Not A Raptor wrote:2. As to the legitimacy of homosexuality-intolerant spirituality: I'm wondering why we're talking about its legitimacy in the first place. It's a given that people have a right to believe whatever they wish, and also to be snobbish/hold bigoted views about whoever they wish. What is the point of this argument? That they have a right to attempt anything in their power (within the law) to trouble homosexuals? Where are you going with this?
I'm going three places with this. One is to confirm those rights, lest they be lost. Unpopular rights need the most defense, whether it's a far-left right like viewing hard-core pornography or a far-left right like hating gays. The second place I'm going is to say that beyond simply having the right to be and act bigoted, they should have the social normalcy to do so as well, or more strictly, that they should not lose that normalcy simply because of a legal correction. When the POTUS comes out in support of gay marriage, it's more than a political stance, it's a social impetus, and while I agree with the politics, I think that the social line should be held as hard as it can. And the third place I'm going is to explain that the reason I support the intolerant Christians over the homosexuals is that that strain of Christianity has had, as I said, a more positive influence on society than has the homosexual liberation movement. Christianity entwined in law is wrong, but it was a better way of life when it was entwined in the social fabric, even if that meant keeping homosexuality down.
I don't know what we're even arguing. You seem to just be asserting a) Freedom of Speech includes allowing some to be a douche and b) People who, in argument, refer to anti-gay-marriage individuals as douches/bigots/theocrats aren't being neutral. To the first, I'm okay with disapproving of douchiness, and to the second... I'd rather be correct than neutral.
re: a) I'm ok with you being ok with that. Free speech is free speech. Regarding b), what I'm asserting is that there is no "correct" that is not "neutral" when there's an issue in contention as strongly as this is. And beyond neutrality, I'm saying that you have absolutely no empathy with the side you call douches, or you wouldn't call them that. And so I have to bring out my mirror question again: why should I empathize with gays when you don't empathize with anti-gay Christians?
Oh, and the concept of being spiritually offended by the existence of something/actions of another that don't directly involve the offended. I suppose that was in response to a comment about how the anti-crowd don't suffer from such marriages? Because here's my take on that comment: Marriage is a set of rights conferred on a pair of people by a set of institutions: the government, a religious body(optional in the US), and the community. By disallowing it, those who wished to marry within the same sex are denied the rights conferred. For the religious body and the community, this simply amounts to recognition. For the government, this includes several economic and legal benefits. Denial of the government's 'wedding gift' is a grievous disadvantage, most agree. Denial of the recognition is insulting, and encourages those who would cause trouble to do so (trouble either violent or discriminatory), and others who would not to simply look away uncaringly. Also engendering fear of such. Meanwhile, the person who hears of a union they disagree with considers it an insult. Just an insult. None of the other problems. One could conceivably envision in situation #2 that the person feels threatened... but by what? More insults? Discrimination against holding discriminatory views? If the latter, I see it as an improvement - especially if contained to "only individually or (when the discriminatory views get in the way of the job) professionally".
The disparity of effects is clear: one suffers more than the other. The reasonable solution, I think, is the choice that results in less individual suffering.
That's a utilitarian view, and not everyone is a utilitarian. I would also say that if that is your view you should carry it across the entire political spectrum and advocate the most individual freedom in all cases, which is closer to my own strain of libertarianism than to utilitarianism.
Isaac Hill wrote:
Steroid wrote:Is there nothing that homosexuals desperately want that the christian right can rightfully deny them?
If the Christian right is having trouble thinking of things to offer gays to persuade them not to get married, that is the fault of the Christian right. If the C.r. is so bothered by homosexual marriage, then they should try to convince homosexuals to freely choose not to get married, not use the force of government to take that choice away.
You seem to think that banning gay marriage and legalizing gay marriage are equivalent positions, but they're not. Only an enacted ban relieves its proponents of the burden, and denies its opponents the ability, of competing in the marketplace of ideas. If gay marriage is legalized, the Christian right can still try to talk people out of it with talk of damnation, or denial of church membership. If that doesn't work, the churches can try to innovate and make membership more appealing.
Look at it this way: fifty years ago, the church didn't have to try to make membership appealing. Gays didn't want to piss off the church, not because they were afraid of damnation or denial of membership or because if they were approved they would get privileges; they didn't want to piss off the church because church-going was normal and homosexuality was deviance. Irrespective of the legality, why should the church have lost that power and have to start making an effort to convince homosexuals of their influence? The reasons it did occur were political reasons. Legalization of homosexual sex, and then homosexual adoption, and then homosexual marriage all normalized homosexual values and de-normalized Christian ones. And that in turn is based on the idea that anyone who is socially oppressed doesn't deserve it, and that is something that sounds intuitive, but which I think is incorrect.
Do you place any limits on what can be banned? If Christians can say, "Gay marriage offends us; ban it" then why can't Coca-Cola say, "Drinking Pepsi offends us; ban it"? Or Microsoft say, "Using Linux offends us; ban it"? Bringing the force of government down on something because it offends people means the force of governemnt can be brought down on anything. What are you, some kind of Socialist?
I don't want to ban anything via government. I want everyone to ban whatever they want voluntarily.
Steroid wrote:No, they have no intention of imposing anything *that you (or they) see as having value* on others. To a religious person, the existence and prosperity of the homosexual lifestyle may impose a spiritual wrong on them. Does that warrant a legal remedy? Not at all. Does it warrant a social remedy? In my opinion it does.
I love how you went and equated "religious" with "Conservative Christian" (or possibly "Conservative Muslim" and "Conservative Jew", as well). Since last I checked, there are plenty of religions outside of those, which have plenty of adherents who describe themselves as religious.
And I love how you interpreted "may impose" as "always imposes." I can't stress this enough. I am not saying that if you are religious, then you are against homosexuality. But in that denial, I am also not agreeing that if you are against homosexuality, that you are irreligious, nonspiritual, or in any way deficient in your legitimacy as a person of faith.