If you feel I have materially misrepresented your previous statements about homosexuality, evolution, and marriage feel free to correct it beantown.
LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
Damn I wish the old board was still around, because I remember everything kicky said about you being true. I also remember Sharpy owning you.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree that there is probably no real reason why gays are supposed to be harmful to society. But I find your conception of morality a bit odd. I don't think morals are arbitrarily chosen; they are based on the social structure of the universe. We can all agree that killing is wrong, simply because other beings have as much right to live as we do. There's nothing arbitrary about it.
That's when you say, "there are only religious and moral reasons" against homosexuality, I would have to disagree and say that there are only religious ones. The supposed "moral reasons" aren't really morality at all, just dogmatic assertions with no basis in real social interaction... like the Bible's sanction of wearing polyester clothing. It's nonsense, there's no moral reason for it, other than that some old book says so (one would think we'd have gotten past the "because I said so" argument for morals... how old are we all, six?). Arbitrary moral rules are not morality at all, because moral rules always require reasons.
But I think you probably know all that already, One Brow, and were probably just speaking a bit too quickly. Pardon me if I seem presumptuous.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
My view is all about embracing that we are different, and we as a society should not try to force everybody to view people "the same". You cannot compare heterosexual relations and homosexual relations as being the same. Like the saying goes " You can't compare apples to oranges"
We are all different and that's what makes the world and our country great. Our country has specific laws and ways that govern our differences. From our religions, our race's, and our genders. African American and Indians have different backgrounds and therefore there are governmental rights to each of these people. My wife who is part Indian has different governmental rights and benefits that differ from other citizens, like me.
- the basic scientific fact of the relations are merely the backbone of my view. Biologically homosexual and heterosexual relations are complete opposite. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A BAD THING!
-Just like men are different from women. So are heterosexual and homosexuals.
-Homosexual and heterosexual relations have different dynamics and issues within themselves that are unique only to those type of relationships.
-Heterosexuals can create life and usually build families through generations. They pass on genetics and heredity and need to be held responsible and have rights protecting them because of that power. Their relations are the fundamental purpose for our species continuing on and evolving. They deal with different factors from birth control, working family woman, and basically all the dynamics of a man and woman relationship.
-Homosexual relations do not have procreating powers. (not a bad thing). They need rights and protections that focus on the dynamics of same gender relations. The dynamics of gay adoptions, and how two men or woman can have both full rights to those children. The dynamics of a man and man relationship are far different from a man and woman.
-when it comes to divorce there needs to be laws that protect each person. With heterosexual marriages usually the woman gets custody of the children. But what about in a two man homosexual relationship? There needs to be specific laws and rights that help guide these decisions. The dynamics of the relationships cannot be forced into the same laws. It makes no sense.
-This is why I believe homosexual relations need there separate form of union. I think even gay men and lesbian women need separate laws for each of their relations. Because those relationships are still very different and have different dynamics. The name is not whats important but whats important is that all the same rights are offered to all relationships...insurance, children rights..etc...etc..etc.
-the same goes for Polygamous people. If its becomes legal they would need their own separate form of union that would support the dynamics of those relationships.
So again, everyone gets on me for my biological talk. But I am just saying it proves that these relationships are not the same and should be treated for their own unique issues that arise in these relationships. So lets embrace our differences and not try and create a county where everyone needs to be viewed the same. There is nothing wrong with viewing and loving our differences.
I'm just waking up, so I'm not going to address everything you've written, but... You do understand that there actually are NOT laws that define the nature of our relationships. Women do not get custody of children based on some law that they get custody, it is based on the interests of the children and it just so happens that in the majority of cases the court decides they are better with their mother.
What would the law regarding heterosexual relationships be compared to the law pertaining to homosexual relationships? You're saying we need different laws for each, yet as far as I know there are currently no laws describing what roles each partner plays within a relationship.
Reading your post before my first cup of coffee made my head literally hurt.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Its not about laws defining the roles of a relationship. Its laws to help protect rights of each individual in the relationship, and homosexual relations and heterosexual relations each have different unique dynamics that need protecting.
So beantown, would you be for calling homosexual relationships "marriage" if the adoption and divorce codes were modified to accomodate whatever it is you want?
Last edited:
I guess I'm slow, I can't really think of special rights that people need protected within a relationship based on their sexual orientation. I'm also not aware that men have special rights protected vs women in a heterosexual relationship. Can you provide a few specifics?
Arbitrary:
1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/arbitrary
We choose the basis for our morals based upon our individual judgements and preferences, and those choices are not formed by necessity, reason, nor principle (I did not mean by chance by impulse, nor by whim, so Ican see where you might find that confusing). The basis is what we draw upon to reason and what we use to create principles, but neither is available to form that basis. The nature of reasoning is that you have to start with some arbitrarily chosen set of propositons you accept as being true, sans formal proof. For example, "other beings have as much right to live as we do" is an arbitrary standard. You can try to justify by picking other standards that can derive it, but then those other standards must be "picked" arbitrarily, and are usually chosen to derive precisely the results you wish to see.
What does form the basis? In my case: empathy, herd instinct, compassion. All of that feeds into what I think the role of a person and a society should be.
I am unaware of the Bible prohibiting artifical cloth? Are you referring to the ban on mixed cloths, so no cotton/wool blends?
The basic moral principles we use to decide that homosexual marriage is a legitimate social institution (which may be different) are not better developed, more philosophical, more logical, or less arbitrary than the position based on natural law that many religous people use to say such marriages should not be legalized. Sure, not every Christian can actually quote and defend their positon in natural law, just as not every atheist can reach back to the basic principles of libertarianism, social justice, or whatever else they may be using. However, the intellectual leaders of these movements most certainly can do so.
Not at all. Anyone who spends time discussing atheism online has to face, at one time or another, people asking what stops atheists frombehaving anti-socially. We are constantly expected to show we have a solid moral foundation in these discussion, and there is little incentive to point out that the foundation is really built on the accumlation of individual preferences within a society. But, that is how I see it.
No, wrong, incorrect, untrue.
Because neither *can*.
I am just getting the chance to re-visit this thread, so this will be a little off the current direction of the thread, but oh well.
The numbers I quoted were what was posted before. Besides, the OP is taking jabs at the Mormon Church contributions, not the Members of the Church.
Also, the other driving forces have not met any criticism from Katie. It's clear what her agenda is.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
How about reviewing some of the facts re: Prop 8.
1. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively.
So despite all those "illegal, undisclosed" contributions by the big, bad L.D.S. church, the opponents of the measure had $3.4M MORE to spend on their campaign. Should some blame be placed on their marketing companies for coming up with a less convincing campaign?
2. Final tally was 7.0M votes for and 6.4M votes against. Correct me if you find better data, but when I googled "LDS population by state," the report I was able to pull estimated the number of Mormons in CA at 756K. That was 2006 data, so let's be generous and add what, 50K. Or even 100K. Doesn't matter much.
Assume ALL LDS members in CA voted and ALL LDS members voted FOR Prop 8 (which we know was not the case...there were some high-profile LDS people who spoke out AGAINST Prop 8). So, at BEST, Mormons could have only accounted for 11% of pro-votes.
3. Hmmm, so where did the remaining 6.2M votes come from? Read the post-vote analyses. The wave of voters responsible for sweeping Obama into office was largely the same demographic voting FOR Prop. 8. Exit polls (both from pro- and anti- Prop 8 pollsters) found that between 59% and 70% of blacks and hispanics voted for Prop 8. So blame the Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. as well as the Mormons. Blame the "machismo" of the Latino culture and whatever the corresponding term is in black-America.
In the words of Gavin Newsom (which, IMO was the most effective ad FOR Prop 8)..."whether you like it or not," Prop 8 was passed by a majority of CA voters. And 90% of those voters were NOT Mormon.
I'm sure a ballot initiative will put this issue up for vote in another 3 years. Gay marriage supporters were divided but ultimately decided to wait for the next presidential election (since off-years tend to attract the older, more conservative voters).
Maybe what Obama needs to do to show support for gay marriage is STOP the influx of illegal aliens coming across the border. Oh, excuse me, I believe the politically correct term nowadays is "undocumented citizen." Grant all those illegals/undocumented immigrants amnesty and citizenship and you're going to doom a GAY marriage proposal in the next election. What an ironic dilemma.
Oh, and if you're considering moving to CA. I recommend you don't. This state is in full economic melt-down. The education and health care systems are beyond repair (thanks to all the illegal, non-paying freeloaders) and the state budget cannot handle the pension obligations granted under Gray Davis. One analyst said that under the assumptions put in place 10 years ago, the DOW would need to be at 25,000 right now to keep us even. Every year taxes and fees have to be raised just to tread water.
Maybe the best plan IS to open up the borders. Then give the state back to Mexico.
1. The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million and $43.3 million, respectively.
So despite all those "illegal, undisclosed" contributions by the big, bad L.D.S. church, the opponents of the measure had $3.4M MORE to spend on their campaign. Should some blame be placed on their marketing companies for coming up with a less convincing campaign?
2. Final tally was 7.0M votes for and 6.4M votes against. Correct me if you find better data, but when I googled "LDS population by state," the report I was able to pull estimated the number of Mormons in CA at 756K. That was 2006 data, so let's be generous and add what, 50K. Or even 100K. Doesn't matter much.
Assume ALL LDS members in CA voted and ALL LDS members voted FOR Prop 8 (which we know was not the case...there were some high-profile LDS people who spoke out AGAINST Prop 8). So, at BEST, Mormons could have only accounted for 11% of pro-votes.
3. Hmmm, so where did the remaining 6.2M votes come from? Read the post-vote analyses. The wave of voters responsible for sweeping Obama into office was largely the same demographic voting FOR Prop. 8. Exit polls (both from pro- and anti- Prop 8 pollsters) found that between 59% and 70% of blacks and hispanics voted for Prop 8. So blame the Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. as well as the Mormons. Blame the "machismo" of the Latino culture and whatever the corresponding term is in black-America.
In the words of Gavin Newsom (which, IMO was the most effective ad FOR Prop 8)..."whether you like it or not," Prop 8 was passed by a majority of CA voters. And 90% of those voters were NOT Mormon.
I'm sure a ballot initiative will put this issue up for vote in another 3 years. Gay marriage supporters were divided but ultimately decided to wait for the next presidential election (since off-years tend to attract the older, more conservative voters).
Maybe what Obama needs to do to show support for gay marriage is STOP the influx of illegal aliens coming across the border. Oh, excuse me, I believe the politically correct term nowadays is "undocumented citizen." Grant all those illegals/undocumented immigrants amnesty and citizenship and you're going to doom a GAY marriage proposal in the next election. What an ironic dilemma.
Oh, and if you're considering moving to CA. I recommend you don't. This state is in full economic melt-down. The education and health care systems are beyond repair (thanks to all the illegal, non-paying freeloaders) and the state budget cannot handle the pension obligations granted under Gray Davis. One analyst said that under the assumptions put in place 10 years ago, the DOW would need to be at 25,000 right now to keep us even. Every year taxes and fees have to be raised just to tread water.
Maybe the best plan IS to open up the borders. Then give the state back to Mexico.
Last edited:
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Ah, well I see where you're coming from. You're a Samuel Beckett kind of guy?
But I have to disagree. There are certain truths about life that we can deny in our speech but never in practice.
For instance, we must all believe, necessarily, that our lives are meaningful. If we didn't believe this, then there could be no motivation for performing any one action over another. It's all well and good to have a spoken belief of nihilism, but the fact is that any such claim is inherently self-contradictory. A nihilist is more and more a hypocrite with every breath he takes. Without some goal, some meaning, even if it simply be to stay alive and see what happens next, we could not actually function. As far as meaning itself is concerned, the content is somewhat vague and arbitrary, but the bare fact of believing in *some* meaning is a necessity. I find Tillich's conception of "Ultimate Concern" here very helpful. Schubert Ogden also wrote a classic essay that centers around this sort of concern called The Reality of God.
And perhaps I too was a little too hasty and imprecise in giving as an example "other beings have as much right to live as we do" as a morality. I belief that this principle can be logically and ethically deduced a priori, but the way it's phrased it's in a more conclusionary form, I skipped some steps. The most basic statement is more accurately the golden rule as it relates to murder/killing. It is simply a fact of social existence that prohibitions against murder are in everyone's self-interest, because *you* don't want to die. No coincidence that it's pretty much always Rule #1 in any code of morals. Now, you can certainly go on claiming that it's still an arbitrary rule, but if that's arbitrary, then I'm not quite sure what isn't, except for pure mathematics.
Suffice it to say that other rules begin to follow from the necessity of meaning and the prohibition of killing which are logical and necessary by the very nature of social systems... but I won't argue the point any further here. I understand where you're coming from, but I suppose we may have to amiably disagree on this point.
Yeah, I was more referring to just the mixed cloths, with is pretty much everything these days.
And I'm really not talking about gay marriage per se. As I've argued, I really don't think marriage is what this whole thing is about, it's basic acceptance of homosexual relationships. And my position is that homosexual relationships - forgetting for the moment all the political minutiae of "marriage," which really just confuse the issue - are not harmful to anyone, and are quite clearly beneficial to many... most notably the couple, but also those around them. I suppose you can continue to say that I'm "reach(ing) back to the basic principles of libertarianism [and] social justice," but I again take it as an incontrovertible fact that a relationship which produces no harm, but only good, can never be an immoral one, and can thus on no reasonable basis be disallowed. Once again, if someone can provide me some reason that homosexuals being together is harmful to anyone, I'm all ears. I've never heard one that makes the least bit of sense.
I should perhaps note that I'm not actually an atheist. I was about 8 years ago, but no longer. Admittedly, I often find more common ground with atheists than I do with theists - and, not incidentally, there is probably no other poster that I respect on this board more than you, One Brow, and I think we agree on more than this discussion might suggest. Your arguments are always very rational and carefully considered, and I tend to agree with about 95% of what you say, and 100% of where you're coming from, so to speak.
The fact is that agnosticism is still the most rational position, since believing in the nonexistence of God has as little rational and empirical basis as the belief that there is a God (the trouble, of course, is what you actually mean by "God"). But I believe that morality and meaning must ultimately be based in God... after all the study and thought I've put into it, it makes more sense to me. I retain an undeniable rationalistic emphasis, which is why I've found myself so drawn to the writings of Charles Hartshorne. The God painted by most Christians always seemed unbelievable to me, but Hartshorne, incredibly, was able to paint a picture of God that made sense. Read The Divine Relativity (link) and you'll see what I mean... it's pretty much the most classic statement of Process theism.
Anyway, that was pretty much one gigantic tangent, but I think we're both interested in precision in our positions. I always enjoy discussions of this kind.
Last edited:
Beantown
Well-Known Member
No thats not what I said, read my post again.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Because my wife is part Indian and the treatment of her tribe she gets many governmental benefits. We get tribal money and can use specific governmental housing loans as well as educational assistance programs not otherwise offered to others.
Exactly. So your issue isn't that homosexuals need different legal protections than heterosexuals, it's that you don't want them to have the same nominal status.
If everything you wrote in your earlier post was true then changes in the divorce and adoption codes would be sufficient to address your concerns.
What you want is a justification for disparate treatment.
not necessarily true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Mexico
also, contrary to the laws in the United States, a same-sex marriage that is legally performed in one jurisdiction must be recongnized as a legal union in all jurisdictions
LINK
G-O-A-T
Member
The only African Americans who get different government rights than regular Americans are the one who are AFRICAN. This is because they either belong to a different government than AMERICANS or they belong to a separate government in addition to the US. And before you spew out the words affirmative action, realize that the limited additional government rights authorized to black US citizens are designed to put them on an equal status as whitey. (without those protections they may never attain equality)
Indians get more government benefits than regular US citizens because Indians have tribal citizenship IN ADDITION to US citizenship. (Tribes have their own sovereign governments separate from the US) You see, they receive benefits from 2 governments, not just one... Being that you are married to an Indian, I would hope you already knew this.
Once again, your wife gets special government benefits because she is part of a DIFFERENT government (the Indian tribe), not because the US decided that they would randomly start handing out benefits to people of color.
Thus, your analogy comparing homosexuals to dual citizens/non-US citizens is ridiculous... well, unless your point was that they should not be treated like US citizens... which is sort of what your posts seem to imply.