So...

[Chaerophon]

Sorry, but this one sentence shows that you have understood absolutely nothing about "Christianity". Some Christian individuals or Christian communities might teach such nonsense, but it really is BS.
A statement like "you go to hell if you do not lead a virtuous life" contradicts the very core teachings of Christianity. One of the core teachings of Christianity is that reconciliation with God cannot be achieved by virtue/religious actions/whatever. It is granted by God undeservedly.

I think one can even say that "codification of behaviours" often is sinful. Jesus definately teached quite the opposite of "codified behaviour".

I fully realize that Christianity is not based, at least in outward principle, on "penalty", first and foremost. However, if a non-Christian looks at the teachings and principles of Christ and Socrates and is unwilling to concede, as many are not, that there exists much in the way of real 'difference' in the principles of their teachings, then the fundamental difference that one finds between the two is that only in accepting Christ is one assured of the afterlife. While it may have nothing to do with much of the teachings of the modern church, and even with the teachings of Christ, himself, it was most certainly a BIG part of early Catholic doctrine, and a 'fear factor' that has converted MANY, if not the majority (at least from a historical perspective), of men and women.

Socrates said that in order to live the best life on earth, one's reason, if properly cultivated, will lead one to virtue. Christ said that we are all inherently sinful, and that, rather than reason, it is faith and love that will lead us to, not only better lives on earth, but an afterlife, as well. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it can quite easily be observed that his doctrine requires less work, less inquiry into its realization and involves more payoff. However, if Socrates is right, and the realization of virtue requires little else than the use of reason, then what does the Christian addition of heaven and hell add to the equation but further incentive to pursue the virtuous life to those who are otherwise not equipped with sufficient reason to realize that the virtuous life is the life best lived?

[kandrathe]

What do you think of It Takes a Village by Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Her book comes close to defining my thoughts, but some day I want to write my own book called "It Takes a Tribe". My point being that in many ways we only wear the veneer of civilization (village). Consider all the things that do not happen to correct children because we are a village, and not a tribe. We dare not tread anywhere near correcting anothers child, lest we incur the wrath of the parent. If most of us were to explore our histories we would find that in the not so distant past our social structures were vastly different than the "villages" we live in today. I want my neighbors to correct my sons behavior on the spot, and hold them accountable as I would or at least call me so that I can. If my son builds a tree house and puts up a sign that is offensive to the nieghborhood girls, I want the neighborhood to get together and resolve it peacefully as adults. That is not what I have now, I have a village. I aim to change that when my sons get old enough to play outside by themselves. I will go around my neighborhood with my sons to introduce them and speak to each of my neighbors about my sons, and the behaviors I expect them to display in public. Of course, I also don't view the solution to our child rearing troubles as the investment in vast federal programs to take care of them for us either.

[kandrathe]

{Snicker} "Waiter, I've changed my mind... I will have the rump roast."

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Father Paul: "Will you attend services in the House of God?"

Me: "Nope"

Father Paul: "Will you raise your children to love and serve God?"

Me: "Yup"

Father Paul: "Will you have your children raised and confirmed as Catholics, and worship in the House of God?"

Me: "Yup"

Father Paul gives his interviewee a piercing stare that lasts about 30 seconds, then says the interview is concluded

I was in and out in 20 minutes. I walked around the yard of the Church waiting for my wife to come out of her own interview; she took an hour and 45 minutes. Seems she had to deal with some concerned issues from the Father. ;)

But then again, my wife believed it was sinful and immoral to patently lie to a priest of God. I wasn't encumbered by such thoughts at the time, and it was getting close to lunch anyway.

Anyway! Completely correct, Pete... I'm supposed to raise my children into the Catholic faith; better get on that, I suppose. Oh wait, it's almost lunch time again...

*tips helm*

[--Pete]

Hi,

BTW, glad to see your hand is better. :)

First, a brief reply to your (brief :) ) on topic statement:

I am going to be a grammarian here, and ask the whatever the outcome, don't call it "Marriage," because it isn't

I've addressed that already. To recapitulate: if the government is going to use "marriage" and "spouse" in their legislation to define rights and privileges, then they have become legal terms. Bone demonstrates quite clearly that this is the case. The choices are then to either accept the new de facto definition of "marriage" (and "spouse") or to redraft *all* laws in terms of "unions" and "partners". While I would prefer the second, I expect that it will never happen. Failing that, all I can say is language evolves, deal with it. The time to rant is not now, that a group is asking that "marriage" laws be applied uniformly to all, but back when the term "marriage" was used to imply the only possible civil union. Basically, back when yet another religious concept was codified into law.

But, let us put aside the election year induced tempest in a teapot and consider the more important underlying issue: :)

In theory, the government in a republican or democratic society expresses the will of the people, and if the people have a semi-cohesive set of common cultural assumptions, it is more likely to do so than if they do not. Our government is built on that theory as an underlying assumption.

There are so many built in assumptions, so many fallacies, and so many half truths and untruths in that statement that I am almost at a loss to find a place to start. Perhaps we should examine some terms first.

Democracy has been called "the ultimate tyranny". In many ways that is true. A true democracy with no rule but majority rule is indeed "the tyranny of the mob". Unlike a government where an individual wields total power, there is no hope of replacing the leader through death, through revolution, through any means. Unpopular opinions become illegal actions. In a complete democracy, there is little room for any but the sheep. While there never has been a complete democracy, that of some of the city states of ancient Greece comes closest, with Athens probably leading the way. And even in that state, one could be executed for being unpopular -- just ask Socrates.

A republic is somewhat better. The decisions are made not by the people but by the representatives the people have chosen. Since people typically will choose leaders that they perceive as being better than the norm, those leaders *might* be more likely to be concerned for the good of all the people rather than just the majority. But, again, a lot is left to the chance of getting good leaders. All too often, rather than "good" we get "charismatic". And "charismatic evil" is just as likely as "charismatic good" (I hesitate to name names since at least one brainless fart will answer this post with "You said '****'. You lose.")

As the founding fathers of the USA learned, one way to avoid those pitfalls is to establish the government on a constitution. In many ways, the concept of a constitution and what it says is more important than that of democracy per se. While the parts of the constitution that define the structure of the government is important, more important than that are the limitations on what government can do. In many constitutions (both of the states in the USA and of other countries) the limitations of the government, the rights of the individuals, is contained in a bill of rights. In the case of the US Constitution, it required a separate Bill of Rights.

So, the underlying assumption in the formation of our government, I would claim, is not that we have the right to vote (that right was rather limited under the original Constitution, being only for the House of Representatives (the *lower* house)). The underlying, important assumption is that the we have the freedom of individual choice in matters that do not impinge on the security of the nation. Unfortunately, the founding fathers considered the right not to be forced to shelter soldiers in our homes (except to in times of war) worthy of specific mention (while religion, assembly, the press, speech, and petition are all crammed into one Amendment, indeed, in one sentence) more important than the right to freedom for anyone other than white Anglo-Saxon non-Catholic (except in Maryland) christian land owning heterosexual males. Anything else was either directly discriminated against or ignored as being too insignificant (e.g, women) to mention.

The greatness of our nation is not based on having the most powerful army, not on using the largest percentage of the resources, not in having the richest "poor" in the world. The greatness of our nation is based on the ability we have shown over the generation to extend the freedoms to those who were overlooked or intentionally denied by the founding fathers. The ability to go beyond their limitations, their biases and prejudices so fundamental that they didn't even recognize them. The ability to find a place of legal equality (and, sometimes even actual equality) for many. Hopefully, eventually for all. And each time someone said, "I'm human, too" there were those who replied "Not in my eyes". Fortunately, those with the greater vision prevailed till now.

And that takes us full circle back on topic.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The Socratian approach as you describe it breaks on an assupmtion. The assumption that reason will lead one to virtue is not valid universally, but holds true only to those who seek via reason the answers to their problems. Those who do not put forth the effort to learn or use reason are automatically cut out. That detracts, does it not, from the ability to advance virtue on a macro scale?

Reasoning can, when approached from certain min-max outcomes based models, result in actions and decisions that stamp on your fellow citizens. That strikes me as non virtuous. I suggest the decisions based on layoffs rather than recapitalization in any number of factory towns would pass Socratian muster as being well reasoned decisions which trample the human element. Sacrifice is somehow ignored, sacrifice on the part of shareholders for short term with a long term payoff, yet giving and sacrifice are powerful forces for creating virtue.

The love and sacrifice model, which Socrates would probably find as virtuous attributes, the Christian selflessness model, is a model for exercising personal power that applies from most wretched to most exalted.

Heaven and Hell are irrelevant to this conversation.

I'll suggest a way to view that polarity: (Suggested to me by a devout Cumberland Presbyterian)
"Heaven is being "with God" and Hell is "being not with God." They are spiritual loci, not physical loci.

The central message of the teachings of Jesus, at least the message that I find central, is that of selflessness, self sacrifice on behalf of your fellow man, your family, your neighbors, even your enemies, and the focus on finding the path to Salvation (which I translate as true inner peace and synonymous to "with God"). I accept that there will be Christians who would find such characterizations heretical.

When you give, you exercise positive power, regardless of the size of the gift. Giving without strings is a pure exercise in adding to the "goodness in the world" and diametrically opposed to taking, to adding to the hate and discontent in the world. Your Socrates' reliance on pure reason to find virtue falls short in the spiritual and moral realm, which is where virtue naturally resides.

Whether the path to "heaven" or "hell" is by works, by faith, or by a little of both, (or by blind luck) the process and journey undertaken is what takes you there. I'd say reason is an enabler, see the reasoning the Jesus uses in Scripture, rather than the sole mechanism for finding virtue.

[Nystul]

Having a "traditional" family does not make the family whole. Being gay does not make you a bad mother/father.

Since nobody is perfect, and there are a million other factors involved, you are right on both counts. By the same token, one specific single mother may do a better job of raising a family than one specific married couple. One orphan may grow up better than a kid in an extended family. These anecdotes are possible not because it is insignificant to have a mother and a father, but because life is too complicated to isolate that one factor.

I would suggest the reason we are seeing the "typical" family disentegrate is that the family is no longer a neccessity at all. A hundred years ago, you had a big family or you were probably dead. Children were needed to help on the farm or work for the family. That's simply no longer the case in most First World Countries. Rasising a family is no longer a need, thus, there is no set direction for the family to take.


This seems strongly misguided to me. There are few things in life as important as family.

I wonder what you think about women working while men stay home. I'd like to point out that until very recently, having a stay at home father and a working mother would have been considered a "broken home."

Since having two working parents is now the norm, having any stay-at-home parent would have to be considered a luxury in contemporary society. I think infants and very young children certainly benefit from having their mother around (and all other things being equal, I think the mother/infant relationship is inherently stronger and more important than the father), but the family and society also benefit from having that same mother's contribution at work.

"Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral."

This is your OPINION. I will defend to the death your right to believe and say this, but I will fight harder to defend that this is an OPINION, not fact.

Of course it is an opinion. I generally do not feel obligated to write "in my opinion" before every sentence that happens to be an opinion, especially when the sentence cannot possibly be misconstrued as a fact. But anyways, a great deal of law and social structure is based on opinions, with varying degrees of factual support. The ideal speed limit for a road is a compromise of safety vs. speed (amongst other things) and therefor is a problem with no right answer, but that does not prevent us from enforcing speed limits.

As a quick note: when I refered to laws, the bill of rights, etc, in the states preventing discrimination against sexual orientation, I was refering to the Supreme Court's decision that preventing gay marriages was unconstitutional. THEY were very clear concerning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.


If you wish to say that the Supreme Court has made something clear, that is very different from saying the Constitution makes it clear. The Supreme Court is capable of overturning it's own precedent without any relevant change to the Constitution (as they did in the 2003 decision you refer to), so clearly there is a higher priority to things explicity written in the Constitution than there is to things explicitly written in previous Supreme Court cases. The full scope of this ruling is certainly debatable, and the Supreme Court will surely take on cases in the coming years which will give them the opportunity to clarify it.

That's what this is really about -- who is impressing their opinions on others.

The degree to which people are entitled to liberty and freedom is based in opinion. You are using an opinion to enforce the idea that opinions shouldn't be enforced. A more libertarian viewpoint cannot automatically be accepted as a more correct one.

Tell me how two people you have never met being married takes away from your liberties. Tell me how the behaviour of two people you will never meet takes away your freedoms.

It will not affect me personally any more than prostitution, gambling, or dealing cocaine. The societal affects we have already hashed through plenty.

[whyBish]

As to everyone watching the US: what is with you people, can't you think for yourselves?  :P  I hear the Kiwis can, what about the rest of you!  (Mild sarcasm there)

I really don't want to wade into this one, other than saying that I am surprised that it is such an issue in the U.S. since it is the U.S. media that has led the world towards more gay rights.

As to us Kiwis ... our major opposition party has raised the race debate and doubled or tripled in its rating! This is afte about 8 years of the previous party being at about 45-60% rating. Seeing as this happened just as the 'racist' thread was ending, perhaps our opposition will bring up gay marriage soon ;) (P.S. it's about 20mths out from an election so the opposition mis-timed their push but they have got some much needed momentum not seen for about ten years... interesting to watch, even if I think their arguments against race based privileges are wrong :P )

[whyBish]

If marriage is going to bestow specific privileges on a citizen, then it should be redefined as a legal union between two consenting adult humans who love one another.

Yeah, but how do you test for love?

And why redefine marriage, why not do as Pete stated and disjoin the religious and legal parts of the union.

I mean, you can be married and yet not go to jail for 'cheating'...?

[Nystul]

Hi Shadow. I agree with a lot of what you have to say here. My mother did not play the stay-at-home role for long, but then I had both of my grandmothers to care for me, and my cousin, and other church families, so that I was pretty old before I had to carry a key to school. The extended family was rooted to the township for generations, and a lot of it still is. That was a far cry from tribal support, but it was (and still is, providing I don't shut it out) quite beneficial. So if you hear me talk about the importance of family in friendlier threads than this one, I probably have much more in mind than mom, dad, and 2.1 kids.

The presence of two committed, loving and respectful parents (albeit of the same sex) is preferable to not having any role model at all for how to get along with one another.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, although it causes pretty obvious problems within the context of religious upbringing. Such a couple might be more suitable for adoption than a single person. I'm not ready for the concept of family to reach this level of disintegration yet, however. I'm certainly not ready for my religion to promote this family structure as some kind of sacred ideal, and I'm not eager for the government to do so either.

Of course, since I don’t believe that homosexuals are immoral it is much easier to have that opinion.

Your phrasing here is one that I think I have specifically avoided using, and would not want to be attributed with. If committing an immoral act labels a person as immoral, then we all carry that label. There are surely homosexuals who have less issues standing between them and heaven than I do. In terms of the company I keep, this issue is just not a big deal to me. It's in the same general league as the guy who has sex with his girlfriend and decides to let the whole world know, and I don't make a point of showing my disapproval in either case.

Yet I do disapprove, and so it could becomes a big deal if someone chooses to make it one by demanding approval. Trying to have a gay marriage at my church would obviously be such a case. Unfortunately, trying to establish such a marriage at the legal level within my jurisdiction is essentially the exact same case, cloaked in the veil of secularity. So yes, the moral issue is the hangup here and the social ramification which concerns the most is the acceptance of what I consider a sin as a virtue, rather than anything broader or deeper.

[Vandiablo]

We are all traveling on this road to seek enlightenment.

Not me. I'm just on it for the chicks.

-V

.

(See? I told you he's really a dog. - - - - -Ms. V)

.
P.S. For enlightenment, I read the cosmology articles in my science mags. (My brain hurts!) The story sometimes changes but I know it's still much closer to the truth than some anthropomorphic omnipotent deciding to build a universe. . . . . hey, any of you spiral gals want to engage in 11-dimensional oscillations??

[Vandiablo]

I'm not going anywhere near this thread now. It can only end in disaster and heartache.

...and that differs from all the other threads how?

[DeeBye]

...and that differs from all the other threads how?

Good point. I'm reminded of an old post I read on this very forum (back in the N54 days).

I'd offer my opinion, but I don't see how anyone really gives a flying fart.

:)

editted to add a happy face!

[Vandiablo]

I'm certainly not ready for my religion to promote this family structure as some kind of sacred ideal,

Nobody is suggesting that it should.

....and I'm not eager for the government to do so either.

The government should NOT be promoting ANYTHING as "sacred", except for the rights of individuals.

Yet I do disapprove, and so it could becomes a big deal if someone chooses to make it one by demanding approval. Trying to have a gay marriage at my church would obviously be such a case.

but don't you see? That by making an amendment defining marriage, the federal government is now telling your church what it can or can't do. Nico's wife's church was deciding whether they would marry them even tho they were legal candidates. Each church can have its own say whose marriage they perform. If man/woman marriage is sacred to your church, have your church defend it at its altar or its member rolls, but don't waste my government's time (I pay for it) enforcing your more limited eligibility requirements.

Get the government out of the "sacred" business. Get your grubby religion off of my government. B)

-V

(Rhetorical tone is directed at religious politics in general, not at Nystul or Nystul's particular religion, whatever it is.)

[Count Duckula]

I'd offer my opinion, but I don't see how anyone really gives a flying fart.

:)

editted to add a happy face!

I care, because I'm interested. There are other threads where I'm not interested, I don't care, and I don't post.

Circular logic. A sure sign this undead fowl needs sleep.

[kandrathe]

:D Well, you can learn alot from chicks and dogs.

As for dark matter, pulsars, and quantum moments -- I read that stuff too, and it is interesting and I think some of it is science and some of it is science doing a pretty good job speculating. Whether it is science speculation, ghosts in the castle or an anthropomorphic omnipotent, I try to keep an open mind. I decided along time ago that I wasn't the type of person to yank away anyones crutches, whatever they might be. If your belief system is based on faith in science to give you your answers, that is fine by me. Or, a person might believe that there is an anthropomorphic omnipotent and that is fine as well. If you are a good citizen, obey the laws, and try to earn your own keep thats the lower bar as I see it for what the society should expect from the individual.

For me, I place some importance in that each persons life has meaning, that they get some measure of happiness from it, and they contribute to the betterment of the planet and humanity for having been here. Without a clear road map to define ones life you could accomplish that by either tending the sick and poor in Calcutta for most of your life, or by trying to exterminate the Jews depending on what gives you joy, and seems right. How does a society keep clear that idea of "goodness" that we all take for granted? The past 100 years has seen the most wholesale slaughter of human life, based on some peoples interpretations of philosophy. I'm not so sure that having a clear road map for people, such as Christianity, is such a bad thing. Yeah, there is a lot of old baggage that comes along with it which needs to be tossed out once in awhile. Galileo was right, the Earth revolves around the Sun and is not the center of the Universe.

So maybe it would be better said, "We are all traveling on this road and get enlightenment", whether we seek it or not.

[LochnarITB]

I decided along time ago that I wasn't the type of person to yank away anyones crutches, whatever they might be.

I have been following this thread. I have seen some strong opinions expressed and have been surprised by some of them. As I would not be able to express my differing opinions as eloquently as some and it seemed that the thread was approaching the status of flagellating a deceased equine, I decided to not add to the thread. Then I saw this little gem. It so succinctly describes my attitude toward acceptance of other people's beliefs and the way I wish certain people in my life would accept mine. (Maybe it is just a Minnesota Nice attitude - hey neighbor)

[Freepaperclips]

Perhaps I am missing something that I should be seeing, but here's my two cents:

The single greatest issue here is, as Occhidiangela said, one of grammar. Often marriage is refered to as a "Sacred Union," and I believe that it is and should be, in the eyes of whatever church you happen to belong to (if any), but it has also been used as a legal term for too long to back out on now.

If you (generallized, not you in particular Occhidiangela) are familliar with the marriage laws of the United States then you know that getting married by a religious institution is not the same as being married by legal standards.

If this is taken as a given, then there is very little issue. It can be both. My parents are only legally married because common law took effect. At the same time I have known too many couples married in all but name to deny them that name any longer (thirty years seems a long time to wait).

I seem to have wandered a bit there, sorry. Caffeine 3 Rogue 1.

I feel your pain. Seven shots worth of cappuccinos later <_< .


Edited for spelling.

[Vandiablo]

The single greatest issue here is, as Occhidiangela said, one of grammer.

Whaaat? Kelsey Grammer is gay???

[DeeBye]

If you (generallized, not you in particular Occhidiangela) are familliar with the marriage laws of the United States then you know that getting married by a religious institution is not the same as being married by legal standards.

That's interesting. Perhaps the two should be separated. Allowing gays to be "legally married" but not "religiously and legally married" might be a decent compromise.

Obviously, the legal distinction between the two would need to be defined. That would require someone smarter than me to work out.