Well said.
http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14844
Friday, September 19, 2014
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Cool quote
"I am grateful that I belong to a church in which we do not attempt to convince God or our leaders that certain opinions in our society are correct, and God’s are not. Society changes its mind quite frequently. I do not believe that God changes his mind, however. When society is telling me something new, even when it has assembled powerful reasons and powerful people on its side, I do not ask society whether it is correct. I ask God."
From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/clayton-christensen-and-same-sex-marriage.html
From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/clayton-christensen-and-same-sex-marriage.html
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Why the gay marriage argument annoys me
The way the gay marriage argument is framed bugs me.
Saying that gay couples are equal to straight couples is essentially a religious argument because it places value on behavior, something that government should not be involved in.
If the government is going to enforce (legally) this equality, then they are becoming a state-run religion and trampling on my (and a bunch of other people's) freedom of religion.
The argument should completely avoid assigning value to a gay relationship or a straight relationship but instead should stay neutral. Instead, the argument should be that person A should be able to decide who visits them in the hospital, and where their social security money goes after they die, etc.
As far as discrimination, government should be in the business or protecting people's ability to say "I don't like that behavior" rather than forcing them to accept it or else.
Discriminating against someone because of how they were born should be illegal. Discriminating against someone because of what they do should be a protected right.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Followup to last post
Pete responded (thoughtfully I might add) to my last post. I appreciate his remarks and am going to reply to them in a new post.
Pete says
1) Saying God's rules trump mankind's rules is dangerous territory. You think in your case it is okay because you believe you know God, but I _guarantee_ the people committing suicide to kill thousands of innocents are also beyond convinced that they know God. Their God's rules trump mankind's rules as well -- in this case the rules dictate the murder of innocents. Women in the middle east are heavily oppressed by our western standards, again in the name of religion. I'm guessing you don't approve of either of those things, in which case I would ask why their conviction is not as important as yours or why their God's rules should not trump mankind's rules as well? Freedom of religion is important, but this country is not a theocracy nor should it be.
The suicide bombers' convictions are equally as important as my convictions. The key difference is that I obey the law when applying my convictions whereas they break the law.
I am not saying that I alone should be the one who decides what the law should be because I alone say that God's rules are such-and-such. What I am saying that if enough people (ie more than 50%) loosely agree on a particular moral standard (regardless of whether this moral standard comes from their understanding of God's law), then it is perfectly appropriate for this to became a law. If this strikes you as wrong, think about where society's current moral standards come from. How did society come to decide that murder was morally wrong? Was it because of some mathematical equation? Some scientific research? I think not. More likely it was because a large majority of the society didn't want it to be a part of society (even if a few people potentially did) and so they made a law saying that no one could do it without big punishments. Same with theft. Who decided that it was illegal for an adult male to wander around naked in public (hehe) ? Was it science? More likely it was because a large majority of the people (including a lot of mothers) didn't want it to be part of society, even though clearly there are those who wish it was legal (hehe). Was this majority motivated by their understanding of God's laws on the subject? Most definitely. Was it appropriate for them to form this law even though it was motivated by religious knowledge? Absolutely.
What I am saying is that it's a nice idea that church and state really can be completely separate and that any person should theoretically be able to live however they choose and have legal protection, in practice this utopia scenario can never be fulfilled because people simply have to live with and interact with each other and therefore, society needs SOME kind of common moral standard that loosely agrees with the majority's views. That means the nudist at heart is going to be constantly "discriminated" against unless he goes to a special private location to be with other like minded people.
I guess what I am trying to say is we shouldn't try to figure out why a person has convictions or how they arrived at them (and whether they are valid). We should just assume that everyone's convictions are valid and then figure out how to best give everyone what they want, preferring the majority's will in cases where there is a conflict. I can frankly think of no fairer way.
This is why I think it's wrong for gay activists to question the validity of Utah's majority in defining marriage; it's also why I think it's similarly wrong for a judge to say that the law has no rational basis.
The correct way to advance the cause of increased same-sex rights is to CONVINCE the majority. Going behind the majority's back is the big problem here. If same-sex rights is the Right Thing, then it should not be hard to convince the majority. Using judges and lawsuits is not the answer.
Pete says
2) I disagree that you are putting yourself in opposition to God by saying gay marriage is equal to traditional. The issue here is some people have civil rights granted by the state and others don't. Simply, this is unacceptable.
I can appreciate that you seem to think that this is an obvious fact. But I don't see this and I've never seen it. In my mind, every person has the exact same rights and always has regardless of their chosen behavior. A gay man can always (and has always been able to) marry a woman at any time and partake of these rights. This is the exact same right that everyone has. So it actually really bothers me that same-sex rights advocates use this argument because it is full of logical holes.
And if we start to explore more of what this argument means, it becomes even more confusing.
I assume that a same-sex marriage advocate would say something like "Well, giving a gay man the right to marry a woman is not fair because it isn't what the gay man needs or wants. It's an empty right that is not fulfilling." I AGREE! However, that is NOT what the complaint is. The complaint is that the CIVIL RIGHT is available to SOME but NOT ALL, which is NOT TRUE (I hope I've explained why hehe).
Perhaps the complaint should be amended to "The CIVIL RIGHT is available to ALL but only meets the needs of SOME." I'd be much happier to hear this type of complaint because it is much less manipulative, divisive and contentious.
So let's explore this. Is the law always required to meet every person's needs? In the case of the nudist, no, it is not, and I think I've explained why. So I submit that it is not a requirement for the government to meet every single need that every single person has. To attempt to do so would be impossible.
Now, it's possible that my interpretation of the spirit of the complaint is wrong. It could be that the complaint is actually something more along the lines of "I was born gay and therefore I must be in a gay relationship in order to be happy. And this need is so fundamental that the government must protect it." I actually think this is exactly what some gay activists are saying.
The problem with this assertion is that it contradicts so many other precedents that are always extremely well established in life. I'm talking about the assertion that one must comply with one's natural inclinations in order to be happy.
Alcoholics Anonymous teaches that alcoholics are naturally inclined to drink alcohol. It also teaches that in order to be happy, they must completely fight against this inclination.
Smoking cigarettes is legal, yet the government itself buys ad space on large billboards to preach (yes preach) against the practice of smoking.
Many people are inclined to eat unhealthy foods. Yet, there are lots of organizations openly teaching people that if they want to be happy, they need to fight against these urges and gain control.
Most man are inclined to engage in sexual activity that is far beyond the bounds of the law of chastity, whether they be straight, gay, whatever. Some men are born with the inclination to be attracted to young children. Are we bad people because we have these (sometimes arbitrary) urges? No. Will it make us happy to comply with these urges? Usually, no! I know from own experience that if I want to have a happy marriage, then the price I MUST pay is to continually deny my body from most of its natural sexual urges for the REST OF MY LIFE. Most married men are in the same boat. We aren't happily married because we are giving our body exactly what it wants, we are married because we are constantly telling our body "no".
My point is, the assertion that a person born gay MUST be in a gay relationship in order to be happy is FALSE (I hope I've shown why) and it disturbs me that I see so many people state this as if it's an obvious fact. The obvious (to me) fact is that if one wants to be at peace with oneself, one must tell one's body "no" a lot in life.
Now, this doesn't mean that I am trying to force my values/beliefs upon someone who willfully chooses to be in a gay relationship.
In fact, as I mentioned, I have gay friends, and as far as I know, they are actively in gay relationships. And you know what? I RESPECT THEIR CHOICE. I think they are good people. And dangit, they deserve to find happiness how they see fit just as much as the rest of us. I also respect (and get along great with) my friends who consume large amounts of coffee (There are quite a few), my friends who drink, and my friends who father children without being married. Yes, it is possible to disapprove of their chosen behaviors and still be GREAT friends. I wish society at large understood this better.
I believe that there is room to abstract the laws to allow two people form a legal partnership. But be warned that this still "discriminates" against polygamists so it is hypocritical to think that this is somehow making everyone equal. Rather, it now places a two person partnership as having greater value than a 2+ person partnership. Have we really solved anything or just made ourselves feel better until the next lawsuit?
Pete says
3) The children argument has always confounded me. Do you really believe that putting a child who needs a home into a same-sex home is worse than leaving that child without a home? Or, better yet, putting or leaving the child in an abusive or disfunctional home with straight parents? I'll admit I didn't read your link, but in my eyes unless a gay household is always worse than any of the alternatives, I don't see why this is even an issue. Unless I'm confused and we live in a utopia where we can find every single child an ideal loving straight couple. Surely there are more important world issues we can focus on than the dangers of having children grow up with two loving same-sex parents.
I'd love to respond but I am going to insist that you read my link first. I really think the context is worthwhile before continuing our discussion.
Pete says
1) Saying God's rules trump mankind's rules is dangerous territory. You think in your case it is okay because you believe you know God, but I _guarantee_ the people committing suicide to kill thousands of innocents are also beyond convinced that they know God. Their God's rules trump mankind's rules as well -- in this case the rules dictate the murder of innocents. Women in the middle east are heavily oppressed by our western standards, again in the name of religion. I'm guessing you don't approve of either of those things, in which case I would ask why their conviction is not as important as yours or why their God's rules should not trump mankind's rules as well? Freedom of religion is important, but this country is not a theocracy nor should it be.
The suicide bombers' convictions are equally as important as my convictions. The key difference is that I obey the law when applying my convictions whereas they break the law.
I am not saying that I alone should be the one who decides what the law should be because I alone say that God's rules are such-and-such. What I am saying that if enough people (ie more than 50%) loosely agree on a particular moral standard (regardless of whether this moral standard comes from their understanding of God's law), then it is perfectly appropriate for this to became a law. If this strikes you as wrong, think about where society's current moral standards come from. How did society come to decide that murder was morally wrong? Was it because of some mathematical equation? Some scientific research? I think not. More likely it was because a large majority of the society didn't want it to be a part of society (even if a few people potentially did) and so they made a law saying that no one could do it without big punishments. Same with theft. Who decided that it was illegal for an adult male to wander around naked in public (hehe) ? Was it science? More likely it was because a large majority of the people (including a lot of mothers) didn't want it to be part of society, even though clearly there are those who wish it was legal (hehe). Was this majority motivated by their understanding of God's laws on the subject? Most definitely. Was it appropriate for them to form this law even though it was motivated by religious knowledge? Absolutely.
What I am saying is that it's a nice idea that church and state really can be completely separate and that any person should theoretically be able to live however they choose and have legal protection, in practice this utopia scenario can never be fulfilled because people simply have to live with and interact with each other and therefore, society needs SOME kind of common moral standard that loosely agrees with the majority's views. That means the nudist at heart is going to be constantly "discriminated" against unless he goes to a special private location to be with other like minded people.
I guess what I am trying to say is we shouldn't try to figure out why a person has convictions or how they arrived at them (and whether they are valid). We should just assume that everyone's convictions are valid and then figure out how to best give everyone what they want, preferring the majority's will in cases where there is a conflict. I can frankly think of no fairer way.
This is why I think it's wrong for gay activists to question the validity of Utah's majority in defining marriage; it's also why I think it's similarly wrong for a judge to say that the law has no rational basis.
The correct way to advance the cause of increased same-sex rights is to CONVINCE the majority. Going behind the majority's back is the big problem here. If same-sex rights is the Right Thing, then it should not be hard to convince the majority. Using judges and lawsuits is not the answer.
2) I disagree that you are putting yourself in opposition to God by saying gay marriage is equal to traditional. The issue here is some people have civil rights granted by the state and others don't. Simply, this is unacceptable.
I can appreciate that you seem to think that this is an obvious fact. But I don't see this and I've never seen it. In my mind, every person has the exact same rights and always has regardless of their chosen behavior. A gay man can always (and has always been able to) marry a woman at any time and partake of these rights. This is the exact same right that everyone has. So it actually really bothers me that same-sex rights advocates use this argument because it is full of logical holes.
And if we start to explore more of what this argument means, it becomes even more confusing.
I assume that a same-sex marriage advocate would say something like "Well, giving a gay man the right to marry a woman is not fair because it isn't what the gay man needs or wants. It's an empty right that is not fulfilling." I AGREE! However, that is NOT what the complaint is. The complaint is that the CIVIL RIGHT is available to SOME but NOT ALL, which is NOT TRUE (I hope I've explained why hehe).
Perhaps the complaint should be amended to "The CIVIL RIGHT is available to ALL but only meets the needs of SOME." I'd be much happier to hear this type of complaint because it is much less manipulative, divisive and contentious.
So let's explore this. Is the law always required to meet every person's needs? In the case of the nudist, no, it is not, and I think I've explained why. So I submit that it is not a requirement for the government to meet every single need that every single person has. To attempt to do so would be impossible.
Now, it's possible that my interpretation of the spirit of the complaint is wrong. It could be that the complaint is actually something more along the lines of "I was born gay and therefore I must be in a gay relationship in order to be happy. And this need is so fundamental that the government must protect it." I actually think this is exactly what some gay activists are saying.
The problem with this assertion is that it contradicts so many other precedents that are always extremely well established in life. I'm talking about the assertion that one must comply with one's natural inclinations in order to be happy.
Alcoholics Anonymous teaches that alcoholics are naturally inclined to drink alcohol. It also teaches that in order to be happy, they must completely fight against this inclination.
Smoking cigarettes is legal, yet the government itself buys ad space on large billboards to preach (yes preach) against the practice of smoking.
Many people are inclined to eat unhealthy foods. Yet, there are lots of organizations openly teaching people that if they want to be happy, they need to fight against these urges and gain control.
Most man are inclined to engage in sexual activity that is far beyond the bounds of the law of chastity, whether they be straight, gay, whatever. Some men are born with the inclination to be attracted to young children. Are we bad people because we have these (sometimes arbitrary) urges? No. Will it make us happy to comply with these urges? Usually, no! I know from own experience that if I want to have a happy marriage, then the price I MUST pay is to continually deny my body from most of its natural sexual urges for the REST OF MY LIFE. Most married men are in the same boat. We aren't happily married because we are giving our body exactly what it wants, we are married because we are constantly telling our body "no".
My point is, the assertion that a person born gay MUST be in a gay relationship in order to be happy is FALSE (I hope I've shown why) and it disturbs me that I see so many people state this as if it's an obvious fact. The obvious (to me) fact is that if one wants to be at peace with oneself, one must tell one's body "no" a lot in life.
Now, this doesn't mean that I am trying to force my values/beliefs upon someone who willfully chooses to be in a gay relationship.
In fact, as I mentioned, I have gay friends, and as far as I know, they are actively in gay relationships. And you know what? I RESPECT THEIR CHOICE. I think they are good people. And dangit, they deserve to find happiness how they see fit just as much as the rest of us. I also respect (and get along great with) my friends who consume large amounts of coffee (There are quite a few), my friends who drink, and my friends who father children without being married. Yes, it is possible to disapprove of their chosen behaviors and still be GREAT friends. I wish society at large understood this better.
I believe that there is room to abstract the laws to allow two people form a legal partnership. But be warned that this still "discriminates" against polygamists so it is hypocritical to think that this is somehow making everyone equal. Rather, it now places a two person partnership as having greater value than a 2+ person partnership. Have we really solved anything or just made ourselves feel better until the next lawsuit?
Pete says
3) The children argument has always confounded me. Do you really believe that putting a child who needs a home into a same-sex home is worse than leaving that child without a home? Or, better yet, putting or leaving the child in an abusive or disfunctional home with straight parents? I'll admit I didn't read your link, but in my eyes unless a gay household is always worse than any of the alternatives, I don't see why this is even an issue. Unless I'm confused and we live in a utopia where we can find every single child an ideal loving straight couple. Surely there are more important world issues we can focus on than the dangers of having children grow up with two loving same-sex parents.
I'd love to respond but I am going to insist that you read my link first. I really think the context is worthwhile before continuing our discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)