Gay marriage

[Couchrocket]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

 

Ah, the petard on which we're hoist rears its head. Well done!

But fear not, the brave new world we're creating will find a way around this sort of troublesome logic so that only the "approved" outcome may result from our deliberations.

 

Scott, I simply do not believe that you do not see the same "Brave New World" working in the other direction where blatant examples of troublesome logic are conveniently overlooked. We've just seen some of the annointed champions of "Defending Marriage" themselves being divorced 3, 4, and sometimes more times, remember? So you know better than to claim the logical high ground on this issue. We are on a slope, and on this point you are absolutely correct. You are also absolutely correct to fear sliding too far. You are also obviously bright enough to realize this slope, and this fear, works both ways, not just in one direction. So we would argue the slope and it would only go in a circle.

 

Again, I would hope in a majority of examples such as St. Mary's, that common sense applies. With a name like Moshe Levy, I would not really spend too much time applying for a job at the local KKK clubhouse. Somehow I get the idea I'm not wanted there, so I'd work somewhere hopefully more welcoming or better yet, completely indifferent. Perhaps gays feel the same about setting up a career working for an organization that is openly hostile to their lifestyle.

 

Would we support St. Mary's? I would, so long as my tax dollars weren't being used to fund St. Mary's. But if St. Mary's is on the dole, then the strings attached indicate that she's bound to some extent to the law.

 

-MKL

 

MKL,

 

Your point is valid, of course, though citing the proponents' of a traditional definition of marriage failures has no traction. I think my comments about failure to live up to an ideal not devaluing the ideal itself, hold here - in fact in a way it reinforces the ideal's value as something toward which to aspire.

 

But that said, your point is valid. There is the possibility of moving in two disparate directions. If you look at the history of the United States, there is a predominant direction with occasional incremental retrenchments. Some of those good, some of those not so good. It is my opinion that circa 1970's we reached a tipping point that set the rate of acceleration in the predominant direction such that it is irreversible and the beginning of a new monolithic consensus based in a naturalistic world view. I doubt that positions' foundational adequacy to sustain individual freedom, but that's just my opinion. To those wishing to go in that direction, good news indeed. For some, thought, it has signaled the death knell for many of the values "perceived" as being quintessentially "American."

 

My brave new world analogy I believe particularly apt. Big brother may take many forms, and I'm reasonably sure one of those forms will be to look distinctly NOT like "big brother." We'll enshrine him in the name of an enlightened egalitarianism. One of the serious down sides to this is that America will lose its "tough minded-ness" and make us easy prey for less enlightened regimes with more harsh worldviews, and increasing power to coerce their propagation.

[ratfink]

 

Good segment on 60 Minutes last night. Re: Tel Aviv. Evidently Gayness is abundant and a non-issue except that it attracts many gay visitors which is good for business. Business is booming; construction, tech sector, tourism. No sign of loss in resolve or toughness in a city with numerous rockets aimed at its core.

[Couchrocket]

 

Good segment on 60 Minutes last night. Re: Tel Aviv. Evidently Gayness is abundant and a non-issue except that it attracts many gay visitors which is good for business. Business is booming; construction, tech sector, tourism. No sign of loss in resolve or toughness in a city with numerous rockets aimed at its core.

 

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

[ratfink]

 

Good segment on 60 Minutes last night. Re: Tel Aviv. Evidently Gayness is abundant and a non-issue except that it attracts many gay visitors which is good for business. Business is booming; construction, tech sector, tourism. No sign of loss in resolve or toughness in a city with numerous rockets aimed at its core.

 

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

 

Then why are you persistently posting them in a thread on "gay marriage"?

[tallman]

"Ergo, my position that "churches" should not only not be eligible for this status, but that any "church" that wishes to participate actively in the public square should voluntarily refrain from seeking / obtaining such status and pay their taxes as any organization would be subject."

 

 

Just churches?

What about tax exempt research that gets grant money and other "public doles"?

Many of them participate actively in "the public square".

How about groups like Boy/Girl Scouts?

 

Or the US military?

Certainly on the "dole", certainly in the "public square"...

[moshe_levy]

Tim, you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

Follow 501©(3) as shown here http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

 

To whit: "...In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

 

I do not recall the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or other organizations you listed actively involving themselves in political referendums as a major part of their operations. Hence, the call for the church to either "come out" and declare itself political and pay taxes, or keep its nose out of politics in exchange for being tax exempt.

 

-MKL

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Good segment on 60 Minutes last night. Re: Tel Aviv. Evidently Gayness is abundant and a non-issue except that it attracts many gay visitors which is good for business. Business is booming; construction, tech sector, tourism. No sign of loss in resolve or toughness in a city with numerous rockets aimed at its core.

 

I raised this very issue earlier in this thread as we discussed Leviticus, the main biblical justification for calling homosexuality an "abomination." We discussed:

 

1) That the word used in the Old Testament - the Jewish bible - can mean several things, not just "abomination," and further that...

 

2) The Jewish people - the authors and followers of the Old Testament - reject this definition, as proven by Israel's treatment of gays. Welcome with open arms. This is in a country run right now by a very conservative government, where the ultra-religious have substantial power in parliament. But it doesn't matter. Israel has welcomed the gay community in modern times no matter who was in charge, right, left, or middle.

 

This again brings "let's check out reality rather than debate theory" into the spotlight, for obvious reasons. Reality may seem "hollow and without merit" for some, but reasonable people can and should learn from it.

 

-MKL

[tallman]

So an apolitical church can still retain tax exemptedness?

[moshe_levy]

Re 501©(3) the IRS says...

 

"...In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

 

The gray area is "substantial part." What is substantial? One can make an excellent case - bulletproof in my opinion - that the LDS Church certainly made defeating Prop 8 a substantial part of its activities, for example.

 

To answer your question, an apolitical church complies, by definition, with 501©(3). Right now the political ones do not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the regs, and yet continue to enjoy tax-free status. Therein lies the rub.

 

-MKL

 

 

[pbharvey]

 

I raised this very issue earlier in this thread as we discussed Leviticus, the main biblical justification for calling homosexuality an "abomination." We discussed:

 

1) That the word used in the Old Testament - the Jewish bible - can mean several things, not just "abomination," and further that...

 

2) The Jewish people - the authors and followers of the Old Testament - reject this definition, as proven by Israel's treatment of gays. Welcome with open arms. This is in a country run right now by a very conservative government, where the ultra-religious have substantial power in parliament. But it doesn't matter. Israel has welcomed the gay community in modern times no matter who was in charge, right, left, or middle.

 

This again brings "let's check out reality rather than debate theory" into the spotlight, for obvious reasons. Reality may seem "hollow and without merit" for some, but reasonable people can and should learn from it.

 

-MKL

 

See Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

The Bible is quite clear on sexual perversion as well as forewarning us that religious leaders may sometimes deny the truth.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Mr. Harvey-

 

Whether the bible is clear on this issue, especially the Christian bible which I am no expert on, I will leave to biblical scholars or those with more knowledge than I have. James seems particularly well read on this issue and he can probably comment on this passage.

 

I commented specifically on Leviticus, which is THE passage used ad nauseum to label homosexuality an "abomination," and pointed out the one-two punch of reality. First, obviously, that the translation isn't necessary correct. Second, even if it is (which it's not) that the Jewish people - the authors of the Old Testament - reject that interpretation completely, as evidenced clearly by the country of Israel's treatment of its gay citizens and visitors no matter what political party is in ruling position, including very conservative. The Jewish people in this country, also, overwhelmingly support civil rights and equality under the law, and always have, I'm proud to say.

 

Secondly, Romans is not really and truly relevant to this thread, which started out as a call specifically for reasonable or factual (as opposed to purely biblical) reasons for denying gay people their civil rights. We have already established no such reason, fact, logic, or history was put forth. We are left with biblical interpretation, which is your right to believe, but I would certainly argue not your right to impose on the rest of us through the government.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

 

I raised this very issue earlier in this thread as we discussed Leviticus, the main biblical justification for calling homosexuality an "abomination." We discussed:

 

1) That the word used in the Old Testament - the Jewish bible - can mean several things, not just "abomination," and further that...

 

2) The Jewish people - the authors and followers of the Old Testament - reject this definition, as proven by Israel's treatment of gays. Welcome with open arms. This is in a country run right now by a very conservative government, where the ultra-religious have substantial power in parliament. But it doesn't matter. Israel has welcomed the gay community in modern times no matter who was in charge, right, left, or middle.

 

This again brings "let's check out reality rather than debate theory" into the spotlight, for obvious reasons. Reality may seem "hollow and without merit" for some, but reasonable people can and should learn from it.

 

-MKL

 

See Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

The Bible is quite clear on sexual perversion as well as forewarning us that religious leaders may sometimes deny the truth.

 

 

I grew up in a religious household and graduated from a religious academy. When I was in jr. high I quoted some bible to my dad. He told me there was a book out that discussed several hundred contradictions in the Bible. I got the book from the library. I studied the first dozen or so contradictions

and my mind turned to mush. I learned that people will use the Bible to confirm their preconceived notions no matter what they are.

 

There are certain trumpcard phrases I subscribe to however:

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

And others that teach us to reserve judgement and not play God

when God is fully capable of doing this job on his/her own.

[pbharvey]

...well that was predictable.

 

Moshe, I'm calling foul here. You want to leave the Bible to scholars for the parts you disagree with yet it seems like you've established yourself as an expert on areas you agree with...including speaking on behalf of all of Israel. I don't care if we leave the Bible in or out of the conversation, but lets be consistent.

 

 

 

[Couchrocket]

 

Good segment on 60 Minutes last night. Re: Tel Aviv. Evidently Gayness is abundant and a non-issue except that it attracts many gay visitors which is good for business. Business is booming; construction, tech sector, tourism. No sign of loss in resolve or toughness in a city with numerous rockets aimed at its core.

 

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

 

Then why are you persistently posting them in a thread on "gay marriage"?

 

If you had read my posts carefully (and I might suspect without assuming my position is anti-gay) you'd see that my discussion has centered upon the issue of definitions and their importance to society, and how I think that is the "main issue" in the marriage debate as it pertains to any broadening of the traditional definition. My comments are intended to focus the discussion on the underlying issue that is too easily discarded in a frenzy of zeal for individual rights. And that, simply, is why my posts appear in this thread.

[Dave McReynolds]

So an apolitical church can still retain tax exemptedness?

 

It would be difficult to remove the tax exempt status of apolitical churches, as Moshe pointed out earlier, without some serious changes to the US constitution, which are not likely to happen.

 

One of the things we have to face in life is the almost constant testing of boundaries by almost everyone and every organization we encounter, whether it's the Morman Church testing the boundaries of "substantial," gays testing the boundaries of "marriage," children testing the boundaries of "no," banks testing the boundaries of "prudent," politicians testing the boundaries of proper uses of their campaign funds, motorcyclists testing the boundaries of speed limits, a neighbor playing music too loudly, etc. etc. Our challenge is responding appropriately to these tests. If we get tired of it and say, "I give up; just do whatever it is that you want to do," then we have chaos. If we're totally inflexible, then we have stagnation, resentment, and stifle creativity and growth. I think that setting our own boundaries and responding to others' tests of boundaries appropriately is one of the more significant tasks we have in this life.

 

The answer to the question at hand is that the appropriate boundary has already been set; we just need the energy to respond wisely when it is tested.

[Couchrocket]

"Ergo, my position that "churches" should not only not be eligible for this status, but that any "church" that wishes to participate actively in the public square should voluntarily refrain from seeking / obtaining such status and pay their taxes as any organization would be subject."

 

 

Just churches?

What about tax exempt research that gets grant money and other "public doles"?

Many of them participate actively in "the public square".

How about groups like Boy/Girl Scouts?

 

Or the US military?

Certainly on the "dole", certainly in the "public square"...

 

Yes, you may correctly extend my comment to any 501,c,3 vis MKL's exposition of the legal prohibitions concomitant with that status. We may either change the laws regarding such tax exempt entities and their ability to "influence" or we may abide by the law, but we cannot have it both ways. There is a cost associated independence, one of them is not having the government giving assistance in the name of "all of the people." I'll grant that the "system" is serverly broken, loopholes abound, etc., but that does not justify bending the rules to suit any given organization.

[Couchrocket]

 

I raised this very issue earlier in this thread as we discussed Leviticus, the main biblical justification for calling homosexuality an "abomination." We discussed:

 

1) That the word used in the Old Testament - the Jewish bible - can mean several things, not just "abomination," and further that...

 

2) The Jewish people - the authors and followers of the Old Testament - reject this definition, as proven by Israel's treatment of gays. Welcome with open arms. This is in a country run right now by a very conservative government, where the ultra-religious have substantial power in parliament. But it doesn't matter. Israel has welcomed the gay community in modern times no matter who was in charge, right, left, or middle.

 

This again brings "let's check out reality rather than debate theory" into the spotlight, for obvious reasons. Reality may seem "hollow and without merit" for some, but reasonable people can and should learn from it.

 

-MKL

 

See Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

The Bible is quite clear on sexual perversion as well as forewarning us that religious leaders may sometimes deny the truth.

 

 

I grew up in a religious household and graduated from a religious academy. When I was in jr. high I quoted some bible to my dad. He told me there was a book out that discussed several hundred contradictions in the Bible. I got the book from the library. I studied the first dozen or so contradictions

and my mind turned to mush. I learned that people will use the Bible to confirm their preconceived notions no matter what they are.

 

There are certain trumpcard phrases I subscribe to however:

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

And others that teach us to reserve judgement and not play God

when God is fully capable of doing this job on his/her own.

 

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

[beemerman2k]

Great question, Scott. This is the storm I see coming on the horizon.

[moshe_levy]

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

 

Inasmuch as we have already aggaravated the mods already with anything person, I believe we should not comment on Mr. Harvery per se. Let us instead comment on one who holds beliefs in accordance with his or her interpretation of the bible instead. And this runs afoul of this thread also, which specifically asked for reasonable, logical, factual, or historical reasons, of which so far none has been offered. So we are now on a tangent. But a worthy one.

 

So what shall we do about people's various beliefs? Well, I should say let's look at history as a guide, and use the state as the mechanism with which we are concerned. I would say, every individual is entitled to his opinions, surely. And his church, also, so long as it does not violate the law, is also entitled to its beliefs. Westboro baptist is a church too. So is the priest who marries gay couples. And everyone in between. All will argue amongst themselves as to who is interpreting the bible correctly, and it's just alot of noise since no objective standard exists with which to measure "rightness." So we all go and join - or don't - where we feel we belong.

 

Where we draw the line is at the public domain of the state. The law. As Dr. King put it, "It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless." Nobody has ever said it better.

 

The state must treat all law abiding, tax paying citizens equally if the law is to be respected by thinking people and mean anything to anyone. It must live up to its intention and its spirit as written and as interpreted. The onus is on the state, if it seeks to curtail the rights of citizens as outlined in the law, to explain why in factual, rational, logical, legal, or historical ways. It cannot however do so in response to certain citizens' interpretation of the bible. This is not a theocracy, yet. Thank God, pun intended.

 

So when I go for a job interview, my prospective employer may think Jews are "Christ-killers," and may not hire me. But he cannot NOT hire me based on this belief, and this belief alone, or he runs counter to the law if it can be proven that he discriminated. When James goes to a restaurant, the waitress may think of him as a subhuman animal, but she cannot refuse to serve him, or she runs counter to the law. And so on. Beliefs are one thing. Action is another. Action counter to the law is yet another, and that is where the line is drawn. And these safegaurds are in place precisely as Ayn Rand said, and as Dr. King also said above, to restrain the heartless. They were not regulations enacted from nowhere, but in response to what the heartless did with the state's power when they were unrestrained.

 

Over time, we have slowly evolved to see that historically, when one group oppresses another based on myth, superstition, and other such factors, it is always seen as wrong later on in context. Same here.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

 

Inasmuch as we have already aggaravated the mods already with anything person, I believe we should not comment on Mr. Harvery per se.

-MKL

 

Mr. Harvey doesn't mind, as a matter of fact he thinks Scott made a very important point. Mr. Harvey very much despises the idea his beliefs are anywhere near those of The Westboro Baptist "church" and that any reasonable person would make the subtlest of implications in that regard.

[moshe_levy]

Mr. Harvey, I did not at all mean to imply that. I merely meant that "church" means many different things to many different people, from Westboro to the Rainbow Church and everything in between. About the only thing they have in common is, they all believe THEY'RE right about the bible!

 

I was not aiming any comments at you personally.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

[quote=Couchrocket

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

 

 

Then why are you persistently posting them in a thread on "gay marriage"?

 

If you had read my posts carefully (and I might suspect without assuming my position is anti-gay) you'd see that my discussion has centered upon the issue of definitions and their importance to society, and how I think that is the "main issue" in the marriage debate as it pertains to any broadening of the traditional definition. My comments are intended to focus the discussion on the underlying issue that is too easily discarded in a frenzy of zeal for individual rights. And that, simply, is why my posts appear in this thread.

 

I have been reading your posts carefully and I would encourage you to come out of the definition closet and cite something new or at least germaine or pertinent to the discussion.

[ratfink]

 

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

 

I would say that if he is going point his fingers at people as perverts when prevailing science indicates otherwise that he might expect some labeling in return. If he supports amendment 1 he is bringing the law into it himself. In NC he could legally marry his female first cousin now just not a male one.

[moshe_levy]

[quote=Couchrocket

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

 

 

Then why are you persistently posting them in a thread on "gay marriage"?

 

If you had read my posts carefully (and I might suspect without assuming my position is anti-gay) you'd see that my discussion has centered upon the issue of definitions and their importance to society, and how I think that is the "main issue" in the marriage debate as it pertains to any broadening of the traditional definition. My comments are intended to focus the discussion on the underlying issue that is too easily discarded in a frenzy of zeal for individual rights. And that, simply, is why my posts appear in this thread.

 

I have been reading your posts carefully and I would encourage you to come out of the definition closet and cite something new or at least germaine or pertinent to the discussion.

 

I dunno. I think what Scott said was very relevant, and universal in the sense that it applies to all such slippery slope definition arguments, not just marriage equality as we have been discussing here. One would be wise to pay heed to this caution, but also pay heed to the fact that it's a two way street.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

 

Certainly anyone or any group of people in the US has the right to believe anything they want. It is only when they act on that belief (and communication can be a form of acting, such as advocating the violent overthrow of the US government) that they may have a problem with the law. People have always had to live with this dichotomy in the US.

 

I'm sure there are still many people alive today who believe in racial segregation. Most of them are probably too old to apply for a job as a schoolteacher, but they should know that if they were a schoolteacher, it would be illegal to express those beliefs in a classroom. I'm sure there are many other reasons that some people who might be doing a perfectly fine job teaching in classrooms today might have to restrain themselves from expressing illegal thoughts, such as lusting after the girl sitting in the front row, etc.

 

This just adds another one to the list.

[Couchrocket]

[quote=Couchrocket

Interesting. But my comments have nothing to do with gay or straight.

 

 

Then why are you persistently posting them in a thread on "gay marriage"?

 

If you had read my posts carefully (and I might suspect without assuming my position is anti-gay) you'd see that my discussion has centered upon the issue of definitions and their importance to society, and how I think that is the "main issue" in the marriage debate as it pertains to any broadening of the traditional definition. My comments are intended to focus the discussion on the underlying issue that is too easily discarded in a frenzy of zeal for individual rights. And that, simply, is why my posts appear in this thread.

 

I have been reading your posts carefully and I would encourage you to come out of the definition closet and cite something new or at least germaine or pertinent to the discussion.

 

If you find my posts irrelevant, that's fine. Why not just say that at the outset? I ask what I feel are relevant questions that hopefully put a larger context on the issues at hand. Apparently they do not serve that purpose for you, and I accept that.

[Couchrocket]

 

But, there is a good question here. Does a person like Mr. Harvey retain his right to believe that homosexuality is a perversion? Or, is he now a "hater" and "bigot" for having and believing a plain understanding of the passage he cites from the book of Romans in he Scriptures? Has his belief now reached the level of running afoul of the law? I'd be interested in the various perspectives on this issue as it does touch upon law vis hate speech, etc.

 

I would say that if he is going point his fingers at people as perverts when prevailing science indicates otherwise that he might expect some labeling in return. If he supports amendment 1 he is bringing the law into it himself. In NC he could legally marry his female first cousin now just not a male one.

 

I have an honest question for you. Do you think my post posing the question of legality of held scriptural beliefs is, in fact, tantamount to my "pointing the finger at people as perverts"? I'd really like to know.

 

In addition to which, I did not state my own position on such verses, merely asked the question based on Mr. Harvey's recitation of them. Whatever position I might hold is irrelevant to the question posed. I believe it important to our society to address this question given the direction we're moving, as it has a potential serious impact on tens of millions of citizens.

 

I need to correct myself. I misread your original post. Strikethrough indicates retraction due to my error. Rest of the question still relevant, IMO. Sorry for my sloppy reading. Too many pots on the stove today.

[moshe_levy]

I have an honest question for you. Do you think my post posing the question of legality of held scriptural beliefs is, in fact, tantamount to my "pointing the finger at people as perverts"? I'd really like to know.

 

Scott, this is an excellent question. From past posts you likely know how I feel about it, but I am going to steer clear of the personal side of how you or Harvey or anyone else feels. I can only say this: If you buy into that interpretation of the bible, then you must believe indeed that homosexuality IS a perversion, defined as basically "behavior that deviates from what is considered to be normal." Note that perversion is certainly a kinder, gentler word than the biblical literalist (incorrectly) calling it an "abomination," defined by Wiki as "anything provoking a feeling of extreme disgust, revulsion, abhorrence, detestation and/or loathing." (

 

To be blunt about it, "them's fightin' words!" If that is the position of a person, how can there be compromise? How can one reason with the unreasonable, or factual with the mystic, or logical with the emotional? It's the lyrical equivalent of showing up on the front porch with he rope in hand. Words mean things, we said. Don't they?

 

The fallback is "we don't hate you, we hate your sin / behavior." Can you separate the two? Can you see, from your position, how arrogant these positions can seem to someone on the outside, who does not buy into the view of your (not literally your, but figuratively your) faith as was labeled before - as truth. Yours is truth meaning anything running counter to it is..... Untruth? Really?

 

In conclusion, I'd say the answer to your original question is "yes" if we are to use the definitions words have been given. Yes, I believe posing the question of legality of held scriptural beliefs is, in fact, tantamount to "pointing the finger at people as perverts." More specifically I believe basing law purely on religion, which is what this anti-gay side is arguing since it has no reason, logic, facts, or history to cite, has no place in this country.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

I have an honest question for you. Do you think my post posing the question of legality of held scriptural beliefs is, in fact, tantamount to my "pointing the finger at people as perverts"? I'd really like to know.

 

Scott, this is an excellent question. From past posts you likely know how I feel about it, but I am going to steer clear of the personal side of how you or Harvey or anyone else feels. I can only say this: If you buy into that interpretation of the bible, then you must believe indeed that homosexuality IS a perversion, defined as basically "behavior that deviates from what is considered to be normal." Note that perversion is certainly a kinder, gentler word than the biblical literalist (incorrectly) calling it an "abomination," defined by Wiki as "anything provoking a feeling of extreme disgust, revulsion, abhorrence, detestation and/or loathing." (

 

To be blunt about it, "them's fightin' words!" If that is the position of a person, how can there be compromise? How can one reason with the unreasonable, or factual with the mystic, or logical with the emotional? It's the lyrical equivalent of showing up on the front porch with he rope in hand. Words mean things, we said. Don't they?

 

The fallback is "we don't hate you, we hate your sin / behavior." Can you separate the two? Can you see, from your position, how arrogant these positions can seem to someone on the outside, who does not buy into the view of your (not literally your, but figuratively your) faith as was labeled before - as truth. Yours is truth meaning anything running counter to it is..... Untruth? Really?

 

In conclusion, I'd say the answer to your original question is "yes" if we are to use the definitions words have been given. Yes, I believe posing the question of legality of held scriptural beliefs is, in fact, tantamount to "pointing the finger at people as perverts." More specifically I believe basing law purely on religion, which is what this anti-gay side is arguing since it has no reason, logic, facts, or history to cite, has no place in this country.

 

-MKL

 

MKL,

 

Your response is very clear. At what point, then, would you suggest that Mr. Harvey be prosecuted for his beliefs?

[moshe_levy]

At no point, ever. I will not comment on Mr. Harvery personally, and he is not the issue. None of what I say below is with regards to him, at all, in any way.

 

One cannot be prosecuted for his beliefs. He should not be, because that means the state is now the "thought police." A scary thought, indeed. One can only be prosecuted for his actions. His right to swing his fist ends exactly at the top of my nose. The Neo-Nazi can believe whatever he wants. He can parade through my town and even distribute hate pamphlets to my fellow citizens. When he finally takes the next step and attacks someone - when he breaks the law - then he is subject to prosecution.

 

I take it this position is not really controversial?

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

I would like to turn this around since I answered your question re thought police and whether someone can be prosecuted for their thoughts.

 

At what point should the state stop prosecuting - or discriminating - against law abiding, tax paying citizens based on religion? Let us say that the state has laws in place which legally, cannot be defended on any logical, rational, factual, or historical basis. Let us say such laws cannot be defended on any grounds save for a specific religious belief in a specific religion, for which the state supposedly has total neutrality. This is, in fact, where we are, yes?

 

At what point then, do you say "enough?" Perhaps not so long as the status quo suits your (again, figuratively) faith. But what about others? Shall I propose, for example, laws based on my faith, even if they strip Christian citizens of their rights? No driving Saturday! How about Muslims? No pork! How about Sharia law? No? Well, WHY NOT? Their faith is valid too, and boasts quite a membership. See how that slippery slope goes both ways?

 

You know now at what point I prosecute based on belief - I ask you figuratively, at what point do you stop discriminating because of yours?

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

At no point, ever. I will not comment on Mr. Harvery personally, and he is not the issue. None of what I say below is with regards to him, at all, in any way.

 

One cannot be prosecuted for his beliefs. He should not be, because that means the state is now the "thought police." A scary thought, indeed. One can only be prosecuted for his actions. His right to swing his fist ends exactly at the top of my nose. The Neo-Nazi can believe whatever he wants. He can parade through my town and even distribute hate pamphlets to my fellow citizens. When he finally takes the next step and attacks someone - when he breaks the law - then he is subject to prosecution.

 

I take it this position is not really controversial?

 

-MKL

 

MKL,

 

Let's hope not. I'm in full agreement with your statement above, though I don't think I'm as confident that it isn't controversial, and perhaps even moving in a direction not many would like. As cliché' as it sounds, the true definition of tolerance in my view is genuinely respecting and defending the "right to have a belief" even when that belief is something I believe is flat out wrong.

 

And leaving that sit, I'd also like to comment on your use of "love the sinner, hate the sin" as being disingenuous. I don't think it is at all (though any hate-filled person may hide behind such a platitude for sure). The parents of teenagers find themselves in this position from time to time, and watching a loved one violate their principles in some serious way is another example. It is too easy to toss words about making flat statements about their value or lack thereof, but I think serious discussions such as this one deserves better thinking.

[beemerman2k]

You know now at what point I prosecute based on belief - I ask you figuratively, at what point do you stop discriminating because of yours?

 

-MKL

 

 

Great question, Moshe!

 

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

I would like to turn this around since I answered your question re thought police and whether someone can be prosecuted for their thoughts.

 

At what point should the state stop prosecuting - or discriminating - against law abiding, tax paying citizens based on religion? Let us say that the state has laws in place which legally, cannot be defended on any logical, rational, factual, or historical basis. Let us say such laws cannot be defended on any grounds save for a specific religious belief in a specific religion, for which the state supposedly has total neutrality. This is, in fact, where we are, yes?

 

At what point then, do you say "enough?" Perhaps not so long as the status quo suits your (again, figuratively) faith. But what about others? Shall I propose, for example, laws based on my faith, even if they strip Christian citizens of their rights? No driving Saturday! How about Muslims? No pork! How about Sharia law? No? Well, WHY NOT? Their faith is valid too, and boasts quite a membership. See how that slippery slope goes both ways?

 

You know now at what point I prosecute based on belief - I ask you figuratively, at what point do you stop discriminating because of yours?

 

-MKL

 

Unless you define discrimination as "holding a belief" counter to yours, the short answer is, I don't. My personal beliefs are rooted in the inherent dignity of all persons and the unalienable rights that have been endowed by a creator, among which as foremost is the right to choose (timshel). If the majority consensus has shifted, and the law no longer repsresents the new majority consensus (or since this is a republic, their representatives), it can certainly be changed. One could even argue that it should be changed. Just because the status quo may suit my position is irrelevant, in my view. The entire thrust of my argument has been in the direction of being cautious about how we define things, so that we don't end up with unintended consequences or/and meaningless concepts / institutions as we make change. This nation will go in the direction the consensus takes it, or at least that's how it should work IMO. If there are consequences to that direction (and there always are, either good or bad) that will merely be "what is" in the history of civilization. What I fear is that the emrerging new consensus is grounded in insufficient worldview(s) to preserve individual liberty.

 

[Added content]

 

I just "caught" your use of "at what point do you stop discriminating" - hummm.... as you've used the words there's a presumption that I do discriminate, I wonder what that is based upon? Be that as it may, my response stands, except to clarify that what I mean by "I don't" is that I don't discriminate (not that I "don't stop discriminating"). Hopefully obvious by the context, but too important to assume that. I won't ascribe your phrasing to the category of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" but it's dangerously close. Your careful use of language to this point, makes me think that you just weren't "as careful" in this instance.

[moshe_levy]

Scott, let me say in no way did I mean anything disrespectful or that **you** discriminate. It is in a way kind of time consuming and redundant for either of us or anyone else who is arguing respectfully here to keep repeating "it's not personal." I wish there as a way to get all that out of the way at the outset so we don't waste time. "Megadittos" if you will, but our own version here. If anyone has an idea for a word or acronym we can use to save time, that would be a great idea and would save bandwidth to boot.

 

I agree that "love the sinner / hate the sin" does have its place. Your example of teens is perfect and impossible to dispute. I was not completely dismissing the idea, just pointing out that often it is a cover for something less virtuous.... and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge again, for the record, that many of my own arguments also can be used as such cover. We are, after all, on a slope.

 

I further agree with your cautious attitude to a point (action has to take place sometime, somewhere, not just endless deliberation which is really just another means for preserving status quo). I imagine on this issue my point is much sooner up the timeline than yours, and again, not personal.

 

Ultimately we agree on more than we don't philosophically, even if we don't agree on the main subject here. We find ourselves as neighbors talking to each other with a thin fence between us. We are at arm's length and we can shake hands. We can look into each others' eyes and see no foe, and there is respect. I see how your arguments are forceful in that they are universal.

 

But that fence still stands between us. I do not think there is a way forward on this issue which does not involve fighting to either eradicate or preserve the fence. It is the elephant in the room.

 

I'm not sure how to compromise on what I see are civil rights. Can any compromise between what one sees as good and what one sees as evil not be "bad" for good? I'm not talking about the actual compromise (e.g., yes, let's partner with Stalin's Russia to beat Nazi Germany,) I'm talking about the ***standards*** one is asked to compromise in the process (e.g., to me, civil rights are absolute to every law abiding, tax paying citizen under the law - period). It's a thorny subject, but we are making progress through effort, over time.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

You don't really have to "understand" how to compromise on gay marriage. It is an idea whose time has come, and we will experience it. If the experience is good, then those who opposed it will come around. If the experience is bad, then there will be a reaction against it. You don't have to fight to either eradicate or preserve the fence. The fence will be less important tomorrow than the leftovers from tonight's dinner.

[Couchrocket]

Can any compromise between what one sees as good and what one sees as evil not be "bad" for good?

 

You have, more eloquently than I ever might, described exactly where the cultural divide is focused. This truth holds on both sides of your fence. The best we can do, is to honestly respect and believe that those on both sides of that fence are sincere and concerned for the welfare of mankind. While some are not, most are. History will be the final arbiter, but in the mean time the ability to discuss, define, bring clarity to differing positions without rancor is to be valued. And it is exceedingly rare. Thank you.

[beemerman2k]

I just "caught" your use of "at what point do you stop discriminating" - hummm.... as you've used the words there's a presumption that I do discriminate, I wonder what that is based upon? Be that as it may, my response stands, except to clarify that what I mean by "I don't" is that I don't discriminate (not that I "don't stop discriminating"). Hopefully obvious by the context, but too important to assume that. I won't ascribe your phrasing to the category of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" but it's dangerously close. Your careful use of language to this point, makes me think that you just weren't "as careful" in this instance.

 

 

For the record, Scott, I certainly did not take Moshe's comments as suggesting that YOU discriminate. That's the problem with these debates, we say "you" when we mean "the general person out there".

 

I am neck deep in family business, so I am out of this conversation and I need to catch up on all that has transpired, but that's not likely to happen until tomorrow night at the earliest.

 

Man you cats can debate! I basically show up with crayons and paper and you guys are arguing with slide shows and university level data. OK, I know when I'm over my head, so I'm going to kinda watch from over here

[Couchrocket]

For the record, Scott, I certainly did not take Moshe's comments as suggesting that YOU discriminate. That's the problem with these debates, we say "you" when we mean "the general person out there".

 

Neither did I. I was poking fun at him, while making a broader point. Sometimes my humor is so dry, it's dusty.

 

James, I wish you well as you work through this difficult time.

[tallman]

"One cannot be prosecuted for his beliefs. He should not be, because that means the state is now the "thought police." A scary thought, indeed. One can only be prosecuted for his actions."

 

There are examples throughout history where that hasn't been the case.

In the USA today one still can face prosecution for expressing certain "beliefs".

[moshe_levy]

Can you give an example, Tim?

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Can you give an example, Tim?

 

-MKL

 

Easy. Tim, I got this. Finally, a question even I can answer.

 

"If you dream of whuppin my butt, you better wake up and apologize!".

[tallman]

Can you give an example, Tim?

 

-MKL

 

Get on your cell, or send an e-mail, where you express your belief that a certain cheef xekutiv should meet an untimely demise.

Ckret Sirvus has swooped in on more than one person who has done so.

 

Or John T. Scopes.

 

 

Or go back to Salem, or any of the groups, such as Mormons, or WWII internment of Japanese-Americans (in that case the "belief" was the one of those in power)

The history of the world is replete with religious intolerance.

See, Tibet/China, for example.

Or any of the multitude of groups/sects, like the Jews, for example, or early Christians.

[moshe_levy]

Tim-

 

Your example of what would be considered to be national security related is valid, but on the fringes of limits on the 1st Amendment. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is another example. These are not "beliefs" per se - they are calls to action. Harming a person, or acting in a way that knowingly will harm others. We can argue all of this until the cows come home, but this does not speak to the idea of someone being persecuted for their beliefs as we are speaking about here.

 

The other examples you raised are in fact making my point for me - that those in power can and do enforce the religious beliefs (including so-called secular countries) in a way that is intolerant of those who do not hold those same exact beliefs. That is exactly what I would argue is happening here - the anti-gay agenda cannot be argued on facts, history, logic, or reason. It is argued purely based on religious interpretation and (this is key) with the full intention of using the state as a mechanism for enforcement of those beliefs, regardless of how they jive with our founding documents, which they obviously don't.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is another example.

 

No, it isn't. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is correct if there is a fire. It is malicious if there isn't. It is not a "belief" upon which that person would be in trouble with the law for "expressing."

 

We are not, in the strict sense talking about "freedom of speech" here, it is deeper than that, it is freedom of belief (the right to hold beliefs). Without freedom of belief, freedom of speech is pretty much meaningless.

[moshe_levy]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is another example.

 

No, it isn't. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is correct if there is a fire. It is malicious if there isn't. It is not a "belief" upon which that person would be in trouble with the law for "expressing."

 

We are not, in the strict sense talking about "freedom of speech" here, it is deeper than that, it is freedom of belief (the right to hold beliefs). Without freedom of belief, freedom of speech is pretty much meaningless.

 

Yes, fully agreed, that is what I meant. Tim's examples were not in keeping with the discussion of persecution based purely on beliefs as we have been going over.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is another example.

 

No, it isn't. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is correct if there is a fire. It is malicious if there isn't. It is not a "belief" upon which that person would be in trouble with the law for "expressing."

 

We are not, in the strict sense talking about "freedom of speech" here, it is deeper than that, it is freedom of belief (the right to hold beliefs). Without freedom of belief, freedom of speech is pretty much meaningless.

 

Yes, fully agreed, that is what I meant. Tim's examples were not in keeping with the discussion of persecution based purely on beliefs as we have been going over.

 

-MKL

 

Oops! I gotta slow down, reading! My bad. (I just turned 65 and am now a Geezer and in a protected class - so you have to cut me some slack! )

 

I believe that in our American society we're just on the cusp of entering the territory where certain beliefs will be illegal. At first only extreme fringe beliefs will be singled out, those with which the vast majority will agree are genuinely heinous. Once they are, we'll go through a period where it isn't enforced. Then after we've been sufficiently acculturated there will various forms of enforcement. Then there will be a broadening of that which is illegal, and rigorous enforcement. History is replete with such gradual repressive trends. Hitler's Germany being a recent example.

[moshe_levy]

Can you elaborate, Scott?

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I believe that in our American society we're just on the cusp of entering the territory where certain beliefs will be illegal. At first only extreme fringe beliefs will be singled out, those with which the vast majority will agree are genuinely heinous. Once they are, we'll go through a period where it isn't enforced. Then after we've been sufficiently acculturated there will various forms of enforcement. Then there will be a broadening of that which is illegal, and rigorous enforcement. History is replete with such gradual repressive trends. Hitler's Germany being a recent example.

 

My perception is just the opposite. In the 1950's, we had McCarthyism and the HUAC, censorship of just about everything from Tom Sawyer to a comparatively chaste Playboy magazine, few controls on the FBI or CIA, no Miranda warnings and generally heavy-handed local law enforcement, frequent executions, more influence of religion in govt (for example the addition of "under God" to the pledge), and a lack of laws we take for granted today that protect individual rights of movement and association. I have personal memories of school in those days when the message on so many levels was to not question authority.

 

I would say that I was far more likely to be punished for expressing an original or counter-cultural thought in the '50's, which I tested personally on many occasions, than I would be today.

 

There are certainly thoughts that you could freely express in the '50's, e.g., the negro and white races should not be integrated, homosexuality is evil, a woman's place is in the home, and the use of racial and ethnic slurs in everyday conversation, that you would be criticized for expressing today. OTOH, we speak with a certain frankness today that would be viewed as impolite back then, too. I'm not sure that I would interpret changing social mores as indicating that criticism will necessarily move to illegality, when the overall trend of society seems to be in the direction of greater freedom of expression.

[moshe_levy]

Dave, I think your post is excellent and spot-on. Even if one could argue re post-9/11 "National Security" speech or "belief" issues as Tim alluded to earlier, comparing this era to McCarthyism is a worthy example that speaks volumes. We have indeed made progress on this front. I am eager for Scott to respond to see what his thoughts are.

 

-MKL