2012 Election Season

[Tyranicus]

Religious objection is not always bigotry, you know.

Being a Christian, I cannot, on principle, support gay marriage as an institution because the Word clearly describes it as sin in both the Old and New Testaments

Why should secular law take into account what a religious text describes as a sin?

[Randomizer]

Why should secular law take into account what a religious text describes as a sin?

That's the idea for several Islamic countries' criminal code. Even some Christian countries use things that are considered sinful in the Bible.

 

It's only a few hundred years since violating the Sabbath was part of Colonial America criminal code.

[Alorael at Large]

sure i mean it worked out pretty well for jim crow

 

I was jokingly coming around to the point that Excalibur and Lilith have argued. Marriage is a religiously and culturally charged term. Its civil significance, however, is legal: marriage as contract and a bunch of default settings. Make a legal equivalent—an exact equivalent, defined as such by law—without the all the emotions. Then ditch the term marriage entirely. If all unions were civil unions it would be much easier to cut the religious angle out entirely. Marriage is a matter of faith and ceremony, but for the marriage license (or union license), you go to the courthouse.

 

Religious objection is not always bigotry, you know.

Being a Christian, I cannot, on principle, support gay marriage as an institution because the Word clearly describes it as sin in both the Old and New Testaments

 

I am aware that I am stepping into the very bad and possibly CoC-violating waters of religion, personal beliefs, and politics, but this is bigotry. Well, maybe not exactly; it's discrimination. It's an -ism, but there's no terminology equivalent of racism for sexuality.

 

 

You have the best of intentions. The Bible really is clear (although why those passages get precedent over the other abominations that get ignored in modern life baffles me); you should not tolerate homosexuality. The trouble, however, is that I do not share your views even though I share half your Bible. Discrimination can be morally justified; using religion as your ethical system, it is. But it still results in discrimination.

 

This is the same as abortion, really. No abortion, ever, because those are human lives and thou shalt not kill is an ethically consistent position. From the premises it makes perfect sense, and in fact holding those premises and allowing abortion is ethically somewhere between shaky and repugnant. But because I do not share those premises, I view that ethical system as wrong, its results as wrong, and the results as a kind of discrimination.

 

—Alorael, who sees this as the great problem of consensus lawmaking. Morals and ethics don't line up, and can be diametrically opposed. It's all very well to say that you can hold your own views and the law allows it, but when the law allows evil it is a bad law... from your perspective. From the perspective of others, changing the law to prevent what you see as evil would be forcing evil for no good. So we end up with strange compromises, strange political bedfellows, and anger.

[Balladeer]

I have voted.

 

In other news I am very disappointing at the level of name calling, from the SW leadership no less, this thread has sunk to. Bigotry is intolerance of other people's beliefs and it goes both ways. Not that the description could not be accurate for some but the hostility is unwarranted.

[Tyranicus]

I have voted.

 

In other news I am very disappointing at the level of name calling, from the SW leadership no less, this thread has sunk to. Bigotry is intolerance of other people's beliefs and it goes both ways. Not that the description could not be accurate for some but the hostility is unwarranted.

I have a great deal of respect for personal religious beliefs. However, I do not think that someone's personal religious beliefs should have any bearing on the lives of those who do not share those beliefs. I would be vehemently opposed to forcing churches to perform ceremonies to which they are ideologically opposed, but that is not what we are discussing here.

[Balladeer]

I am not discounting the discussion. I am discounting the hostility within the discussion. Bigot is a derogatory term just as idiot is. Both can be used to accurately describe someone but it is not polite. The vehemence in some of these posts is more than enough to offend those who hold the belief that the LGBT lifestyle is immoral.

[Tyranicus]

I am not discounting the discussion. I am discounting the hostility within the discussion. Bigot is a derogatory term just as idiot is. Both can be used to accurately describe someone but it is not polite. The vehemence in some of these posts is more than enough to offend those who hold the belief that the LGBT lifestyle is immoral.

Many people find being told that they and/or their friends are immoral for something they cannot change to be highly offensive as well.

[Balladeer]

I don't see anyone here telling anyone else that they are being immoral.

[keira]

In other news, I feel like

is relevant.

[Dikiyoba]

Bigot is a derogatory term

No, it is not. If your beliefs contribute to the suffering, harm, and death of a specific group of people, your beliefs are bigoted. Sorry. If you don't like people pointing out that your beliefs are bigoted, find some way to turn your beliefs into something that doesn't harm said group of people.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Balladeer]

As derogatory as idiot is what I said. But if you require proof...

 

 

Word Origin & History

bigot

 

1590s, from Fr. bigot (12c.), in O.Fr. "sanctimonious;" supposedlya derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universallyaccepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E.oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns inJoan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as lessommobiches (see also son of a *****). But the earliest Frenchuse of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently insouthern Gaul (which led to the now-doubtful, on phoneticgrounds, theory that the word comes from Visigoth). Sp. bigote"mustache" also has been proposed as a source, though thesense is not adequately explained. The earliest English sense is of"religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may have beeninfluenced by beguine. Sense extended 1680s to other thanreligious opinions.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

 

I am now also disappointed that the discussion as been reduced to personal attacks. I do not care, Diki, if you or anyone else thinks I am a bigot for my beliefs. I am just trying to state that Spiderweb Forums is not the place to call me one. I'd have nothing to say at CalRef and, indeed, would spar with you there if you wished. I just expect better here, especially considering any thread about whether LGBT is immoral or not would be soon locked.

[Student of Trinity]

While we're hastily smothering this little spark with oil, I could say that one way I am a bit bigoted as a Christian is in thinking of secularism as a particularly Christian principle. I'm not really dogmatic about this — I'll accept that there may be other religions that concede a legitimate secular sphere, and of course I acknowledge that many Christian regimes have been as enthusiastically theocratic as any. But I still sort of cherish the notion that secularism holds particularly high moral ground within Christianity, inasmuch as Jesus was never a ruler, but an executed criminal; he directly acknowledged that, insofar as he was a king, he was no king in this world; and he directed his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

 

So I consider it un-Christian to attempt to make one's own moral values be the law of the land. Something that's clearly harmful by secular standards, like murder, is another matter. But if the only thing I have to say against a practice is that it goes against the Bible, then I feel that the Bible itself directs me not to try to outlaw that practice in society at large. Argue and try to persuade, sure; but vote to forbid by law, no.

 

As it happens I don't myself see anything wrong with gay marriage at all. But even if I did consider it wrong, I would not vote to outlaw secular marriage contracts between same-sex partners. Render unto Caesar.

 

But then of course it's only self-consistent to say that I can't try to make this secularism — separation of church and state, in American terms — that I consider a Christian principle be the law of the land. I can't call it a crime to vote one's conscience. All I can do is try to argue and persuade. I've tried to do this, by explaining my own beliefs. I won't call anyone a bigot for disagreeing with them.

[keira]

I consider it un-Christian to attempt to make one's own moral values be the law of the land.

This. I'm not religiously affiliated, but I fully support the rights of those who are to practice that religion, so long as it doesn't affect the lives of those who do not. I expect this street to go both ways, that those who are religiously affiliated support the rights of those who are not.

 

The Bible only holds law over Christians, as I am not a Christian I am not subject to its word. And as this is a secular state, the Bible is not the law and I am not subject to the rules written therein.

 

That is not to say the Bible isn't a pretty chill book, there are lots of positive things in there that I think everyone can say are good (don't steal stuff, etc). However, there are things that have been tossed to the wayside (accuse your wife of not being a virgin, if you're right then she gets stoned by the village, if you're wrong you have to pay dad-in-law money and live with her) because they are outrages in modern society.

[Dikiyoba]

The Bible only holds law over Christians, as I am not a Christian I am not subject to its word. And as this is a secular state, the Bible is not the law and I am not subject to the rules written therein.

Also, Christians don't agree on what the Bible says. There are plenty of Christian people and churches who welcome LGBT people as equals based on their reading of the Bible. Any secular law based on the Bible unfairly privileges certain Christian viewpoints above other, equally valid Christian viewpoints as well as above all equally valid non-Christian viewpoints.

 

Dikiyoba.

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

It seems, in my sleepiness, I cut out a paragraph that I did not intend to:

The severity of religious principles, of course, doesn't make the debate any less significant to those who desire themselves to by publically recognized, and it is interesting to watch as lawmakers debate and politic (more politic than debate, I fear) over the future status and legal recognition of GLBT relationships:

Keep in mind that while laws shape society, society still sets the laws. Perhaps it is time for our society to change. Perhaps it is not yet ready.

I don't know. I hope, for your sake, it is.

[ Splicing in something from another cut paragraph: I cannot force my standards upon you, because the Law doesn't work like that. Forcing someone to act less like an unbeliever doesn't make them any less an unbeliever, right?]

Either way, I find myself quite glad that we will... eventually... be getting to put it to popular vote in New Jersey. In the unlikely event that it fails, such a thing can always be brought back in a few years, as society adapts. We'll get to the name change when society decides that it's ready, and in the meantime, the legal recognition is already there (and it's practical not only for gay couples, but for housemates of the same sex and other, more complicated relationships).

 

I will not deny that these principles are discriminatory, but please understand that such discrimination bears no malice. On God's principle, I cannot support homosexuality as an act, mindset or choice, but that doesn't mean that I can't step aside and let the godless world go on. It's not like forcing-feeding my views to you is going to inherently change the way you think or act.

At the same time, I ask that you bear me no malice for holding a position that merely disagrees with you.

 

@SoT: I'm more of a D option thinker, myself, with a wee bit of A thrown in. There is no way that we can get out of this downward-spiraling status quo without everyone, and I mean everyone giving up something to return to center. As I have said many times over the past few years, government intervention can be quite effective in creating growth, but no one seems to understand that both programs and regulation require money, and that the money has to come from somewhere.

I personally think that much of our more active structure, from Social Security, to Welfare, to Medicare, to the Defense Budget, to the very way that Congress earmarks funding for special use, and to a small extent, our system of taxation, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up so as to create an organic system, an efficient bureaucracy.

Of course, the very nature of such a paradox will prevent it from ever truly happening, but I desire to at least push those in control to acknowledge the flaws in the system and to take action to remedy them; not simply blame them on past leaders, nor push them off to the future.

 

Edit:

@Diki: True, on all counts.

[Student of Trinity]

If everyone pulled together, things could definitely be fixed in the USA. The country has such vast resources, human ones far more even than natural. I'm not even sure that people really disagree as much as they think they do. My impression, rather uninformed but presented for what it's worth, is that people fear what the other side might do, if it ever got the chance, more than they truly oppose what it what actually would do. Cooperating with the other guys on something reasonable gives them credit, and that credit might be the little extra help that gives them a stable majority that will finally let them implement the horrible hidden agenda that is in their hearts.

 

That's not just an American problem. I'm pretty sure it's common to all multi-party systems, that the opposition is so mindlessly obstructionist it would vote against motherhood if the government introduced it. The American aversion to tyranny just makes mindless obstructionism a bit more effective. When problems are hard, though, you need all the help you can get from your institutional structures, not outmoded systems that make coherent action even a little bit harder.

[Alorael at Large]

I will not deny that these principles are discriminatory, but please understand that such discrimination bears no malice. On God's principle, I cannot support homosexuality as an act, mindset or choice, but that doesn't mean that I can't step aside and let the godless world go on. It's not like forcing-feeding my views to you is going to inherently change the way you think or act.

This. Asking someone who believes in the form of Christianity that holds homosexuality to be a serious sin, one that cannot be forgiven until it is rejected, to tolerate homosexuality, and to support laws that in any way support homosexuality, is asking them to engage in moral doublethink. It's unfair. It's impossible. It is, at best, adulteration of ethics with the sordid world of politics.

 

At the same time, asking for that view to be respected is asking for another impossibility. I cannot simply smile and nod at a belief system that is, to my own moral framework, willing to reinforce a system that creates human suffering. I can love the sinner and hate the sin, if you will. I can like and respect people on these boards who hold views that I reject utterly just as I do with friends I know in person. But the best I can do is an agreement to not bring up the subject because we will only argue. Asking me not to push back when pushed is asking me to cave on moral beliefs and be evil just as asking you to cave is the same.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is a long-winded way to say that the subject needs to be dropped in this thread. No hearts and minds will be change, but people will get angry. Most of the time everyone here can get along despite diverse beliefs. If the beliefs can't be reconciled, everyone can be polite and drop the subject. It's in Jeff's backyard and he doesn't want ideology to drive away customers.

[Sudanna]

A lack of malice in your discrimination is one cold comfort.

[Student of Trinity]

Nothing against the last few posts (which have now moved here), but now that the election is over, it would give me a comfortable sense of closure to lock this thread and let it sink into oblivion.

 

Who feels the same? I propose moving everything from Jewels's "How about those results, eh?" on into a new thread, and locking the rest. If nobody pipes up with a protest soon, I might just do it.

[Lilith]

i don't see any particular reason to do that but whatevs

[keira]

We could just rename it to "<insert year here> Election Season" and let it grow into a gigantic monstrosity like the book thread.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Sylae
Alternatively, to fit in with the theme of politics and gigantic thread titles, "What have you been bureaucrating lately?"

[Student of Trinity]

This calls for a gigantic monstrosity of a No. Where is Dantius in our hour of need?

[Randomizer]

I saw a paid Republican campaign worker shouting, "Four more years," he was referring to how much longer his job was going to last in this recession.

[Jerakeen]

Lock it. Burned, buried, done.

[Student of Trinity]

Okay, done. Rest in peace, election thread.