Two teens shot in Texas

[technomage]

<snip>

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...71#post3427471

As I said to Jed, I did not express things as clearly as I wished to.

[Darth Executor]

Am I? We have laws in place that forbid homosexuals from partaking of the same rights as heterosexuals--they cannot marry according to their choice.

This is straight up false. They can marry. The government simply won't recognize their marriage. Having your personal relationships recognized and endorsed by the government is not a right.

We have laws in many states forbidding homosexual couples from adopting,

Incidentally, adoption is not a right either.

[technomage]

This is straight up false. They can marry. The government simply won't recognize their marriage. Having your personal relationships recognized and endorsed by the government is not a right.

You have a limited understanding of American law, Darth--quite understandable, considering you do not live in the country. Look up the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In short, yes--if the government recognizes one group, they must recognize all, unless there is a specific, narrowly tailored (and secular) reason for the government to reject a specific group.

Marriage, under secular law, is a secular status. (Church marriage is an entirely separate entity, and the government has absolutely no place dictating issues of faith to any religious congregation.) I would have absolutely no problem with any marital arrangements--polygamy, homosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage, what-have you--provided all participants were consenting adults, and any resulting children were taken care of. Either that, or if he government got out of the marriage business entirely, that's cool, too.

Incidentally, adoption is not a right either.

Same counter-argument--adoption is a privilege, and the 14th amendment specifically calls for equal protection of all American citizens under the law.

[Carrikature]

I have a son who is gay. The news-story hit home.

Oh. Yeah, I can see how that would be pretty scary. I'm so unemotional about things that I tend to dismiss events like this as statistical outliers. Then again, my daughter is only a year old, so that may change with time.

[Jedidiah]

Am I? We have laws in place that forbid homosexuals from partaking of the same rights as heterosexuals--they cannot marry according to their choice. We have laws in many states forbidding homosexual couples from adopting, despite widespread scientific support for the assertion that the children raised by such couples fare no worse than those raised by same-sex couples, and somewhat better than those raised in single-parent households (no surprise on that last).

We have laws that restrict a minority of American citizens from enjoying the rights and priviledges enjoyed by the majority. Is that not the very definition of "institutionalized discrimination"?

I sympathize with your health problems. I have known folks with fibromyalgia and I know it isn't nice. I only respond to what I read however. I won't hold it against you if you back off irrational statements like, "we all have blood on our hands."

The baloney about homosexuals not being allowed to marry as a civil right abuse is completely phoney. I am sure you have read the objections to that. Sorry I do not buy it.

More recent scientific studies with larger populations reveal that the equality of children raised by same sex couples is not true. We have had many inequalities and unfair practices in the past, but this is not one. I do not support changes in the marriage definition, but it is quite possible for same sex couples to establish legal agreements to allow them to do have what they want. But, unfortunately what they really want, on a national scale (not necessarily on an individual one), is formal normalization. So I see most of what you say as inaccurate if not outright irrational.

[technomage]

I sympathize with your health problems.

Thanks ... it's been rough.

I won't hold it against you if you back off irrational statements like, "we all have blood on our hands."

Irrational? Yeah, it was ... I've had some time to rest, and can consider things a bit more calmly now. You (and the others here) were 100% correct in snapping me back for my comments.

At the same time, there are problems in our culture--and part of the source of those problems has been the attempt to make the secular government and Christianity conform to each other. It's a mistake for both sides--the government becomes a twisted theocracy, and the Christianity that results from that unholy union is aberrant.

The baloney about homosexuals not being allowed to marry as a civil right abuse is completely phoney.

Sorry, Jed, those laws are contrary to the 14th amendment. We can discuss that later, but you're going to have to give me more than "It's baloney."

More recent scientific studies with larger populations reveal that the equality of children raised by same sex couples is not true.

Point them out.

I do not support changes in the marriage definition

Why not? The definition has been under constant change, most recently when the anti-miscegenation laws were abolished.

[Jedidiah]

At the same time, there are problems in our culture--and part of the source of those problems has been the attempt to make the secular government and Christianity conform to each other. It's a mistake for both sides--the government becomes a twisted theocracy, and the Christianity that results from that unholy union is aberrant.

I would disagree with this. There are certainly problems in our culture. The source of these problems is the turning away of the culture from Chrisian ethics.

I don't see any tendency of our Government to becoming any sort of theocracy. We have laws that are based upon Judeo-Christian ethics but that has been the case as long as there has been a government. It is perfectly legal, and even desirable for all people - even Christians - to have a right to have an input into those laws. We all want to see the laws doing the right thing. Many of us do not see government recognition of same sex marriage as one of those good things, on the contrary.

Sorry, Jed, those laws are contrary to the 14th amendment. We can discuss that later, but you're going to have to give me more than "It's baloney."

That has been widely discussed on TWeb and elsewhere. Suffice to say if failing to recognize same sex marriage is contrary to the 14th amendment I fail to see how. If it is true then failure to recognize multiple partner marriages is equally contrary. Keep in mind that we do not outlaw same sex marriages.

Point them out.

I can not access the study I am referring to itself. Requires payment. You can find multiple references to it, one is here:

http://www.aacc.net/2012/06/21/new-s...child-welfare/

Why not? The definition has been under constant change, most recently when the anti-miscegenation laws were abolished.

Why not? I see no need to do so, and reason not to, as mentioned above. Removing anti-miscegenation laws did not change what was considered marriage, it simply recognized that those laws were wrong. Marriage was the same before and after.

EDITED TO ADD: While I believe that homosexual activity is sinful, and harmful I do not believe we should have laws against such until we make equivalent laws against all sexual deviancy, such as divorce, adultery and the like. Do you see any of that on the horizon? Me neither.

[technomage]

The source of these problems is the turning away of the culture from Chrisian ethics."

Jed, don't get me wrong, but I no more trust your objectivity on that particular topic than I trust the objectivity of an atheist who wants to tear down all religion. You cannot think outside of your box--and fail to realize that your box, despite your doctrinal claims to the contrary, is not "one size fits all." I have no doubt that you sincerely believe your statement to be accurate, but your sincere belief does not prevent you from being sincerely wrong.

I don't see any tendency of our Government to becoming any sort of theocracy.

Of course you don't. When a faith-based law or social custom negatively impacts non-believers, you're blissfully ignorant of whom it hurts, because it doesn't hurt you.

How would you feel if you were the religious minority, Jed?

How would you appreciate the knock on your door from the Department of Social Services, because some well-meaning neighbor heard that you were Christian, so of course they suspected you were sexually assaulting your children "because those Christians do that sort of thing, of course." (It happened to me, as a Wiccan, in Greenville, South Carolina--and "because those Wiccans do that sort of thing, of course" is the exact phrase she used to justify her call.)

How would you feel if you got called a "faggot," were threatened with violence, and were thrown out of a store ... just because you had the temerity to walk into the store holding hands with your wife? (It happened to my son and his boyfriend in Charlotte, NC, last year.)

How would you feel if your spouse was in the hospital, and you were denied entrance, because your relationship did not suit the mainstream idea of propriety? (Happened to two friends of mine in Columbia, NC, a couple of years ago.)

THAT is the reality for people who do not conform to the mainstream, Jed. THAT is the result of one particular religious faith influencing the government--anyone who does not conform to the beliefs and behaviors of that faith is a second-class citizen.

Suffice to say if failing to recognize same sex marriage is contrary to the 14th amendment I fail to see how.

For the same reason the anti-miscegenation laws were contrary to the 14th aendment--they failed to provide equal protection under the laws.

If it is true then failure to recognize multiple partner marriages is equally contrary.

I personally have no problem with polygamy, but that's a side issue.

Keep in mind that we do not outlaw same sex marriages.

"We" who? Most of the separate states of the United States most certainly do illegalize same-sex marriages. Major portions of the Church most certainly contribute money, time, and effort to creating and maintaining those laws. Who is this "we" you are speaking of?

You're citing One study? By Regnerus? His work has been picked apart for it's shoddy incompetency! (http://news.discovery.com/human/same...dy-120612.html)

On the other hand, I have thirty years of studies that support my contention.

Jed, your mind is made up. You do not care about the facts, you only care about your own doctrine. That's your choice--and you are welcome to it. Do not expect me to respect your choice, nor to abide by it.

[joel]

There will come a day in this land where gender identification and sexual orientation will be recognized under our laws. [...] This is my dream. And I will work, and vote, to make it happen.

[...]
People died then for equal rights. People are dying now for equal rights.

Getting the government to "recognize" things and groups of people is contrary to equality before the law. Instead, for equality, we need to get the government to stop "recognizing" things. Justice is blind.

"We" who? Most of the separate states of the United States most certainly do illegalize same-sex marriages.

That's not a good way to put it. In none of the states (that I'm aware of) are we talking about a law making some act illegal. Rather, it's only a question of whether the state does or does not issue certain certificates.

[technomage]

Joel, libertarianism already stands on its head and says black is while in economic affairs. Kindly take your libertarian nonsense, fold it until it is all corners, and stuff it somewhere.

[joel]

Joel, libertarianism already stands on its head and says black is while in economic affairs. Kindly take your libertarian nonsense, fold it until it is all corners, and stuff it somewhere.

I don't know how this (regardless of its incorrectness) is a response to my post.

I only made two points, neither of which is a "libertarian" point.

1) pointing out that "recognizing" distinctions is the opposite of treating people equally.
and
2) pointing out what the law actually does

Neither depends on libertarian premises, and I don't think either can be disputed. Do you disagree?

[technomage]

Neither depends on libertarian premises, and I don't think either can be disputed. Do you disagree?

Vehemently--I customarily disagree when someone says black is white.

Getting the government out of the marriage business is almost a verbatim quote of the Libertarian Party platform. For your second point, you deliberately separate the text of the law from the publicly stated purpose (as stated by the sponsors of such bills and amendments), demonstrating either supreme dishonesty, or sufficient ignorance that I wonder that you are allowed out of doors without a keeper.

This is an official request, Joel, and I am making this request as the starter of this thread--please leave this thread.

[Jedidiah]

Jed, your mind is made up. You do not care about the facts, you only care about your own doctrine. That's your choice--and you are welcome to it. Do not expect me to respect your choice, nor to abide by it.

If you believe that there is no point in continuing. On the other hand I have to admit to holding the same sort of view toward your objectivity. You are clearly more emotionally involved than I am.

[technomage]

If you believe that there is no point in continuing. On the other hand I have to admit to holding the same sort of view toward your objectivity. You are clearly more emotionally involved than I am.

I certainly do not claim to be uninvolved or objective in this matter. Of course I am involved--this impacts my family.

[Darth Executor]

At the same time, there are problems in our culture--and part of the source of those problems has been the attempt to make the secular government and Christianity conform to each other. It's a mistake for both sides--the government becomes a twisted theocracy, and the Christianity that results from that unholy union is aberrant.

Secularism is to religious people what theocracy is to non-believers. Which one you would prefer would depend on your own inclinations but in spirit they are the same in that they impose religious (or irreligious) requirements for legislature and state action.

Sorry, Jed, those laws are contrary to the 14th amendment.

This is true. So is welfare, or disability benefits, and I know from your own admission you've received benefits for the latter. Forgive me if complaining about discrimination in the matter of special benefits simply doesn't mean anything to me anymore. It obviously doesn't to you when you happen to profit from it.