Law Of Chastity And The Slippery Slope

[wenglund]

Wade:

See additions to my comments.

I did. It didn't help. I still don't know if or what exactly you are responding to in my post or how it may address, in general terms, what I said or asked. Please clarify.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Before the court right now is a case where the religious beliefs of one group(Primarily that of the Religious Right) wants to interfere with the voting rights of certain other groups(Primarily Blacks, Hispanics, and Students).

[wenglund]

wengland:

Before the court right now is a case where the religious beliefs of one group(Primarily that of the Religious Right) wants to interfere with the voting rights of certain other groups(Primarily Blacks, Hispanics, and Students).

What case allegedly interferes with voting rights, and how does this speak to what I said?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rock_N_Roll]

None of this is easy to resolve. However there is a huge gap between the current conversations due to a foundational difference in the perspective of govt. one side believes the govt should be aggressively involved in moral considerations and the other believes the govt should circumscribe their sphere to that of rights.

I do not think that it is ever legitimate for the govt to be engaged in considerations of moral judgement ( except in those instances where a right has been violated; rights trump private morals). These rights are limited: rights to freedom from harm, rights to property being the two principle ones.

Ones private moral convictions would not allow them to steal from me or hurt me, though it would be permissible for them to do anything that does not harmfully impact another individual without consent.

This divide between these camps is interesting for te following reason: the less the govts has to do with legislating morality the better I think the world is, vs the other side who believes a lack of govt involvement on moral issues makes the world worse.

I am opposed in general to a key premise in the OP - the tolerance of gay marriage is in my book evidence of a better world, even if my personal belief is that both SSM and homosexuality are sin.

I believe religions, not govts, to be the most impt institutions in the world. Govts protect our rights, religions however protect out moral character by teaching us right from wrong.

Govts can never do this.

I will be the first to champion total freedom of religion and will be aggressively opposed to any attempt to control the moral judgements of religion by govt or enforce changes in religious belief through social force. However, I am also aggressively opposed to the govt attempting to legislate moral action.

I am constantly in awe of those who can reconcile a govt they wouldn't trust with their wallet with a govt they would trust with their conscience, moral beliefs and in their bedroom... That is not a leap of faith I can make.

Posted from my iphone ... Sorry for the typos.

I don't think I could agree with this more. Nice one Bikeemikey!

[sjdawg]

Im not going to go into tons of example. I will, however, use one example.

If these laws pass, the Adversary will use them to stir up contention and violence against the Church. It's not the first time he has used marriage laws to attack the Church. It seems quite obvious that he will gladly do so again. We will not be the only Church targetted. Though it will be especially targetted to us. (As you can see it already is. The Catholics and countless protestant/evangelical churches have likewise joined with us in our efforts to preserve the definition of marriage, but we are the one being largely targetted).

We will need greater faith and devotion to bring us through what is coming.

SSM is legal in Canada. I don't see anyone stirring up contention and violence against the LDS Church.

[Bikeemikey]

Since I have taken a vow of silence on the subject of SSM, let me address your comments generically by asking if you realize that there was and is a moral impetus behind drafting the Constitution, producing a system of laws, enforcing them, acknowledging and conferring rights, etc.? Do you realize that the notions of "do no harm" and "equal treatment" are morally based? In other words, do you realize how naive it is to assume that the Constitution and rights and laws are mutually exclusive of morality?

To see why, try explaining, in non-moral terms, why we should care about the rights of others or harming others such that we are motivated to create a binding constitution and develop a system of laws?

Also, can you show me anywhere in the Constitution and law where citizens are denied the right to vote according to the dictates of their moral conscience?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Modern democratic govt, and general political liberalism (not to be confused with the idea of being a liberal or conflated with allegiance to the Democratic party), champions a key success of modern Western govt as the limitation of govt action to a specific sub-set of the "moral continuum". That is govts are concerned with legal rights, not moral rights.

I am not claiming that there is no moral concept behind "rights" or the Constitution. What I am stating is that since the formation of modern democracy (the US constitution being a key and important part of that) the notion of legal and moral rights has been dramatically advanced and now legal rights specifically are discussed as distinct from morality in general. For some they prefer to see legal rights (rights) as a limited subset of the general moral continuum. Legal rights are the sphere of responsibility of Govt and moral rights are not. Almost all would agree that legal rights are informed at some level by an appeal to some moral principle.

What does this have to do with Religion? Religions are extremely important in western democracies as there is now a vacuum; govt used to be in charge of morality, kings created morality etc (and religions used to be in charge of kings), but now are not. In my opinion religions should stop whining to the govt, effectively asking them to do religions job for them, and realize that if they want to impact the moral decision making of people they need to do a better job teaching and presenting their message. Not replacing a poor job at proselytizing with legislative activism.

Rather than seeing the govt unwilling to legislate around moral rights as a bad thing, religions should see it as an opportunity. This is a clear statement by govt. that they will not interfere with moral rights and will yield that realm to religions (or what ever social group or individual wishes to take up the topic). Never have religions had more freedom to believe as they see fit than they do now, granted, religious believers (myself included) are forced to live in a society that does not always share, support, respect or appreciate my beliefs, but I am allowed to have them. This is a new phenomenon that is itself an out-growth of modern democratic govts decision to move out of the moral right business. The fact that we can believe what ever we want and not need the govt to take steps to enforce out beliefs in legislation is the victory and crowning achievement of constitutional govt.

When those around us violate our moral rights (for mormons that may be someone smoking in front of us, that may be someones homosexuality being flouted in front of us) we have the right and freedom to express objections that behavior. We have the right to use persuasion to change that persons actions. For some people religions are considered the ultimate authority/tool in exerting such moral persuasion.

When those around us seek to violate our rights (legal rights) - that may be assaulting us, stealing our goods, causing physical harm - we have the right to use force to deter or mitigate those actions. The govt as the ultimate holder of the right to use force engages those who act against our legal rights as criminals.

Religion may not infringe people's legal rights. (Where "legal rights" are semantically considered distinct from "moral rights").

Govt may not infringe people's moral action. (Where "moral rights" are semantically considered distinct from "legal rights").

When someone violates our moral rights we may to ask them to leave or leave ourselves... No more.

When someone violates our legal rights we have legitimate cause to use force... Hence govt is a tool of force.

When someone violates morals rights we have legitimate cause to use persuasion... Hence religion is about teaching and education.

As for the issue with voting. Of course you can vote you religious conscience. But when a voting majority exert a religious/moral conscience that violates principles of legal rights such a vote will be rendered void by the Supreme Court, their job is to protect rights (narrow morality), not morality (general morality). This will be the case with the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case before the supreme court. The danger to the fabric of constitutional democracy in the USA is if the court protects the moral rights of specific citizens of the legal rights of other citizens... the constitution will hang by a thread.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

Perhaps looking at one of the actual briefs filed with the courts will clarify the legal situation SSM is in.

75+ Prominent Republicans Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Strike Down Proposition 8

Among those signing the brief, according to organizers, are former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former U.S. Deputy Atty General Jim Comey, Mary Cheney, Senior Romney Adviser in Iowa Dave Kochel, Reps Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Richard Hanna (R-NY), and Bush National Security Advisor Steven Hadley.

Many of those who signed it have never before made public their support of marriage equality.

The brief argues that "there is no legitimate, fact-based justification for different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples," arguing that marriage equality promotes conservative values:

Amici start from the premise—recognized by this Court on at least fourteen occasions—that marriage is both a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and a venerable institution that confers countless benefits, both to those who marry and to society at large. … It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

It also argues that there is no credible social science behind the arguments pushed by Prop 8's proponents:

Deinstitutionalization. No credible evidence supports the deinstitutionalization theory. … Petitioners fail to explain how extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will dilute or undermine the benefits of that institution for opposite-sex couples … or for society at large. It will instead do the opposite. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples is a clear endorsement of the multiple benefits of marriage—stability, lifetime commitment, financial support during crisis and old age, etc.—and a reaffirmation of the social value of this institution.

Biology. There is also no biological justification for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way undermines the importance of marriage for opposite-sex couples who enter into marriage to provide a stable family structure for their children.

Child Welfare. If there were persuasive evidence that same-sex marriage was detrimental to children, amici would give that evidence great weight. But there is not. Social scientists have resoundingly rejected the claim that children fare better when raised by opposite-sex parents than they would with same-sex parents.

And although the law is consonant with firmly held beliefs, it does not sustain its Constitutionality:

Although amici firmly believe that society should proceed cautiously before adopting significant changes to beneficial institutions, we do not believe that society must remain indifferent to facts. This Court has not hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem them insufficient to survive an equal protection challenge. The bases on which the proponents of laws like Proposition 8 rely are the products of similar thinking that can no longer pass muster when the evidence as it now stands is viewed rationally, not through the lens of belief though sincerely held.

Finally, the brief encourages court to protect the fundamental right to marry by offering it to same-sex couples:

Choosing to marry is also a paradigmatic exercise of human liberty. Marriage is thus central to government’s goal of promoting the liberty of individuals and a free society. For those who choose to marry, legal recognition of that marriage serves as a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as the way in which children will be raised and in medical decisions.

Amici recognize that a signal and admirable characteristic of our judiciary is the exercise of restraint. Nonetheless, this Court’s “deference in matters of policy cannot … become abdication of matters of law.” The right to marry indisputably falls within the narrow band of specially protected liberties that this Court ensures are protected from unwarranted curtailment. Proposition 8 ran afoul of our constitutional order by submitting to popular referendum a fundamental right that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason to deny to same-sex couples. This case accordingly presents one of the rare but inescapable instances in which this Court must intervene to redress overreaching by the electorate.

[california boy]

Tell that to the owners of Elane Photography in New Mexico.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is hard to have a serious discussing about gay marriage with someone who has no idea what the Federal Laws are against businessses discriminating. If you think you should be fighting gay marriage because of the lawsuite lost by Elane Photography in New Mexico, then you are fighting the wrong battle. You should be fighting against the Federal Laws against businesses from discriminating based on personal prejudices. You know, those laws that prevent restaurants from refusing to serve blacks just because they are black Refusing to rent a room to a Jewish person simply because they are Jewish. Or refusing to photograph gay weddings because they are gay. Yeah those laws are the ones you want to see recinded not gay marriage, especially since New Mexico does not nor never has had gay marriage. The lawsuite against Elane Photography was won not because of gay marriage, but because of Federal discrimination laws. So if you want to see businesses start discriminating again, start writing your congressman to get those Federal discrimination laws repealed. Let's go back to the good old 1950's.

Edited March 9, 2013 by california boy

[go_utes01]

It is hard to have a serious discussing about gay marriage with someone who has no idea what the Federal Laws are against businessses discriminating. If you think you should be fighting gay marriage because of the lawsuite lost by Elane Photography in New Mexico, then you are fighting the wrong battle. You should be fighting against the Federal Laws against businesses from discriminating based on personal prejudices. You know, those laws that prevent restaurants from refusing to serve blacks just because they are black Refusing to rent a room to a Jewish person simply because they are Jewish. Or refusing to photograph gay weddings because they are gay. Yeah those laws are the ones you want to see recinded not gay marriage, especially since New Mexico does not nor never has had gay marriage. The lawsuite against Elane Photography was won not because of gay marriage, but because of Federal discrimination laws. So if you want to see businesses start discriminating again, start writing your congressman to get those Federal discrimination laws repealed. Let's go back to the good old 1950's.

These non-discrimination laws seem to be the very sort of legislating morality that has been decried repeatedly in this thread. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed to choose who they will provide their goods or services to? It seems to me, the marketplace should be allowed to determine if such a discriminatory business should survive; instead of a meddling moral-based government edict.

[Bikeemikey]

These non-discrimination laws seem to be the very sort of legislating morality that has been decried repeatedly in this thread. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed to choose who they will provide their goods or services to? It seems to me, the marketplace should be allowed to determine if such a discriminatory business should survive; instead of a meddling moral-based government edict.

With the exception of govt. based-funded institutions the market should be allowed to discriminate.

I disagree with California Boy. The problem in 1950 was not that there was market discrimination but that such discrimination was also present in govt process also.

That said, there does need to be some limitations or regulation on how this works... For example you don't want private hospitals sending ambulances to emergencies only to say we don't serve Hispanics.

[california boy]

These non-discrimination laws seem to be the very sort of legislating morality that has been decried repeatedly in this thread. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed to choose who they will provide their goods or services to? It seems to me, the marketplace should be allowed to determine if such a discriminatory business should survive; instead of a meddling moral-based government edict.

So you are ok with restaurants not serving blacks or a private bus company telling them they have to sit in the back of the bus, businesses not hiring Jews simply because they are Jewish, a bank not lending money for a house simply because a person is Arab, or women not being allowed to work in an office except secretarial positions? Well then if you are comfortable with that direction, then you should be going after the Federal Discrimination laws. Good luck.

[Bikeemikey]

So you are ok with restaurants not serving blacks or a private bus company telling them they have to sit in the back of the bus, businesses not hiring Jews simply because they are Jewish, a bank not lending money for a house simply because a person is Arab, or women not being allowed to work in an office except secretarial positions? Well then if you are comfortable with that direction, then you should be going after the Federal Discrimination laws. Good luck.

I'm not happy with it, but I also think it might be better than govt mandating policies for private business.

*** FYI this thread is now totally derailed... My apologies.

Might be time for some of us to take this tangent to a thread of its own, assuming we can cloak it in some non-political disguise***

Edited March 9, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not happy with it, but I also think it might be better than govt mandating policies for private business.

*** FYI this thread is now totally derailed... My apologies.

Might be time for some of us to take this tangent to a thread of its own, assuming we can cloak it in some non-political disguise***

That didn't work out so well particularly in the South.

But derails are sooo much fun.

Discrimination is a moral issue, but it certainly has political overtones.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, I would say we should run off to the wilderness again but the world is running out of them.

Is it time to colonize Mars?

[Duncan]

Is it time to colonize Mars?

someone beat you to it, you've been to Edmonton

[Bikeemikey]

Is it time to colonize Mars?

Past time... trying to convince my wife to sign up with me for the test flight there and back... darn kids are holding us back.

[thesometimesaint]

Is it time to colonize Mars?

Still a few more problems to solve before we can do that.

One is the problem of extended time in space flight has a negative effect on muscle strength including the heart.

Two is the problem of long exposure to radiation while in flight.

Three lack of protective magnetic field around Mars.

Four no water we'd have to carry a lot of water.

Five is that in all likelihood it will be a one way trip for whomever is sent.

Not insurmountable problems, but we have no solutions for them right now.

[Tacenda]

Still a few more problems to solve before we can do that.

One is the problem of extended time in space flight has a negative effect on muscle strength including the heart.

Two is the problem of long exposure to radiation while in flight.

Three lack of protective magnetic field around Mars.

Four no water we'd have to carry a lot of water.

Five is that in all likelihood it will be a one way trip for whomever is sent.

Not insurmountable problems, but we have no solutions for them right now.

When are we ever going to find that planet that has people who look like ourselves walking around?

[Stargazer]

I support the right to equal treatment underlaw and therefore SSM. I also believe in my right as a religious individual to freely believe and express my perspective about the morality of homosexuality and its weaknesses.

I do not have the right to request my private moral beliefs be enforced on the general public via legislation.

The constitution is about rights, not morality. It is a product of modern political liberalism.

Do no harm and get out of other peoples way... And make sure everyone does this equally.

The equal rights thing is crap, as you've expressed it here. They keep trying to bend this into pretzel shapes, when it still remains the fact that a gay man has the same right to marry as a straight man. Both have the right to marry the woman of their choice, given the consent of the woman in question. I am fed up with this notion that somehow or other it means we have to support a man "marrying" a man. That isn't any "equal" right. It's apples and pears. There is no equivalence of a man/woman marriage to a man/man "marriage". They are not the same.

But regardless of the irrationality of it, they're still going to make it the "way things are" and we will have to accept it or the consequences of not accepting it.

[cinepro]

These non-discrimination laws seem to be the very sort of legislating morality that has been decried repeatedly in this thread. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed to choose who they will provide their goods or services to? It seems to me, the marketplace should be allowed to determine if such a discriminatory business should survive; instead of a meddling moral-based government edict.

I'm a pretty "free market" kind of guy, but I don't think the free market is the solution for everything. As an employer, I agree that a company that discriminates places itself at a disadvantage, but history has shown that some people don't behave rationally when it comes to discrimination, and that the disadvantage to the discriminated can be much greater than that to the discriminator. In such cases, it may be an appropriate use of government power to protect their rights.

Edited March 10, 2013 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

When are we ever going to find that planet that has people who look like ourselves walking around?

We COULD find it later today. But I'm not hopeful. The distances are just too great. Besides a human like creature on another planet would more than likely carry germs we have no resistance to, and visa versa. We would inadvertently wipe each other out.

Edited March 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Bikeemikey]

The equal rights thing is crap, as you've expressed it here. They keep trying to bend this into pretzel shapes, when it still remains the fact that a gay man has the same right to marry as a straight man. Both have the right to marry the woman of their choice, given the consent of the woman in question. I am fed up with this notion that somehow or other it means we have to support a man "marrying" a man. That isn't any "equal" right. It's apples and pears. There is no equivalence of a man/woman marriage to a man/man "marriage". They are not the same.

But regardless of the irrationality of it, they're still going to make it the "way things are" and we will have to accept it or the consequences of not accepting it.

That is not my view, nor what I said.

No one getting married requires your support.

All people have the right to do what they want in as much as it does not violates your rights.

All people have the right to be treated fundamentally equally by the govt.

[rodheadlee]

That is not my view, nor what I said.

No one getting married requires your support.

All people have the right to do what they want in as much as it does not violates your rights.

All people have the right to be treated fundamentally equally by the govt.

Until you choose to live on a boat. The first thing you give up is your search and seizure rights. But this all has nothing to do with the law of chastity.

Edited March 10, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Bikeemikey]

Until you choose to live on a boat. The first thing you give up is your search and seizure rights. But his all has nothing to do with the law of chastity.

Unless they are seizing your chastity??

[california boy]

The equal rights thing is crap, as you've expressed it here. They keep trying to bend this into pretzel shapes, when it still remains the fact that a gay man has the same right to marry as a straight man. Both have the right to marry the woman of their choice, given the consent of the woman in question. I am fed up with this notion that somehow or other it means we have to support a man "marrying" a man. That isn't any "equal" right. It's apples and pears. There is no equivalence of a man/woman marriage to a man/man "marriage". They are not the same.

But regardless of the irrationality of it, they're still going to make it the "way things are" and we will have to accept it or the consequences of not accepting it.

Ah yes, the "why aren't gays happy to marry members of the opposite sex argument". You don't hear it as often as you used to, but evidently in some people's minds it is still a good argument.

Since you seem to think this is a legitimate argument against gay marriage, can you tell me why not one single brief filed with the Supreme Court supporting Prop 8 relied on this argument as a reason why gays should not be allowed to marry?

The good news is, when gay marriage does become the law of the land, then you too can marry either a man or a woman. So equality will not change. Everyone will still be equal. There, no harm, no foul. Tell us how excited you will be knowing that you can marry a man.