person to hurt the way I was hurt. That is why I try to be kind. That is why I try to do the right thing. Because nobody deserves that kind of pain.
First it is important to note that morals and law are not the same. The law does not regulate morals and morals do not inform the law. At least that is how it is supposed to be, how successful that is, is up for debate. I am not, nor have I been making a moral argument. I have, however, been making a contextual historical legal argument, based upon the history of the law in question, namely the Constitution.
It is clear from the writings of the founders, from the minutes of the record, and from the Federalist Papers, that one of the biggest issues that concerned the founders was oppression. Keep in mind they had just fought a costly war because they felt they were being oppressed, and they were concerned about it happening again. That is why the Articles of Confederation were born. They were worried that they were substituting, (to borrow from The Patriot) "One tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away".
When the Articles began to fail, the founders decided they needed the current system we have now, but they were well aware that there could be risks, and that people might not want to support such a strong Federal Government. That is why all the checks and balances were put in place. It was to ensure no one branch had sufficient power to oppress the people.
This idea continued well after the Constitution as well. It is seen again clearly with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Their purpose was to both prevent the States from oppressing the rights of the citizens, and to attempt to reenfranchise an entire class of people. Of course those Amendments had no teeth at the time and so it was difficult for any enforcement to occur, but the intent was there. It was seen again with the 19th Amendment, to prevent further oppression of a group.
There is also the 22nd Amendment, which was a response to FDR's incredibly long tenure as president, the concern was that it had become an abuse of power.
Now there is also the entire Civil Rights Movement, brought because the people felt that they were being oppressed by their governments. And perhaps more importantly the Civil Rights Act, which finally gave teeth to the Reconstruction Amendments. That really solidified a new approach, which was to find more protected rights. That eventually gave rise to the decisions like Loving (fundamental right to marriage), Griswold (fundamental right to privacy), Batson (prevent race-based juries), Miranda (required warnings to all criminal suspects), Widsor (grant same-sex couples same tax benefits) and now yesterday's decision.
The fact of the matter is, under US Law, oppression is wrong.
As to your question. Yes I do believe oppression is morally wrong, but as I said I am not making a moral argument. If you want me to, I suppose I could, but morality is too squishy.
It's kind of funny that you'd make that last remark, though, because it always feels like the opposite to me. That's probably just because I need to learn more about law though.
Anyway, I don't know if you saw (I should have placed it here, rather than in my response to hS) I rescinded my question. Your response, however, is frankly awesome. Thank you.
The law can be incredibly squishy too depending on the field.
Because... it's morally wrong to harm people, and oppression does so? Bwah?
...if a moral system does not see oppression as morally wrong, I do not see how it could be called moral.
Who says it's morally wrong to hurt people? I believe it is wrong because God says so.
Since you asked before I posted my answer to hS, I think it'll be okay to reply to this...
And it's kinda *really creepy* when someone tells me that they only find hurting people wrong because an ethereal being says so. Uh, good to know, I guess? O_o
I can't change your mind on that, and I won't try. However, I will say that the "ethereal being" isn't ethereal at all. Ethereal means "Too delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world." God is perfect, but He is anything but delicate. I will also say that, yeah, I have a conscience, and it tells me that it's wrong when people get hurt. Conscience comes from God; that's the law written on the heart.
I have already told you it is disrespectful (and kinda creepy) to evangelize at me. Do you want a detailed run-down of *my* spiritual beliefs? How about I talk about the ghost cats in my house! I could do that too! >:(
I would super love to hear that story!
I honestly apologize, I really wasn't trying to. Evangelize means to try and convert you, and I wasn't. So, um... I'm sorry.
And when someone starts talking about their God as if their interpretation of Xir is the only reasonable one and insisting on God-as-morality, I don't see what else that can be. Sorry if I'm a bit snappish, but... I can't really discuss this if you insist that there is no secular morality. :/
We all get snappish, and I haven't been at my best in the whole of this thread, so will you forgive me?
As to secular morality, it clearly exists. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do a right thing or a good thing if you're not a Christian— that would just be absurd. Honestly, I promise that I wasn't being intentionally evangelical. It came across that way, though, and you asked me to stop. I'll try to be more conscientious, but will you tell me if I'm slipping up?
It's fine, religion makes everyone touchy. ^_^
Debating in general also makes me very stressed, and when I'm stressed, I don't think about others.
That's the sort of question which really feels like you're trolling. If you are, I'd really advise you to stop. If you're not, then explaining your position rather than just throwing questions like that at people is a good idea.
In other words: are you taking the position that oppression is not morally wrong? What would lead you to say that?
hS
No, I promise you that I am not trolling. I'm genuinely curious as to what his base is, because all morality must have a base.
Oppression is wrong, and it is wrong because God said so in his Word. I am to treat others as I would like to be treated.
Again, I apologize. In hindsight, yeah, that could easily be seen as trolling, but I promise you, on pain of being banned, that I am not intending to be a troll. I'm trying to use a certain debating strategy-- go for the moral. A person's argument is only as strong as his base. I'll try to be more conscious of my own words; thank you Huinesoron.
Also, [EvilAI]UBEROverlord, I rescind my question.
But my base is on law not morality. As I say above, morality is too squishy.
...is seeing people as people, basically entitled to the same freedoms as you have unless they show they would use them to remove the agency of others.
Religion does that, in some ways. But we *do not want* you to evangelize at us. It's disrespectful in many ways. Please don't.
The basis of the Christian morality is God, the basis of the Muslim morality is Allah, or the Old Testament God.
I'm saying that whatever you believe gives people morality, the core of it is the personness of others. I'm not saying that "oh no, there is no God to give morality" but that it's always empathy, no matter what. One cannot be a moral person while denying that others are as person as you are, and that doesn't change with belief or deity.
Yeah, you're right, I didn't get it. I apologize! I see what you mean now, and, honestly, I agree. At the center of my morality is love, and that's its whole cause and end. And you worded it very well.
Many Christians don't really agree on what "God" means, and I strongly suspect the same is true of every other religion, including Islam.
The last church I attended, the priest talked often about how God was not essentially a "being," or a definable person, but a Presence in all living things, impossible to define. This lines up with several other religions' take - for example, teachers of many spiritual traditions within Native American religion (guardian spirit, medewin, etc.) will often say the same, that not only can a "God" not be defined or pinned down, but that it's sacrilegious to even try.
So to say that [the Christian] God, rather than conscience, is the basis of morality - when not everyone is a Christian, and those who are don't even agree with one another on the definition of God or conscience, is kind of a tough argument to make.
For the sake of clarity, let's define "Christian" as someone who believes that everything the Bible says is true, and doesn't gloss over anything the Bible says.
The basis of Christian morality is God's Word, the name for both Jesus and the Bible.
I didn't say that God was the basis of all moralities, just the Christian one. I can't speak for other religions, or for Christians who differ drastically from the Bible: only for myself. Which isn't to say that I'm the only one who doesn't differ from the Bible, or that I'm always 100% Biblical in everything. I just don't want to assume to speak for any and all Christians. Pff, that sounds like one of those disclaimers at the end of commercials.
For the sake of clarity, let's define "Christian" as someone who believes that everything the Bible says is true, and doesn't gloss over anything the Bible says.
1) You're leaving out the vast majority of Christians if you do that. Most Christians are not literalists. Catholics aren't, Anglicans aren't, most Methodists aren't, etc. Most Lutherans aren't, and even many Baptists.
2) Are we including Song of Solomon? The Wisdom literature? The poetry? The parts that contradict each other? The many, many Judaic laws that aren't specifically rescinded in Peter's vision of Acts but are still ignored by modern society? Because if so, I argue that you will not find a single "real" Christian alive today, or at any point in history.
3) This is just a general response. You say that we can't just say "Because hurting people is wrong" without giving a moral base, but I would say that when you say "It's wrong because [according to...] God says so," it sounds exactly the same to most of us. "Because it's wrong to hurt people," or the Granny Weatherwax morality, strikes me as a much firmer argument than "Because [according to this interpretation] God said so."
I used that definition to avoid contention, and in doing so I walked right into it.
It's rather hard to pin down how far one can get from the Bible before you aren't really a Christian anymore, just using the name. I think the bare bones of it is that you believe that God came down as man, died on the cross for our sins, and rose again three days later. That's the most important part. A lot of people might disagree on the particulars, though, so that's basically a personal opinion.
Grab a ASV, and that's what we'll use. The Judaic laws aren't essential-- Paul talks about new believers not having to be taught the old traditions. Whatever is mentioned again in the New Testament as binding is, well, binding. The parts that contradict each other can all be explained, but I really don't think we want to go through all that, because it's not central to the discussion and might take a while. And, to be totally honest, I don't think I could face absolutely every detail. A Bible scholar could, I'm sure, but I'm not one of those.
Well, I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I don't. I grew up reading the Bible, and I've always had that as a base for what I'm doing. The thought of not having a firmly defined foundation from a power greater than human feeling troubles me, and it's hard for me to imagine not being troubled by it.
That being said, the Granny Weatherwax morality seems sort of shaky to me. Is it always wrong to hurt people, no matter what, ever? What if I get caught down a dark alley with a man who, shall we say, doesn't have my best interests at heart? I'm fighting him with all I've got. And what about people with addictions? It'll hurt to get them off of those drugs, but it's necessary.
Grab a ASV, and that's what we'll use. The Judaic laws aren't essential-- Paul talks about new believers not having to be taught the old traditions.
Paul says the Judaic law isn't binding? Why are we to believe Paul, a mortal man who says himself that he doesn't speak for God, over the laws that were, according to the Bible, handed down to Moses from God directly?
Whatever is mentioned again in the New Testament as binding is, well, binding.
In which case, there are two commandments. All other law hangs on those. To love God, and to love one another.
That's it. Period. End of sentence. There may not be much for me in Christianity anymore, but if there's one thing I believe in, it's love. It's worth noting that immediately prior to that commandment is Christ asking Peter repeatedly, "Do you love me?" and telling him, when he says yes, "Feed my sheep."
There is one commandment. Love. I don't particularly care for anything anyone has to say that doesn't follow that.
because he was divinely inspired. But that is a can of worms that's caused a lot of argument, and I'd really like to leave it untouched.
Well, yeah. That's it, really; love God with everything you have, and love people because you love God. I believe the Ten Commandments are also binding, but they follow logically. Why steal from someone when you're supposed to be loving them?
First off, before anything else can be said, you need to define your terms. What exactly do you mean by "religion being connected to state"?
If what you mean is that the church should be able to set policy merely by virtue of being the church, i.e., a country run as a theocracy, then the problem is obvious: anyone not of the religion in power is in danger of persecution.
If what you mean is that policy may be influenced by the ethical and religious beliefs of the policymaker, there is generally nothing amiss with that. A lot of codified laws have parallels to, if not roots in, religious beliefs. The prototypical example: We have laws against murder, which parallel the ancient command "Thou shalt not kill."
When an American says "separation of church and state," both a conservative and a liberal will agree that the phrase covers the first definition. We do not want Congress setting up a national religion, nor do we want institutionalized persecution.
Where JulyFlame and I might disagree, however, is in the second definition: To what extent should moral, ethical, and religious considerations factor into what the positive law should be? That, of course, is a debate that any democratic society should have.
My personal worry (and that of many a religious conservative) is that a social liberal may misuse "separation of church and state" as a means to silence any opinion that may have a religious basis--a position that is clearly untenable. Though something should not be a law simply because some religious figure said "Thus saith the Lord/Allah/Buddha/whoever," that does not mean that his voice should automatically be silenced either.
On the whole, I think you and I are in accord. *shrugs* That was why I asked what July thought.
Since it will be quite long, I ask patience while I type up the reply.
okay, but I really wanted to know why July thought that. But it's fine.
Essentially, my guess is because we don't live in a theocracy - and so every person of religious minority should be guaranteed certain rights, regardless of how other religions (even majorities) feel about it. I mentioned this below, in the other thread, but it's been an ongoing debate for 300+ years. Should we allow sale and consumption of alcohol, when the majority of America were Protestants who (at that time) had a sort-of thing against drinking? Should we allow integration of transit and communities, when the majority of Americans (at that time) believed interracial marriage was a sin? Should we allow people to work on Sunday, when the majority of Americans believe it's a sin?
Every single one of these was hotly debated at the time. But not allowing people to marry in the civil courts because one's religion forbids it is a decision befitting a theocracy, not a free and secular government.
It's your prejudice to have, I guess, but don't expect everyone else not to cheer for progress.
Unless you mean that it'll encourage bad slash? ;)
Continue your work to drag the United States kicking and screaming into the present. =]
Now sort out your bloody healthcare system so it isn't predicated on letting poor people die slow and horrible deaths.
May it be that we will have something like that here - not to mention secular marriage.
Finally, they managed to agree on something. Has anyone spotted the flying pigs yet? I'm pretty sure I saw one earlier.
It was a 5-4 decision, so the Court did not fully agree. A slim majority won out, like most of the other large decisions recently. I am concerned that it was not a 6-3 decision. 5-4 makes it very easy to attack. I see no reason why it would be overturned, but it may well be very similar to Roe v. Wade, highly unlikely to be overturned, but far from immune from attack.
...but we've come so, so far. Drop the Bleepka -- this is a day to *remember.*
One big step forward for equality. I hope that other countries around the world follow suit.
It was the first news story I saw when I woke up today. I think I might have teared up a little when I read Anthony Kennedy's decision. The wording was definitely not your typical legal fare.
I'm glad to know that my future will not be unduly restricted based on my partner's gender or sexual identity. It's by no means the end of the road regarding LGBT equality, to be sure, but it's a much-needed step.
PC
Now for Australia to stop dragging our sorry butts and achieve marriage equality here.
Elcalion, wishing his country wasn't so darned backwards sometimes
*punches the air* About time!
Hopefully I'll be able to read a real article about it soon.
That said, this is fantastic news.
What scares me a little, though, is that the vote was SO CLOSE to a draw... I mean, it was 5-4. Just one vote's difference from a country which would handle LBGT rights a little, uh... okay, a LOT worse.
As it is, though, this is an amazing step forward! Great job, America! :D
I'm very happy for you people, and I hope the anti-gay marriage crowd won't get as huge/bad as it did in France. (Well, I kinda doubt it, but hey, one can hope.)
There are going to be weddings. Weddings everywhere. You won't be able to swing a cat without hitting giddy newlyweds!
Although it does not apply to me, I'm happy for you guys out there (or here, doesn't matter).
Also - SUCK IT, TEXAS! :D
I don't feel comfortable seeing one of the dumbest moments of my life here on the Board still present. Is there a way for this to disappear?
If it makes you feel better, at the rate the Board's moving, it'll be off the front page in two days or so.
hS
I guess this is where I ought to point out that in my hometown of El Paso, which is located in Texas, there were rulings on the books that were purposefully set up to allow for same sex partners (since they couldn't get married) to share their significant other's benefits if they were an employee of the city, and when they tried to remove said rulings, the explicit reasoning used wasn't to exclude said same sex partners, but there was a great deal of activism by local LGBT groups to try and prevent it from being removed?
Or that Texas in general does have a great degree of activism and proponents for LGBT rights in general, contrary to general stereotype, which is largely found in the older generations, like nearly everywhere else?
And that many of the larger cities in Texas do in fact have thriving LGBT groups and even events and areas?
And that the state in question is not in fact made up largely of hicks who are actively for the oppression and misery of others, even as a nominally 'Republican' state?
And that perhaps you need to fact check better, prior to making such roundabout derogatory insults?
I'm sorry. Honestly. To be fair, I have no idea why Texas was the first thing that popped into my mind.
I admit, it was a stereotypical and wrong way of thinking, and (as with many things in the past) I typed something, without thinking.
No need to insult a State, especially considering (regardless of your opinions on some/all of its policies) it is one of the most important States in the US. Seeing as it is the 14 Largest Economy World Wide with GDP. As of 2012 it was comparable to Spain's entire National Economy.
OTOH, I don't think economic importance is a valid reason not to insult something. I'm sure people more up on their history than I am can easily trot out a dozen examples of bodies with a huge economic impact that definitely deserve to be insulted.
Say rather that there are plenty of Texans who DO support civil rights, such as our most excellent JulyFlame, and there's no call to tar them all with one brush.
~Neshomeh
My point was that it was deserving of some degree of respect. It was also the first thing that came to mind.
So roughly half of my relatives, all of whom are celebrating the new ruling.
Made me hurt myself double with my own joke... I guess, when it comes to the Board, I need to reduce my humour borders immensly.
Anyway, let's pretend my comment never was posted. Moving on!
We're one step closer to being a civilized nation!
Rainbow wedding cake for everyone!!
Several friends who've recently gotten married in my state have been cheerfully celebrating the fact they are now legal in the rest of the country as well. I'm pretty psyched. :D
I was heartened when I heard they ruled to uphold Obamacare subsidies, and I'm pleased not to be disappointed. Yay for civil rights!
~Neshomeh
Though I'm surprised it isn't by popular vote, like how Ireland did it but I guess things work differently in America.
We don't really have nationwide referendums, only local ones, for reasons that are complicated but have a lot to do with this specific subject. It goes back to the days of Prohibition (and sabbath laws, prohibiting work on Sunday) when there was a lot of debate over whether the majority could or should decide laws that mainly impacted a minority of any size (Catholics and liquor-store owners, since the majority Protestants at that point were forbidden to drink) and those who believed the sabbath was a Saturday (Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists). Local referendums can only do so much in America - the biggest question is usually who they get elected, who then gets to decide policies (and appoint Supreme Court justices, at the presidential level).
…
/gets off historian soapbox
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ^^)
Best part of the Wiki page on the decision has to be this, from the dissent to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (to enforce the ban):
Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."
That would sound weirdly plausible were it not for, y'know, the fact that there are were multiple laws banning same-sex marriage, so clearly the result wasn't 'obvious'.
Anyway: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sexmarriageintheUnitedKingdom">ha ha, beat you to it.
hS
Anyway, now to sit back and observe the religious fanatics get all up in arms about it.
I am plenty religious, and many of us religious types are just as happy about it as the non-religious people are. Just saying. :)
Perhaps I should have added in the 'crazy' as well. Sorry if I offended you.
Provided this does not require churches to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies, which if it does then there is a real big First Amendment Issue, I think the only real opposition this is going to get is going to be from groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.
Most religious people I know are going to be fine with this ruling provided it does not force them to officiate the marriages. And even then a fair few would not really care.
I think some (perhaps many) will be against the ruling, but I don't know if anyone will actually do anything. Eventually, it's quite probable that such officiatons will be forced upon them, following in the footsteps of private businesses. In fact, some churches that host weddings have already been forced to either accommodate same-sex weddings or stop offering their building to the public. All of this, of course, is unconstitutional-- we do not have a right to goods and services.
If I were marrying another girl, I wouldn't want a homophobic pastor marrying us. It would just spoil things to force somebody to do it who didn't think our being married was legit. That would be as bad as inviting your high school bully to your graduation party and asking them to give a speech.
So... I don't think it's going to be a huge issue. There will probably be test cases and it'll be decided one way or another; but there's no reason pastors should have to officiate at a wedding if they don't want to, since people can get married by a judge and have a ceremony outside a church, or say their vows to each other, or find a church that's gay-friendly, or not have a wedding at all.
But yeah, I think that if a pastor seriously doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then there probably aren't too many gay couples who'd want that pastor at their wedding.
This is of course a very different track, but...
My mother, when my parents married, wanted a Catholic wedding, officiated by a Catholic priest, since marriage is a sacrament.
My father is a Protestant.
The priest was very much against marrying the two, because he didn't want to marry a Protestant to a Catholic- he didn't think the marriage was a proper one for that reason.
My granddad- my dad's father- was Irish Catholic.
He was not best pleased by the priest's assertion and threatened the man into marrying my parents.
In the end, my mother and father were married by said priest.
Right. I didn't think about that angle. :(
In some faiths, finding someone willing to conduct a wedding might take some looking.
Maybe the Pope will make a statement and encourage people not to exclude same-sex couples from the sacrament of marriage... is that asking too much? It would be awfully nice if he did.
With Catholicism, the sacrament of marriage is still defined as being between one man and one woman. It's very unlikely that that will change any time in the near (or not so near) future, especially since we don't yet have any women priests and even that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Really the bigger issue is going to be if the government forces Churches to preside over the weddings, then it is a severe violate of Freedom of Religion.
I do not think they will, because under Lemon v. Kurtzman in order to avoid running afoul of the Establishment Clause, there cannot be "excessive entanglements with Religion". And forcing churches to do something would be an excessive entanglement. Of course, the Establishment Clause is never used in that way, and Lemon is an Establishment Clause case...
But even so, forcing a church to to officiate same-sex marriage, does pose an even greater risk with regards to the Free Exercise Clause. Though it is tough to say what the Court would rule, its Establishment and Free Exercise Jurisprudence have been all over the place over the years.
As to no right to goods and services, your statement is over-broad. By holding the Affordable Care Act as Constitutional the Court is basically saying there is a right to the healthcare provided under it. Then there is also the Right to have an abortion (Roe v. Wade). Further Police and Fire services are also services that there is an absolute right to. Further you have the Brown v. Boar of Ed. which required total desegregation. As a result, schools, private businesses, etc. had to integrate.
Further things like Power and Water are also something people have a right to. Between the Federal Power Commission and all the State Regulatory Organizations, anyone is allowed access to the power grid, if they do not have it. Then there is also distributive power, which says that there is a right to have a private power company buy excess power that you produce.
A more correct statement would be, there is no right for Person A to get product B from supplier C, but even then there are limits to that, (see desegregation, distributive power). That also reminds me of the entire doctrine of Specific Performance which can force a seller to sell a certain object to a buyer. (Of Course it is usually only Real Estate).
It has, in fact, been the opposite. Even churches who do allow same-sex marriages have not been able to perform them in states where they are not legally recognized.
I know it has not been proposed, but I do know that that is probably going to be one of the arguments made in the coming months. So from an analytical stand point, if either a State or the Federal Government were to require that, then there would be a very large fight. Very similar to the fights that occurred during desegregation. Though the main difference between the two is which part of the First Amendment at issue.
During desegregation it was generally the right to association at issue. This would, and has been, largely be about Free Exercise and Establishment. And the Court's Jurisprudence on those topics is a complete mess, riddled with inconsistencies.
The more interesting question will not be forcing a minister from church A to preside over the ceremony, but whether the actual structure itself could be used. That will be a more interesting question. That I think under what trend the jurisprudence has developed, that it might be a case of, if you let different sex marriages in the building then you should let same-sex. But nothing is certain, because as I said, this field is a mess.
but I wouldn't say it's an impossibility. I certainly hope it won't happen, though.
On my statement, you're right, I was over-board. I think of things in strict construction, and, come to think of it, I really need to do some research on rights and how they've been expanded or limited.
I was mostly thinking of the infamous wedding cake affair-thingy-deal. Forcing a bakery to pay a fine because they won't bake a cake is, to the extent of my knowledge, unconstitutional.
Constitutional law is not always black-and-white, but you'll recall that in the 1960s, many restaurants wouldn't serve black customers. One of the protests was "sit-in"s, and, for the record "miscegenation," or "race-mixing" was cited as a religious concern for some churches who were honestly arguing that it was against Biblical standards to allow interracial marriage (or integration, period), and that therefore it was their constitutional right to refuse service to black customers. (This is called "the children of Ham" argument, if you care to research further.)
Of course, now it is illegal, regardless of one's religious belief about race mixing, to deny service to a customer based on their race. And that is not seen as unconstitutional.
at the moment, it is unconstitutional to force a bakery to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
It varies by jurisdiction, but in some States, depending on the circumstances, a Court could require it.
Take this for an example, A orders a Cake from Boudin Bakers, their designs are unique, everyone in the State of Freemont knows it. They are the greatest bakers in the state. Chef Bob has started work on A's wedding cake, and has nearly completed it, he just needs to put a few finishing touches on the cake when he realizes that this wedding cake is for the wedding of Adam and Jim. Chef Bob realizes that this is for a same-sex marriage. He is vigorously opposed to it, and he refuses to finish the cake. A brings a suit, seeking specific performance, or in other words an order from the Court requiring Chef Bob to finish the Cake.
In this situation, some States might allow A specific performance. This is not an Unconstitutional Remedy. Now the general common law would probably not allow this, but general common law highly disfavors specific performance. But some States do allow this. Also if it was Unconstitutional, then the RFRA like statutes at issue in Kentucky and Arkansas (among others) would not have been needed. It is though an unsettled area, what the effects will be is still unclear.
Yeah, I really need to hone my knowledge on this... What I should have said is, "I think that forcing someone to bake a cake should be unconstitutional." I'd attempt an argument for strict construction, but as I have (more than thoroughly) shown, government is not my forte. *sheepishly rubs neck* Thanks for setting me straight.
It's placing legal penalties on someone who agreed to provide services to the public, and who decided not to do so due to discriminatory beliefs on their part.
No one is pointing a gun at their back and saying "BAKE!" But if they discriminate, they should have a penalty for breaking the laws governing their business. It's like how health inspections don't force people to keep a clean shop... but you're not gonna pass if your store's a rat-filled mess.
A business *doesn't* have the same rights as a person. A person can, personally, tell gay people nasty things all they want as long as it doesn't cross into criminality. (Stalking, harassment, hate speech, that sort of thing.) But businesses are public entities, and they either serve the public or have legal problems to deal with.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a lawyer. Nor am I a health inspector. ;)
We have a baker. This baker worked hard and saved money for years, and built his own bakery. He's now baking his own cakes, selling them, and making a profit. Let's say our baker is a Christian, and he makes a decision not to sell wedding cakes for same-sex couples. It is nothing short of tyranny for the government to come in and tell him that because he is selling his cakes to some people, he must sell them to all.
We're suppose to have Freedom of Association, after all.
Let me point out, again, where the precedent for this comes from.
We have a baker. This baker worked hard and saved money for years, and built his own bakery. He's now baking his own cakes, selling them, and making a profit. Let's say our baker is a Christian white supremacist, and he makes a decision not to sell wedding cakes for same-sex interracial couples. It is nothing short of tyranny for the government to come in and tell him that because he is selling his cakes to some people, he must sell them to all.
Freedom of Association does not apply to for-profit businesses. No one can tell a church who they may or may not accept. No one may tell that church's fundraising non-profit bakery on the side who to bake cakes for. That church, and its hard-working bakers, can tell anyone they please to take a hike. But when they leave those doors, they are in public, secular society, and discrimination of goods and services is a much trickier thing, for reasons stated above.
that Freedom of Association doesn't apply to businesses? If I work hard, save money, and build myself a shop, why do I suddenly lose my rights?
Our hypothetical baker is perfectly free, as a personal citizen, to tell that gay, lesbian, bi, interracial, or atheist couple that he does not believe they should be allowed to get married. He is free to shout it at them from the rooftops and wear shirts that say "I believe in traditional marriage the way it was from 1850-1950 in America," and drive a car that flies banners saying as much.
But the baker's business, for-profit establishment, is not a citizen or a person and does not have rights.
To say a corporation (whether it is for-profit or not) does have rights. They are not the same as a natural person, but they do have them. One need look no further than Citizens United v. FEC. Court held that corporations have the right to engage in political speech. There was also Dartmouth College v. Woodward an 1819 case that extended the Contracts Clause to Juridical Persons (corporations). There are a host of others, though the citations escape me at the moment that extend varying levels of speech protection for a corporation. Corporations are also able to own property.
In short, corporations do have rights. They are not in the same bundle of rights that a natural person owns, but they still have rights.
Now on to the original question about Free Association, this argument has been made during desegregation. And it lost. Court specifically required private organizations and businesses to desegregate.
Of course this does not get into the issue of a Sole-Proprietorship. Under the law those do not exist independently of the owner, so there could theoretically be a better argument there, but it would still likely fail.
It's not a clear-cut and simple matter - of course, it never is. Personally, I'm hoping Citizen's United gets turned over eventually, I found that case to be horrifying for many reasons.
So - out of curiosity, are you a constitutional lawyer, or a legal historian?
If it's unconstitutional to "force" someone to bake a cake, Chef Bob, above, could also look at the design and realize the couple is:
-Catholic
-Interracial
-Muslim
-Japanese
-Chinese
-Jewish
-Irish
-etc, etc.
Aaaaand say "It is against my beliefs for these people to marry." There is a historical precedent for every single one of the above groups to be refused services. If it's unconstitutional to enforce anti-discrimination laws, as in Illinois recently, that opens the door right back up for Jim Crow laws.
I just don't have the cites off the top of my head. Because same-sex couples are considered a suspect class (i.e., meaning that they are a group whose rights have been violated in the past), there will need to be some non-discriminatory reason to prevent service. Like not wearing shoes when the entered the premises with a clearly identifiable "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" Sign.
That being said, it seems that Alleb is saying that in their opinion it should be Unconstitutional to force Chef Bob to bake that cake, then that is a bit different. And you are right, under the strict construction interpretive scheme, you are not wrong. But the Court has abandoned textualism over the years, and those arguments rarely succeed. I cannot remember a recent case were Constitutional Textualism (strict construction) actually succeeded.
But now because I'm on this topic, I'll go ahead and toss this in. Historically there have been really three main kinds of Constitutional Interpretation.
1) Textualism: Which is about strict construction, plain meaning, and the like. This is not real common now, but before the 20th Century this was in many cases the main approach.
2) Originalism: This is a dying interpretation. Basically it means you look back at the founder's intent. Justices Scalia and Thomas are best known for using this. In most cases this is usually going fail.
3) Living Constitution: This is the main one that the Court tends to use at this point. It is all about bringing the Constitution into the current age. This is by far the most commonly used scheme by the Court.
4) Federal Common Law: I am including this one, because it is occasionally used. Generally when the Court mentions Federal Common Law, it means they are about to make something up. It is not used often, but when it is, it is usually entertaining.
There might be a law in the future that would require churches to host same-sex marriages, and the argument that will be made is that it violates First Amendment Religious Protections. I think with regards to the building, it will probably be a loosing argument. The minister on the other hand will be a much more complicated issue. That will depend on which of two main tests the Court uses. If the Court applies Lemon then it probably is also a loosing argument.
If the Court instead applies a modified Reynolds (which focuses on whether belief is actually sincere or not, and if it is actually a religion) then it could go either way.
your knowledge of the government, laws, and how they work is awesome. I really need to increase my own understanding of it.
Though to be fair, I did just get two law degrees, so I should hope that I have a good understanding of the law.
As for the fine, the answer is really unsettled. It depends on how the law is actually written, it also depends on what the State Constitution says. It would really though come down to whether the law is sufficiently narrowly tailored. Without the law at issue in front of me I cannot be certain, but often times with something like this, the Supreme Court will look at it as
1) Is there a substantial government interest?
2) Does the law serve that interest?
3) Is this the least restrictive means?
Though to be fair that analysis is usually reserved for Dormant Commerce Clause issues. What I would really need to do, is look to the jurisprudence that enforced desegregation, that is where the most similarities will be.
[W]e do not have a right to goods and services.
I read that, and my knee-jerk response is "We don't? But surely we have the right to food, clothing, medical care, sitting where we like on the bus, etc., and what about 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'?" I mean, I wouldn't say everyone has the right to drive a Ferrari, but I WOULD say everyone has the right to buy one if they want to, and refusing to sell is just bad business.
But then, I agree that churches/officiants shouldn't be forced to marry anyone outside their religion, because, y'know, religious freedom. You get to practice your religion in your way, I get to practice my religion in my way, just as long as we're not infringing upon each other's other basic rights. And UU churches and ministers, at least, will happily take all the gay marriage business if y'all don't want it. {= )
Maybe [EAI]UO can tell us what the law actually says about this? I'm curious now.
~Neshomeh
But you are essentially correct. You have the ability to have those things, but the government is not required to provide it. And the general rule is that most retailers can chose to not serve certain individuals (assuming said retailer/provider is a private individual), however there are restrictions. After Brown and its progeny even private individuals are not allowed to segregate.
So using your Ferrari example a better statement would be, I have the right to own a Ferrari, provided I can afford it. I also have a right to drive it, provided I meet the requirements (driver's license, insurance, and the vehicle itself is street legal). But I do not have a default right to the Red 2011 Ferrari Enzo from Bob's Imports. Bob can choose to decline to sell to me, but as I indicated there are restrictions. This can change in certain circumstances. In my post above I mention Specific Performance.
I also realize I did not really explain it well, so here it is. If something is unique, or one party to a contract (the buyer here) has made it clear that they are only interested in that particular object (the 2011 Ferrari Enzo sold by Bob). If Bob and I agree that I will purchase that 2011 Ferrari Enzo, and if Bob does not deliver the Ferrari after I have paid the price, then that creates a right to that particular Ferrari. And I can go to a Court and in most States (not all) the Court would order Bob to sell that Ferrari.
Now taking it out of the abstract and putting it into the practical, practically you are also correct, a merchant will not refuse to sell a good if you can afford it and have tendered payment.
Now on to the other part of this, which I did not address above, but it warrants some discussion, on the practice of religion, the law is a bit more complicated. As I mention above, the Court's Jurisprudence with regard to religion is...murky at best.
A big issue involved here is from Employment Division v. Smith This was a case from 1990. Oregon had a law criminalizing the use of Peyote, two individuals were members of the Native American Religion (that's how it was identified), and as part of their practice they used Peyote for certain rituals. They were arrested and discharged from their jobs. They brought suit alleging a violation of their right to Free Exercise of Religion. The Court held here that because the law applied generally it was valid, and as such the law criminalizing Peyote use even as applied to Smith was Constitutional. This generally applicability is a key rule that we will see show up again in the coming months, and this is why individuals might still be obligated to provide certain services for same-sex marriages.
The next key development was that immediately after Smith Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It stated that among other things, interests in religious freedom were to be protected. In 1997 the Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores that the law was Unconstitutional with regards to the States. It could not force states to add more protection for religious freedom. The issue here is there have been several laws recently that are very similar to the RFRA. The one that comes to mind is Arkansas, where the law basically states that a business can choose not to sell to same-sex couple on the basis of religious belief or obligation. In other words, its is basically RFRA with a slightly different goal. The problem is the Court has already found RFRA Unconstitutional, but that was from the Federal side. As of now it is unsettled, but I am certain that these provisions will be invalided on a similar basis that segregation was disallowed.
I hope that answers your question.
No offense taken. It was really more of a pre-emptive statement; making sure to note that the allies in the religious community are, well, still allies. :)
Since I know it's going to come up over there: how overturnable is this? Presumably the Supreme Court is allowed to overrule itself (though I'd assume that won't happen until they get a change of membership), but is anyone else able to do that?
hS, legally curious (and hoping for a 'no')
I think it takes a constitutional amendment or something like that--like with civil rights, where when we declared that black people were equal with white people it overturned a bunch of court rulings.
The point is to make sure that the Supreme Court can't have the last word, to balance the power between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. They can all override each other. But it would take an override at the highest level.
There are only two ways that it could be overturned at this point. The Court could indeed overrule itself, but that is unlikely to happen, even with a change in the Court. The Court, though they often claim otherwise, still follows public opinion and the overwhelming majority of Americans support this result. And one of things that I noticed, close to about 1/2 of Conservatives also support this result. In other words, popular opinion will prevent future Courts from changing its decision.
Now without having read the decision yet, there is one other guaranteed way that it could be overturned. And it is as Calista rightly stated, a Constitutional Amendment. And they are very difficult to get passed. And an Amendment that would prevent same-sex marriage would never have the popular support to survive.
However, if the Court did not actually say that the Constitution required the recognition of the right, then Congress could legislate it, but from what I have read it was a Constitutional Decision, and the Court is the final say on the Constitution. And the only way to change that is either the Court overruling a previous decision, see Brown v. Board of Ed. (holding that Plessy v. Ferguson's Separate, But Equal Doctrine was Unconstitutional) or it would need to superseded by Constitutional Amendment, see Chisholm v. Georgia (holding States did not have Sovereign Immunity), which was immediately superseded by the 11th Amendment.
And for clarification, when it comes to Constitutional Issues, the Supreme Court actually does have the last word, see Marbury v. Madison ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Or perhaps more simply Marbury establishes Judicial Review) Which for those that do no know what Judicial Review is, it is one of the most important duties of the Supreme Court of the United States. It means that they have the right to declare a law Unconstitutional, which if that is done then the law must be stricken and is unenforceable. The only way that this can be changed is either through Amendment or a subsequent Judicial Opinion overruling the previous one. Both are very rare.
Brown was basically the exception. If any if any length of time passes it becomes very hard for the Court to overrule itself, because lower courts rely on the decisions, and especially something like this, where not only lower courts, but State Governments will have relied upon it. The reason Brown came out the way it did, was frankly, that's how the wind was blowing. And that's the same thing here. This decision will not be overruled.
So the only way for the decision to no longer stand, again assuming it is based on Constitutional Grounds (which I am certain it is, seeing as several of the laws that were invalidated were State Constitutions, generally the only way a provision in a State Constitution can be invalidated is if the Court finds a Fundamental Constitutional Right (under the Federal Constitution)), then the only way to supersede it is to pass an Amendment. But, in order to do that you need popular support and it will not exist for an Amendment that allows States to ban same-sex marriage. Though I suspect someone will probably have already introduced such an Amendment, it will never pass.
The TL;DR version: It is possible, but so unlikely that for all intents and purposes, this decision cannot be overruled.
Happy with that.
:)
