|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What actually are "Family Values"
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
I presume from the tone of this sentence that you are being facetious. I am single myself, but, with respect, the issue of singles is just throwing dust in the eyes.
The issue here is about what enforceable rights should be given to people in different types of partnerships. If someone is single, they are without a partner. The situations are in no way analagous.
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
Now, if that family unit is to include the biological children of you and your partner then biology does result in the need for your partner to be of the opposite sex. If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, if that family unit is to include the biological children of you and your partner then biology does result in the need for your partner to be of the opposite sex. If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
Because the defintive factor in this for me is not biology. I was going to type more, but I've already posted a long post about why this matters to me on the previous page.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I keep on hearing how the Conservatives/Republicans/WhateverBunchInYourCountry are in favour of "Family Values"
I keep hearing how allowing gay marriage damages "Family Values"
Could somebody actually list these values? What are they? How many of them are they? Why are they "Family" values? I'm truly intrigued.
IMO "Family Values" means favouring "people like us", especially if they live "nice" middle-class lives and keep their affairs, alcoholism and wife-beating quiet, or at least have the decency to keep their ex-wives in a nice suburban house and pay for the kids school fees etc.
"Family Values" means looking down on people who are not "like us" and who struggle to bring their kids up as a single parent on a low income, especially if they never married the father(s)/mother(s) of their children because of their own lousy upbringing that makes it hard for them to make lasting relationships. Of course it also means looking down on people who don't have "traditional" relationships.
I think it's probably got more to do with money and the desire for a stable society than families but there you go.
My family values would be something like loving your spouse and kids as yourself, making sure your parents are properly cared for in old age and that you visit them often, having compassion towards those less fortunate than yourself and supporting their family life if you can, and not being smug and self-satisfied.
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
Because the defintive factor in this for me is not biology. I was going to type more, but I've already posted a long post about why this matters to me on the previous page.
Yes, you've explained very well why this matters to you. And you are entitled to your opinions. Nobody is trying to make you enter into a same-sex partnership, or attacking the value of any male\female partnership you may enter into.
What you haven't explained is why the state should enforce your opinions, or why it not doing so should damage the institution of male\female marriage as you see it. I still don't understand why the solemnisation of a 20-year partnership between 2 men should undermine - say - Moth's marriage. I just don't get it.
(I am very much talking about the state - my views on the Church's role and rights are much the same as Alan's)
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep, you wrote quote:
I think merely harping on about moral (or justice!) issues is actually anti-Gospel, for it reinforces the preconception most people have about Christianity that it is about following rules and being good. But I have a strong enough doctrine of common grace to want to see God's values (as I understand them) reflected in society. That's why for example, I would want to vote for a candidate who was pro-life, AND more welcoming towards asylum seekers than our current government.
Well I'm absolutely with you there, Lep, (as I said, I don't really think that being pro-life is quite the same as being pro-family values, though I accept that the two views are often held by the same people) but I repeat the point that I cannot see how denying the right for, say, a homosexual man to have his de-facto partner visit him on his death bed because he is not recognised as a legal next-of-kin, could in any way be said to be reflecting God's values in society. Nor could denying that surviving partner the benefit of a dependant's pension. These would be the right of a married couple, and I don't see that offering them to the hypothetical gay couple mentioned in any way devalues the rights of a married heterosexual couple. To me, the argument just doesn't work.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMcV
Shipmate
# 545
|
Posted
That's mince, actually. Until it was airbrushed out of history by the middle class liberals who have taken over the Labour Party, the Labour Party was, in its early years, dominated by Christian influences and favoured what dreary liberals now mantra-ise as 'conservative social values.'
I wouldn't politically try to impose a particular moral structure on society, and as churches we must welcome everybody, however broken their relationship background.
But I'm a bit fed up with the notion that someone can be economically Marxist, politically radical, inherently questioning, but if he doesn't subscribe to the tedious liberal concensus that Gays (the new sacred cows) Are A Dashed Good Thing, he's a reactionary, fundamentalist, bigoted, etc, etc, etc...
--------------------
You can have whatever you want/But are you disciplined enough to be free?
Posts: 169 | From: Above and to the right of Glasgow | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
But I'm a bit fed up with the notion that someone can be economically Marxist, politically radical, inherently questioning, but if he doesn't subscribe to the tedious liberal concensus that Gays (the new sacred cows) Are A Dashed Good Thing, he's a reactionary, fundamentalist, bigoted, etc, etc, etc...
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I'm absolutely with you there, Lep, (as I said, I don't really think that being pro-life is quite the same as being pro-family values, though I accept that the two views are often held by the same people) but I repeat the point that I cannot see how denying the right for, say, a homosexual man to have his de-facto partner visit him on his death bed because he is not recognised as a legal next-of-kin, could in any way be said to be reflecting God's values in society. Nor could denying that surviving partner the benefit of a dependant's pension. These would be the right of a married couple, and I don't see that offering them to the hypothetical gay couple mentioned in any way devalues the rights of a married heterosexual couple. To me, the argument just doesn't work.
We agree on an awful lot more than might be expected Ad!
I suppose public policy makes it clear which relationships are "valued" by according those relationships particular rights. Marriage is currently unique in the rights it accords. By introducing other relationships that confer the same rights marriage becomes one of many relationships that confer those rights.
Male/female marriage becomes one of a number of options for achieving that status. In that sense it is devalued.
I don't think that's hard to understand. I can completely see why people would disagree, but I don't think it's hard to comprehend, is it?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Sorry, missed the edit window,I called JJ, Ad - avatar confsuion. Apologies both.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Male/female marriage becomes one of a number of options for achieving that status.
I think I see what you mean.
The confusion may be arising because we're not talking about creating "a number of options". This isn't something where people have a choice - they're either one way or another.
Your post gets right back to my post on page 2 (specifically the para starting "The fear is...").
Or so it seems to me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
No Problem Lep, I feel strangely flattered ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Perhaps we are using the term "devalued" to mean different things, but, try as I might, I can't see any way in which affording to other relationships "parity of esteem", to use a term with which you may be familiar, devalues marriage, any more than, say, affording to Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland parity of esteem devalues either tradition. I just can't see a mechanism by which it might happen. In fact, I would have thought that the very fact that other people previously excluded from the marriage covenant aspire towards it actually increases the esteem of the institution.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
Is it that many people find a plural society very anxiety-inducing?
After all, if everyone is like me, I know I'm right!
If some people are different, maybe I'm wrong?
I don't like the latter option, so I decide I'm right and they're wrong. Problem solved.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ascension-ite
Shipmate
# 1985
|
Posted
About at the end of my rope with so-called "family values" arbiters. Falwell was on the tube today about the rise in the voters for "morality". I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
Posts: 318 | From: Old Dominion | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMcV
Shipmate
# 545
|
Posted
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
--------------------
You can have whatever you want/But are you disciplined enough to be free?
Posts: 169 | From: Above and to the right of Glasgow | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere!
The idea is that morality in intimate personal relations is more central to the good of society than overt acts of helping the poor and oppressed.
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression. Therefore any approach to solving social issues that does not include a focus on personal morality, and especially sexual morality, can't succeed.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Except that that isn't the case. How exactly does denying gay people the right to marry prevent oppression? Buggered if I know.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ddraig
Shipmate
# 7572
|
Posted
I've just read through this thread and found it very interesting. The value of marriage, and in fact the purpose of marriage is something I've been thinking about a lot as I got engaged to be married earlier this year.
IMHO, the purpose of marriage is fundamentally a 2 stranded thing.
First its a legal contract that gives certain legal, property and financial rights and responsibilities to the two people involved.
Second its a public declaration before the community of love and fidelity between the two people.
When the marriage involves a religious aspect, this second strand also involves making the declaration of love and fidelity before God and the Church.
I can understand (although generally disagree with)people who for religious reasons, do not wish to see two people of the same sex declare their love and fidelity before God and the Church.
What I don't understand is why that should prevent that same couple declaring that they wish to bind themselves together legally and financially in front of their community in a secular way? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I realise as well this gets even more complicated if the same sex couple then wishes to be recognised by their faith community, but I believe thats another (related) issue again.
Liz
--------------------
Theism - A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking. Oxford English Dictionary
Posts: 86 | From: Leeds | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
I presume from the tone of this sentence that you are being facetious. I am single myself, but, with respect, the issue of singles is just throwing dust in the eyes.
The issue here is about what enforceable rights should be given to people in different types of partnerships. If someone is single, they are without a partner. The situations are in no way analagous.
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
I understood this:
the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities
to mean that you believed the foundation of a healthy community was dependent on male/female couples commmitted to staying together in lifelong relationship. If that isn't what you meant then apologies.
Of course, the continuing success of any community is partly dependent on this, but I challenged what seemed to me your categoric assertion, as I believe the bases of healthy communities are built on the relationship we have with God, not foundationally on the relationship, life-long or otherwise, between people of the opposite sex.
I'd like to put forward the idea that healthy communities depend as much on people who are not in these male/female life-long relationships as they do on those who are. I don't see anything too dusty in that, as a response to what you've posted.
It is true that one of the issues being discussed on the thread is enforceable rights etc etc. However, I thought the wider issue as per the OP was about the whole issue of 'family values' - what constitutes it, why is it desirable/more desirable etc.
Ironically, this does kind of prove my point that focussing on 'family' however that slippery word is to be defined is merely to narrow the vision that really should apply to all, and not the favoured few.
[ 04. November 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ddraig:
What I don't understand is why that should prevent that same couple declaring that they wish to bind themselves together legally and financially in front of their community in a secular way?
I tried to explain this in my very long post earlier. Obviously not very well. Basically for two reasons:
1) Marriage is an important societal unit, the basic societal unit according to my understanding of the Bible - it should therefore be protected as unique for the good of society.
2) I am not in favour of the state legitimising lifestyles which it will be very difficult for people to leave if they become Christians, and am in favour of innovations which make the proclamation of the Gospel easier, like universal literacy for example.
There's far more to it than that, but that's as snappy as I can make it.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression. Therefore any approach to solving social issues that does not include a focus on personal morality, and especially sexual morality, can't succeed.
There may be some truth in that though - in a world you lot keep telling me is a fallen one - I don't see why you hold out any hope of fixing personal immorality. If personal immorality is going to keep happening (and it is, just as it always has done) it would seem more practical to address the fall out effectively through social policy.
But leaving that aside, this raises the question of what is personally immoral. Is it immoral for gay people to commit to a long-term exclusive committed relationship? - seems entirely moral to me.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that that isn't the case. How exactly does denying gay people the right to marry prevent oppression? Buggered if I know.
It completely depends on whether you believe that this kind of sexuality is moral or immoral.
If it is moral then it serves as a foundation for a free and healthy society and denying it would contribute to oppression.
If it is immoral then it contributes to the forces of oppression, poverty, and marginalization, and denying it would do the opposite.
Society denies all kinds of rights in the name of preventing oppression.
What is so hard about that?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ddraig
Shipmate
# 7572
|
Posted
Thanks for the reply Leprechaun.
I think I now understand your position.
I think where you and I differ is that I do not see a committed long term homosexual relationship as necessarily a barrier to becoming a Christian. (At least no more than a long term commited heterosexual relationship might create a barrier... we are always influenced by those closest to us - if the other partner, a parent or close friend is apposed to a choice we make, it is always difficult, especially a choice as fundamental as conversion to a religion.)
Liz
[ 04. November 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Ddraig ]
--------------------
Theism - A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking. Oxford English Dictionary
Posts: 86 | From: Leeds | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ellen_404
Shipmate
# 7953
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
You must present the right with what Jesus taught. It stops them in their tracks.
Posts: 238 | From: Illinois, U.S.A. | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, Freddy, I'm not going to let you get away that simplistically.
HOW does allowing gay marriage contribute to oppression?
Of course, you could be right and it cuts both ways. If it doesn't contribute to oppression, or any other social ills, perhaps it isn't immoral in the first place...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ascension-ite
Shipmate
# 1985
|
Posted
Still rather stunned at what Freddy said. Good to know that as long as I sleep with the right gender then poverty should be of no concern for me, as it will sort itself out. Thanks Ellen, what I don't understand is the silence of other Christians in the face of the growing ranks of Evangelicals in the US. Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Posts: 318 | From: Old Dominion | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ellen_404:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
You must present the right with what Jesus taught. It stops them in their tracks.
No, it doesn't.
Funny thing is, the right-wingers think that they are feeding the hungry, freeing the oppressed etc. etc. etc. the best possible way - by doing it themselves and not letting government foul it up.
It may not work, in our estimation, but there's no point knocking down a straw man with Jesus' teachings.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
The right to have the State recognise your relationship with your chosen life partner. Things like being your partner's next of kin, that you and I would probably take for granted.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
<<grandmother has been X-rayed; suspected cracked/ broken hip.>>
For me, the argument is in part at least about the definition of marriage, which is one man, one woman, ideally for keeps, for life. So that colours everything else I think about this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
1. Should a theological position mean that people who do not agree with your theological position are denied rights?
No, not in most cases that I can think of. No one here is denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. They have the same rights that everyone else does to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. There is no other kind of marriage IMO. Any homosexual has the right to marry.
quote:
2. If marriage is so sacrisanct, and therefore presumably the rights and responsibilities of marriage are to be respected, how does spreading those rights and responsibilities to others (outside of the traditional understanding of marriage) weaken them?
It doesn't weaken them so much as it creates an absurdity. We can no more speak of homosexual marriage than we can of round squares, or six-sided pentagons.
But I believe there is a weakening of morality and virtue within society as a whole by seeking to legislate and encourage this absurdity.
quote:
3. Even if we could all agree that certain behaviours were 'unbiblical' how does that play with a society which does not accept those things and in fact in which we are in a minority?
I would not suggest that we not "accept" homosexual behaviour. But we certainly should not condone it. It is always funny how no one wants the government "in the bedroom," but they want their bedrooms out on the street. In a free society, they have the rights that the rest of us do.
quote:
The church is to be prophetic. The problems arise when the church slips into a quasi-governmental position and starts throwing its weight around.
I think the greater problem is when the church fails to preach the Bible clearly and truthfully without respect for whom it might offend.
On the point of the "right to impose one's morality on others", every single law on the books in any country is an imposition of morality in one form or another. Most law systems in western societies are based upon the Judeao-Christian worldview. Our law says murder is illegal because the Bible say thou shalt not commit murder. There is just no possible way to have any laws that do not impose someone's morals on somebody else. You just cannot separate the two.
Matt
[Quote code added to prevent scroll lock.]
[ 05. November 2004, 00:33: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ellen_404
Shipmate
# 7953
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Exactly! Ironically, it was a communist who taught me that when I told him some of the things written by Republicans on a local message board during the buildup to the attack on Iraq. He told me to use Jesus' teachings if I really wanted to make my point. I did & not one could respond. It was amazing. And it worked on almost all issues, except abortion. But now that we have blown up thousands of Iraqi babies...
Posts: 238 | From: Illinois, U.S.A. | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
HOW does allowing gay marriage contribute to oppression?
Of course, you could be right and it cuts both ways. If it doesn't contribute to oppression, or any other social ills, perhaps it isn't immoral in the first place...
That's right. I'm not saying that gay marriage is immoral or that it contributes to oppression. I'm only saying that IF it is immoral it contributes to oppression. IF it is moral then it helps to do away with oppression.
All immoral things contribute to oppression. For example, drug abuse does harm to individuals, who in turn do harm to their families, which in turn are then less able to serve society, contributing to hardship and the unhappy things that come with it. Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
I understand that it may be impossible to think that an issue like gay marriage could possibly involve immorality. Those who do see it as immoral, however, must necessarily see it as a phenomenon that causes harm and breeds oppression. They may be wrong, but this is the thinking.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, not in most cases that I can think of. No one here is denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. They have the same rights that everyone else does to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. There is no other kind of marriage IMO. Any homosexual has the right to marry.
I see.
So you would have no problem with a legal civil union between homosexuals, which gave all the legal rights of marriage, as long as they called it something else?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
<<grandmother has been X-rayed; suspected cracked/ broken hip.>>
Gah, that isn't good. My relatives are in a similar position.
quote:
For me, the argument is in part at least about the definition of marriage, which is one man, one woman, ideally for keeps, for life. So that colours everything else I think about this issue.
Fine. Others don't. What are you going to do about them? There is no point in repeatedly stating your moral position as the state is only concerned with the good of all, not just your convenience.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ascension-ite
Shipmate
# 1985
|
Posted
Ellen, It if great fun to confront a Biblical literalist with the fact that they believe in transubstantiation, as the Bible clearly states "This is my Body, This is my Blood", not this represents, or symbolizes, or commemorates, try and get around that.
Posts: 318 | From: Old Dominion | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Matt - our law may at one time have said that Murder is illegal because the Bible says it is, but in fact that is not the original reason - murder was illegal under pagan Saxon law as well. It carried on being illegal both because the Bible said so and because at any given time the vast majority of people have believed it is so, and society is far better off for making it illegal.
It seems to me that in this day and age, in a free country, laws require that:
a) the proscribed action is demonstrably harmful to a third party or to society in general
b) there is a majority view that society is considerably better off by making the action illegal
Morality per se doesn't really come into it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd guess that you wouldn't find many societies where murder was legal. This isn't an argument either.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've been reading this thread with a great detail of interest, and not a little amusement from time to time. What struck me is the apparent assumption on the part of some of a link between Christian moral values and civil law. So I've started another thread on the subject.
Still can't work out what "Family Values" actually are, though. Not in terms of some overarching principle or common factor. Paul Feyerabend once said of science that its activities are so diverse that you can't say what science is, beyond merely constructing a list of those activities. I'm beginning to think it might be the same with "Family Values".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ellen_404:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Exactly! Ironically, it was a communist who taught me that when I told him some of the things written by Republicans on a local message board during the buildup to the attack on Iraq. He told me to use Jesus' teachings if I really wanted to make my point. I did & not one could respond. It was amazing. And it worked on almost all issues, except abortion. But now that we have blown up thousands of Iraqi babies...
He'd probably been reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell, where that technique is used to good effect. My sig. is from that book.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
Do they get next of kin rights when their partner is ill or dying? They never used to and if their partner's parents or other next of kin don't want to acknowledge them or involve them in decisions it can be very destressing for them.
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
... and unless I've missed it while reading this thread, no-one has pointed out that there are no tenancy rights yet either. If one of a heterosexual couple die, the survivor is entitled to continue tenancy of their rented accomodation. This usually applies even if the couple are not actually married. Same-sex couples do not have rights of continued tenancy, and I know of cases as recent as a couple of months ago where the surviving partner was evicted only six weeks after his partner died. They had been together for several years.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
Adeotus, are you sure? I thought Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza now made that unlawful.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
My partner and I have been together for 11 years and fully intend to stay together till one of us dies - with God's help. I don't want to discuss the validity of this statement here, this discussion clearly belongs in hell.
A legalization of our commitment would make life a lot easier for us. For example would we be able to buy a house and make sure that after one of us has died the other could go on living in it. Here in Germany you can't leave all your property to just one person, a significant amount goes to your next of kin(s) by law. This means that we would have to be able to accumulate enough assets beside a house to be able "pay out" relatives. Even if we were able to achieve that the surviving partner would have to pay huge inheritance taxes compared to an inheriting next of kin who in the case of average properties pays hardly anything in such a case. This means that each of us would have to put additional money aside exactly for that purpose. If one of us did this for the other, the amount would have to be high enough to cover inheritance taxes as well.
We are an economic unit and share all our property jointly. Ironically the state would recognise that if one of us claimed any form of social benefit. In that case we would have to prove that we are not a couple, e.g. by having separate bank accounts, separate departments in the fridge and separate tubes of toothpaste. That's no joke, social workers come to your house and have a look at your living arrangements.
So we can buy a house together like married couples can - only we bear the risk that one of us will lose it in the end.
Lioba
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
Sorry to double post: In the first paragraph I meant Dead Horses, not hell. It's just that this topic tends to make me feel somewhat hellish.
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It completely depends on whether you believe that this kind of sexuality is moral or immoral.
If it is moral then it serves as a foundation for a free and healthy society and denying it would contribute to oppression.
If it is immoral then it contributes to the forces of oppression, poverty, and marginalization, and denying it would do the opposite.
Society denies all kinds of rights in the name of preventing oppression.
What is so hard about that?
An excellent summary.
I hope we all notice that as you have defined this issue, the answer can be determined by social science. It is not a matter of religious or other conviction at all. I submit the issue to that bar confident that the facts-- now that for the first time in centuries they can be observed-- will bear out my position.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
That makes it really easy to sort out whether any issue is immoral then.
All those who think it is have to do is demonstrate one tangible way in which it causes harm or contributes to oppression.
I'll bet a penny to a pound I can think of more ways in which Christianity has contributed to oppression than they can for most other "anti-Family Issues"...
[ 04. November 2004, 19:17: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
All immoral things contribute to oppression. For example, drug abuse does harm to individuals, who in turn do harm to their families [...] Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
As a definition of morality this is interesting. But I'm not sure what it has to do with Family Values as espoused by the politicians and social commentators we've been talking about on this thread. Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Ellen, It if great fun to confront a Biblical literalist with the fact that they believe in transubstantiation, as the Bible clearly states "This is my Body, This is my Blood", not this represents, or symbolizes, or commemorates, try and get around that.
Be ready for the perhaps stock riposte, as happened to me once, that it is as obviously metaphorical as Jesus's words, "I am the door of the sheepfold."
A good reply is probably first to ask for their core dump on sheepfolds. If they knew what one was, they probably would not be so foolish as to make that objection.
According to a very interesting sermon that I heard some years ago, a sheepfold has only a narrow opening, no door. After being herded into a sheepfold for the night, the sheep are safe from wolves and other marauders outside, which can get to them only through that opening. And the shepherd lies down for the night across that opening, protecting the sheep literally with his own body.
It is really quite a wonderful Eucharistic image. It is somewhat metaphorical, but not nearly as much as one might assume, and to the extent it is literal it only reinforces the literalness of the Words of Institution.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I hope we all notice that as you have defined this issue, the answer can be determined by social science. It is not a matter of religious or other conviction at all. I submit the issue to that bar confident that the facts-- now that for the first time in centuries they can be observed-- will bear out my position.
I don't know what your position is, but this is exactly what I think.
It's just a matter of finding out the facts.
Unfortunately, facts are not easy to establish. It took forever to establish the blindingly obvious fact that smoking is bad for you.
But the good news is that once established, facts are very helpful in persuading people to avoid harmful behaviors.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
As a definition of morality this is interesting. But I'm not sure what it has to do with Family Values as espoused by the politicians and social commentators we've been talking about on this thread. Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
I disagree. This is exactly what they are talking about. Preachers have always told people that immorality would ruin them. Conservatives oppose immorality on the grounds that it will ruin the country.
The fact that the harm connected with particular behaviors is not immediately obvious does not mean that it doesn't exist. If the harm was obvious it wouldn't be an issue.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
I disagree. This is exactly what they are talking about. Preachers have always told people that immorality would ruin them. Conservatives oppose immorality on the grounds that it will ruin the country.
The fact that the harm connected with particular behaviors is not immediately obvious does not mean that it doesn't exist. If the harm was obvious it wouldn't be an issue.
But where we perceive harm, and how we balance it against good, is entirely subjective. Establishing the 'facts' is not easy or even always possible.
How do you weigh the harm caused by gay partnerships to society (assuming there is any, which I don't believe) against the harm done to gay individuals described on this thread by denying them partnership rights? How you balance that equation depends entirely on your preconceptions, it is not a measurable thing.
Early this century many people believed that pre-marital sex and illegitimacy were so harmful to society and to individuals that they should be hidden at all costs. Nowadays most people believe that the harm done by throwing girls into mental hospitals and Magdalenes and institutionalising their children was much greater.
Family Values-type politicians, generally, are very keen to focus on the harm done by single parenthood, but not the least bit interested in the harm done by companies that pour toxic chemicals into our rivers, which to them is a forgivable sin in the pursuit of the greater economic good. My perception of the relative harm would be quite the opposite.
There is no black-and-white, quantifiable way of measuring harm - you are chasing a dream.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
