Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Fishteacher73]

Not to delve into another discussion of politics involing my fine representative from TX. :Alien:

 

As we have gone into discussion of morality vs ethics, IMO what is legal is usually what is ethical, and what is illegal is unethical (There is mutability in law so incorrect assuptions can be rectified). There are laws on the books that need to be altered because they are just plain dumb. Any law that segregates a group out because of something that is arguably biological and not sociopathic is absurd. Its like we have Gay Crow laws now instead of Jim Crow laws. I think a person's individual view of such acts is theres and they have every right to feel that way. But absolutly no right to legislate it.

[bumab]

SO we cannot condone something that is legal?

 

There are things we don't condone that are legal- setting a bad example for children would be the argument here.

 

Others- getting trashed in front of your kids, lying to your neighbors, cheating in school, etc. Lying is an art form to many politicians, yet it's expected, and certainly not legal. Morality and legality are seperate entities. Perhaps they should be the same thing- what's moral is legal, what's not is illegal. But that is the same arguement being offered by those who do NOT want to allow homosexual people to marry or adopt kids.

 

At least they are trying to be consistent.

[BEAKER]

Perhaps they should be the same thing- what's moral is legal, what's not is illegal. But that is the same arguement being offered by those who do NOT want to allow homosexual people to marry or adopt kids.

So your saying that homosexuality is not moral.

[Queso]

i think he's saying most people see it that way.

[BEAKER]

:Alien:

[bumab]

Yes, I was saying many people see it as immoral. I was replying to Fish's conjecture (although I don't think it was Fish's intent) that what is moral is legal and what is immoral is illegal (or could or should or might be). I was saying that is a bad argument against legalizing gay marrage, as it's the same arguement used by people against legalization. If it's not moral, it should be illegal- that statement.

 

There are lots of immoral things that are legal.

 

Personally, I'm pretty torn on the subject, I'll admit. It's probably the number one issue I struggle with in my faith.

[rockytriton]

:shrug:

 

:circle:

[ledbassest]

but who is to say what is moral and what isn't. some people against this subject are because of their religion, thus finding it immoral only if it doesn't apply to them.

 

example: some religious people may get trashed, but according to a lot of religions this is not right. but to the ones that do not get trashed this is found as immoral.

 

the point is that people are stuborn and ignorant. :circle:

[bumab]

but who is to say what is moral and what isn't. some people against this subject are because of their religion, thus finding it immoral only if it doesn't apply to them.

 

A great point, if you say morals are only "what I say is ok is ok for me." If, on the other hand, there is some morals that are greater then us (figurativaly speaking), then there is no real problem with not agreeing with those morals- you're just wrong (or me, or whoever). I for one am not so self-confident to say that I know what's ok for me, and you know what's ok for you. That's a pretty slef-important position, I think, because it places so much faith in humans ability to do "the right thing." Which, as history shows, isn't that great. I believe I don't know everything, thus I may not understand everything.

 

example: some religious people may get trashed, but according to a lot of religions this is not right. but to the ones that do not get trashed this is found as immoral.

 

Also a good objection. The Bible deals with this duplicity- it may be OK for you, and not OK for me, to get trashed, because that causes me to sin, or I'm an alcholic, or whatever. There is room under the law for some things to be ok for some, and not for others. It's not a "thou shalt not" book, the "rules" are meant to improve you as a human being. That's why I struggle with this subject.

 

the point is that people are stuborn and ignorant. :circle:

 

But, many are good hearted despite that.

[niviene]

but who is to say what is moral and what isn't. some people against this subject are because of their religion, thus finding it immoral only if it doesn't apply to them.

 

example: some religious people may get trashed, but according to a lot of religions this is not right. but to the ones that do not get trashed this is found as immoral.

 

the point is that people are stuborn and ignorant. :)

 

I agree with you....but stubborn and ignorant aren't the only problems, unfortunately.

 

I think it is funny and sad that religious fanatics choose to ignore parts of their religion's rules in order to satisfy their own personal "religious" agenda. Firstly, our "laws" are supposed to be secular, so what does anybody's religion have to do with what is legal or not? I know, I know - that's just how our laws were created, and I will agree that most of our laws are based on things that normally would regulate simply living as a good human being which seems to coincide with many religious teachings such as don't steal, don't kill, do unto others, etc. One of the big parts of Christianity is "judge not lest ye be judged yourself," ... that is to say that God is the judge and man is not (for those who believe this). While I think there is a line to be drawn even for Christians if you are being physically attacked obviously you would like the justice system to step in and protect you (relatively so, so it seems). What I don't understand is why a Christian who attacks people by saying that their ways are wrong and banding together to make sure no other lifestyle exists but their own can say it is for the cause of the religion they believe in so devoutly, while in doing so they are violating their own order. It's not a part of Christianity that the whole earth must be converted before they will reach heaven, like some other religions (spreading the gospel doesn't mean those who hear it must be converted, these are NOT the Crusades...) - and as I said, the law isn't supposed to bend to religious whims, but to the greater good. I don't feel that banning two people from being married has anything to do with the greater good, but meddling, jealous, fearful, uneducated people trying to nose their way into everyone else's lives - much like a collective Marie Barone...

 

There are other laws that follow the same token, in my opinion: prostitution, certain drug usages - marijuana, for one, suicide, or assisted suicide... et al. These things are illegal, and therefore I do my job and enforce them because the law says I have to, but I don't see where this does much good. Prostitution involves consenting adults - who has a right to interfere? Marijuana isn't any worse than drinking and hasn't been proved to be more addictive than alcohol, so why is it still illegal? Suicide is the ending of a life that each person alone owns - her death is her own property and should not be considered a crime should she decide it is over. These things are considered crimes "against society". I agree that cleaning up prostitution helps clean up society, but then why aren't extreme obesity and other health related issues made illegal when we all know that in the future it's going to cost society so much money to take care of these issues that individuals have created for themselves? Why isn't it a crime against society to have 15 children and live on welfare supported by society? Because "the bible says go forth and multiply"? I heard a man on death row trying to sue the state because he said he was a devout Christian and his religious rights of "multiplying" were being denied to him. Where does the line between religion and law get drawn?

 

I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (hurray for Dr. Spock) but I don't think that means we abandon the needs of the few...

[Biochemist]

This is a preety good post, Niv. And we even got back on the main topic of the thread!

...What I don't understand is why a Christian who attacks people by saying that their ways are wrong and banding together to make sure no other lifestyle exists but their own...

I acknowledge that some Christians sound like this, but I don't think this is commonly the intent of Christians. It is certainly not mine. There are, for example, a handful of Christians that regularly contribute to this site (I am one). The Christians here disagree on many things, just like the physicists here disagree on many things. My impresison is that mature Christians do not attack people, but they do critique behaviors. For example, I think that gay behavior is wrong, but that does not mean I disapprove of my gay friends. I, personally, have many behaviors that I think are wrong as well. I am no "better" than my gay friends are. That is, my behavior is not the standard (thank goodness). The preferred mechanisms that Christians use to influence their peers/friends/neighbors varies substantially. I, personally, do not think that political action is usually a good place to actuate moral change. For example, even though I think abortion is wrong, I am not in favor of a federal law precluding it. Similarly, even though I think homosexuality is wrong, I am not in favor of a federal law precluding it either. Other Christians will certainly disagree with both of those positions. Most importantly, it is not my job as a Christian to reject any individual because of their behavior (with a couple of very narrow counterexamples). It is my job to reach out to people and communicate something of value to them. Jesus did not reject the prostitute in John 8 (v 1-11), but He did tell her to stop being a prostitute. He did not reject the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:7-26) even when she tried to get into a theological debate with Him. He tried to focus her attention on things of higher import. He did not attack Nicodemus, a Pharisee, in John 3 (v 1-21) even though Pharsees were notorious for a rigorous yet shallow legalistic point of view. (The Pharisees in Luke 11: 39-44 were not quite so lucky.) The point is that there are only rare cases where Christians have license to reject anyone. I believe we do have responsibilities to communicate moral positions. Most Christians (and most people) believe that the justice system should enforce some moral boundaries (e.g., murder) and should not enforce others (e.g., profanity). The complexity lies in drawing the line between things that should or should not be memorialized in law.

There are other laws that follow the same token... prostitution, certain drug usages... assisted suicide... et al. These things are illegal...

I think we ought to expect that a democratic legislative process will implement laws unevenly. Each of the examples you offered (good ones, too) have credible arguments for legality and illegality. Arrival of a law on the books is subject to the nearly-random preferences of the legislative body that debates the topic. Once a law is on the books, however, it tends to stay unless public pressure is high. The result is uneven implementation of quasi moral positions in law.

[C1ay]

I think that gay behavior is wrong....

They are behaving the way that nature made them. Why is that wrong? Are they hurting anyone or infringing anyone else's rights?

[bumab]

Are they hurting anyone or infringing anyone else's rights?

 

There's a fundamental difference here between the concepts of "right and wrong." You are holding to a human standard, the modern human standard, to be more exact. Since we have really done away with absolutes in the human realm, it's now "incorrect" to hold any moral standard against anyone other then what they are doing to others. Internal morality is no longer cool.

 

Others think there is a moral standard above humans, i.e. apart from the popular morality at the time. This standard applies to more cases then when you are affecting others, it is a more internal morality that can (and should) come into play internally, not just externally. That means you CAN do "something wrong" without hurting anyone or infringing on others rights- things like lust come to mind. Neither hurts nor infringes on anyones rights. But I would say it's morally wrong because it hurts me, it distorts my own thinking in negative ways, and demeans others in my own mind. That's an example of an internal morality.

[Qfwfq]

Firstly, our "laws" are supposed to be secular, so what does anybody's religion have to do with what is legal or not?

Excellent point.

 

It's quite alright for Bio, Bumab or others to disapprove of homosexuaility, even to consider it wrong, because of their religion. It's a different thing to favour law being against it, on solely religious grounds.

 

If one avoids doing something because they believe God will judge them for it, OK, but that's where it starts and that's where it ends in a truly secular state. They might try to persuade others of their religious belief, quite OK, but throwing someone in jail or fining them is quite different from persuading them.

[rockytriton]

They are behaving the way that nature made them. Why is that wrong? Are they hurting anyone or infringing anyone else's rights?

 

It depends on what you mean by hurting someone. If they are publicly displaying affection, two guys wearing makeup and tongue kissing (to be on the extreme side), then someone may say that it is hurting their children to watch it because they feel it may be influencing them and hurting them morally. Like I said before, I don't think anyone really cares if you are a homosexual and you do it privately, but it's just what you do publicly that really bothers people.

[Qfwfq]

Sure enough, there are laws against public indecency. It's a matter of where to draw the line.

[Biochemist]

There's a fundamental difference here between the concepts of "right and wrong." ..Others think there is a moral standard above humans, i.e. apart from the popular morality at the time. This standard applies to more cases then when you are affecting others, it is a more internal morality that can (and should) come into play internally, not just externally. That means you CAN do "something wrong" without hurting anyone ...

Well said, Bumab.

 

C1ay, I do understand that many (perhaps including you) do not agree with this position, but I am having a hard time figuring out why you don't understand it. We have gone in circles in this thread a couple of times, and still come back to the "but they are not hurting anybody else" argument, or the "who has the right to impose their preferences" argument, or the "so who defines good" argument. In all cases, Christians use the Bible (othere use other reference standards) to establish moral definitions. Christians certainly interpret the Bible in different ways, but it is usually held as a moral standard.

 

It is unlclear to me why this is confusing.