The Fall of Religion, and Why the State is Next.

Remove all ads!

I wasn't the one that introduced this into the discussion. Homosexuality is one of the battlegrounds where the church and the state have been at odds, and my point is where people on one side or the other will seek to influence government their way, while likely offending the other side of the issue.

Agreed, living your life in a bubble with no human contact whatsoever is automatically condoned. But the problem becomes when you have the gay rights lobby getting attention promoting the gay lifestyle at the same time as the religious folks want to teach their children that homosexuality is a greivous sin. Earlier in this thread, the concept of the Big Brother network. This issue is one example of where these actions have a wider reach than it otherwise appears. If government takes a side, they offend one side, and if they do nothing, both sides don't like it. Because of the diversity of the population, governments cannot govern without trampling toes all over the place...

With that freedom comes the obligation to keep it out of my face. If homosexuals would keep their lifestyle out of the public eye, then there wouldn't be any problem. There was a controversy locally where the local school district wanted to adjust their curriculum to include "homosexual friendly" teachings. Naturally, many parents were pissed off about that. I remember signing an online petition stop this. The problem is that there are so many rights that they conflict with each other. Perhaps if the Government would take a stand and make their opinions known, peace would occur. If the Government of a nation came out and said that there would NEVER be same sex marriage, then one side would be happy, and the other side would have to live with it or live somewhere else...

 

The reason that the gay rights lobby promotes the gay lifestyle is because there is so much much hatred and discrimination against the gay lifestyle right now. Idealy, homosexuality could be tolerated to the point where you wouldn't need a gay ights lobby. But this isn't the case. You want to teach your children that homosexuality is a grievous sin? Fine. But you better teach them, as well, that no matter how horrible you think homosexuality is, that doesn't justify acting on that belief, that hatred. Because no one deserves to be punished for something that cannot be logically proven to be bad for society.

Well, what do you mean by "keep it out of my face?" Do you mean don't fluant it? Well that desire might be respectable, but the problem is that it is too hard to determine what "flaunting" is for the law to establish a punishment. Or do you mean that gays should be forced to hide the fact that they are gay? Because that is blantent discrimination. And the problem with that is that you are saying a certain lifestyle is bad enough to warrent lesser treatment than another, and cannot prove that homosexuality is wrong aside from what Christianity teaches you.

 

Yes, you were, and it was rather out of the blue as well. Others may have talked about homosexuality, but your "First off, Homosexuality is a CHOICE, ..." had absolutely nothing to do with anything that had been discussed up to that point.

Not quite. First, they shouldn't be forced underground like some satanic blood-drinking cult (actually, even those are allowed in the open...), and second, uber-rednecks (sorry, best term I could come up with on short notice) will invent a problem so long as homosexuals even exist. I have no wish to see the Salem Witch Trials reborn as the Salem Queer Trials.

"He's wearing an earring on his (I forget, is it right or left?) ear! He's infringing on my right to not have to see fags!" For added injustice, perhaps the kid was unaware of the significance.

 

Not uber-rednecks, the religious right. Though many rednecks can be classified as part of the religious right. And its the left ear. And I agree Felnoid, no one should be forced to hide who they are. Whether or not it is a choice doesn't matter.

 

Gay rights is just an example, mabye one that got carried too far. Anyways, it is an example of how people have fundamental rights that cannot be infringed upon, and that being offended by the actions of someone who does not bodily harm or traumetize anyone is not a legitimate reason to ban that behavior. I mean, what if i decided a certain minority offends me, just by there very existence? Should they become second-class citizens if I got the majority of the nation to agree with me? No. Thats oppression, and oppression, IMO, is never justifiable. On the issue of Gay rights, one could claim that it IS a choice, and that therefore it is alright to opress gays because they were not born into their situation, whereas opressing minorities is wrong because they WERE born a minority, therefore they have no controll over the situation. But my point is that it doesn't matter-no one should be persecuted for who they are, regardless of whether or not they chose to be that way, unless who they are harms society BEYOND offending people.

 

Until about 35 years ago, it was though that it was a mental illness, andnot long before that it was a criminal offence. Society has not determined how to accomodate them or if they want to. There are a great many that oppose changing the definition of marriage to suit the gay rights lobby. Again, it boils down to choice--you choose to be gay, then you forego the opportunity to marry, and will always be perceiv ed as a deviant by the majority. As the state finds itself constrained to accomodate these diverse views, the identity of the state is compromised to the point where it becomes non-existant.

The hatred is towards the offence, not the offender. The more the offenses rise, the harder it becomes to see a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father 9making them our brothers and sisters). The more they fight for the right to have their sins legitimized, the more we see them distancing themselves from God. This should break our hearts. As long as a disparity of rights existed, that provided incentives to conform. As they try to change society, they open rifts between those that want change and those that don't. The government is caught in the middle, and losing ground no matter what they do.

Warning: Slippery slope ahead! You can't logically prove that homosexuality is bad, then how long before you can prove that some killlings (start with someone easy to hate, like a serial rapist or child molester) are not hurting society, maybe even benefitting society by culling the herd. Soon homocide is called into review, and the laws against killing are challenged. About 10 to 12 years ago, there was a case in Saskatchewan where a guy killed his severely disabled daughter because he could not bear to see her suffering. He was sentences to life with no parole for 10 years because that was the most lenient sentence available, and there was debate over the laws about mercy killings...

What I mean is that I don't want society trying to contradict the teachings I am called to give to those in my stewardship (like any kids I eventually father, youth I am called to teach or guide). When I become a father, I plan to teach my children that homosexuality is a sin. I don't need protesters or even their teachers telling them that it is acceptable. This erodes my role as father in the lives of my kids (when I have them of course). AS long as the State keeps dictating that this is acceptable, there will be a backlash against the state.

There's a difference between hiding something and not rubbing it in my face. Two guys holding hands in public is not hiding it, but as long as they mind their own business, they're keeping it out of my face. What's wrong with that?

As long as the Constitution of the State recognizes the Supremecy of God, and precedent indicates the Christian understanding of God, that should suffice for the courts. If the State lacks the balls to uphold that then it will surely crumble under the weight of it's changing ideals.

Actually, we didn't invent the problem, the commandment forbidding homosexuality dates back about 3500 years officially, and it has been an offence against God from the very beginning. It has been taught in my church that it was among the great sins of the people leading to the great flood, and was rampant in Sodom and Gamorah when they were destroyed. Contrary to what some will claim, we did not invent the problem with this issue.

That's not what I'm advocating. As citizens they should not endure persecution or actual abuse for any reason. But their sins (and it is perceived as a sin to the religious) ought not be legitimized by the state. There is a difference between decriminalizing homosexuality and legitimizing it.

It's one issue I see tearing the state apart from the inside. It is also unfortunate that he gay rights part is the only thing that people want to bring up. It feels like my other points are being lost...

 

That's under debate, as well as missing my point (well, hitting it at an angle). What I was talking about is that this problem, this 'offence', would not be satisfied even by gays holing up in little societies of their own. Their mere existence is thought of by some as an affront to God, so the persecution will never end no matter how acquiescent the gay community is to their demands. If one problem is solved to satisfaction, another will be invented to continue the persecution because of the driving 'offence' of their existence.

That's not what I remember you saying before, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps my memory is faulty. So tell us, then, what exactly is the difference between the two? Where is the line drawn?

I'm just guessing here since I don't want to go back through all the essays on the previous page, but I say that they are no longer being argued because either a) it's been disproved to the arguers' satisfaction, or b) everyone agrees with it and saw no reason to argue about it in the first place.

[ April 03, 2006, 09:27: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

There comes a point where we are supposed to claim our victory and leave them to reconcile with the Lord. Beyond that point, we too sin. Religion does not, despite some past abuses or other doctrine, reserve the right to kill or maim sinners, only to expel or withold fellowship from the more greivous sinners.

It's a stance between saying that we won't lock you up for it, but we won't let you marry each other either. Basically it's saying that what you do in private, between concenting adults is none of our business, and we'd like to keep it that way.

I just thought that one certain issue had hijacked the thread. Granted my point may not be entirely clear, but it's developing. basically as points of view diverge, the fact that we don't like being told what to do leads to the lack of respect for government's authority to rule, and it wil ultimately collapse the government.

 

Whats wrong with that is that you're treating gay people like they're on paral. Like they have to be on their best behavior, and be quiet and unnoticable or else they will be punished. The fact is, I don't think gay people should get special treatment. They should get equal treatment. No more, no less. You have the right to believe homosexuality (or any other philosophy/lifestyle you disagree with) to be a sin, but unless you can prove that it is wrong, you shouldn't have the right to treat those who persue such a lifestyle any differently.
Which brings us to:

Perhaps huring society was a bad choice of words in my other post. A better choice would be infringing upon someone else's rights without their consent. For example, it is easy to say murder is wrong, because it takes someone's life away without them wanting it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not infringe upon anyone else rights, that is, it does not detract from any one else's emotional, physical, or material well-being.

Where does a constitution recognize the Suprememcy of God? Or are you reffering to the way you believe things should be?

and finially:

I don't believe that people, on the whole, hate being "told what to do". Sure there are rebels, but I doubt that they constitute a large enough population to bring society to its knees. Rather, I think the reason people disobey laws is because people think the particular laws they disobey unjust. And because there are so many philosophies/religions that preach different things to be right and wrong, and because there is no way to prove which philosophy is right, the only laws that should be made and enforced are those that can be proven to protect the individual rights of everyone. That way no one is forced to do something they don't want to do, while at the same time everyone is free to do what they want, unless what they want to do infringes upon someone else's rights. The system of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, its fine" is fair to everyone.

 

They aren't to be punished, but they should not have the right to dictate morality. You have jumped on me for trying to do that, but want me to shut up when I complain that they are doing the same thing. They want to change the definition of marriage, contrary to my religious beliefs. Which groups rights are invalidated?

That ends where they begin trying to change laws. Where they begin challenging the system to change what is taught about homosexuality, it interferes with what we, the religious, try to teach our children.

The Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It's our version of the constitution. Considered by many to be badly flawed, but nobody can agree on anything else to replace it...

But the more the government tries to give in to one group, the more it offends other groups, thus creating that feeling of injustice in the laws...

 

You can continue to try to teach your children what you want in the privacy of your own home or church. If someone teaches them something different, then - Shock Horror - your children at some point will have to make up their own minds. Education should be about making people think for themselves, not blindly following something (be it religion or anything else).
Just out of interest do LDS children get taught about other religions in American Schools? Or do you get to "opt out" of that one as the Plymouth Bretheren used to over here?

 

At least in the instance of gay marriage, I don't think that anyone wants to preach morality, rather they want the same rights as heterosexuals, considering their own relationships as equal, and deserving of the same privliges.

You're missing my point. What I say is fair is that the government does not give into any particular group, rather limiting its restraints on what people can do, allowing everyone to follow their own morals and ethics, as long as those morals and ethics don't interfere with the baisc liberties of others (no killing, stealing, etc.). By doing this, the govenment prevents itself from taking a side.

 

Unfortunately almost every arguement that one can make can be turned on it's head against you. Here's a couple of examples (sorry to pick on Gnarff, but his stood out to me as the most obvious):

And neither should you have the right to dictate morality. No one can. The only person you can dictate morality to is yourself.

This one I just found humorous. Quite obviously, it's their rights that are invalidated. They are the ones that are being prevented from getting married. You are allowed to marry. What right has been invalidated on your part?

 

But some things they should not learn until they are ready. That is our biggest concern. The fact that before they are old enough to understand what's going on, they are bombarded with contradicting information. When it is the parents responsibility to teach morality, this may work against these obligations. That is what the problem is.

But that is exactly what the problem is. If we are taught that their relationships are sinful, we don't want them to be equal. That would de-legitimize our own relationships.

But it does give in to some groups. That's the problem.

But there is a line between limiting restraints and letting them reshape society to their own desires.

That, ultimately, is impossible. One group's moral teachings teach that homosexual relations are a grievous sins, the other group doesn't see anything wrong with that. You keep telling me that Murder will not be challenged, but there are some groups that say that it is actually a good thing to kill certain people. You admit that there is a line, I'm just arguing where that line is drawn...

Dictate? It would be nice, but I'll settle for stopping the slide into immorality. When the state openly contradicts religion, then it does try to impose morality. And you just said they couldn't...

The right to teach our children morality without interference from the state. The Canadian Parliament passed a law changing the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships. This directrly contradicts Christian ethics.

 

The law changes the definition of marriage under the law. That does not mean you, and by you I refer to yourself and your christian community, have to accept that redefinition. It does not mean you have to teach your children that being gay is ok. All it means is that the law is trying to give equal opportunities to every viewpoint. In this instance there are two conflicting viewpoints: that it is ok for gay people to marry, and that it is not ok for gay people to marry. The law, in this instance, is not taking a side. It is not saying homosexuality is great, nor is it saying it is horrible, because that is a matter of opinion and/or faith, not a matter of facts. It is saying that, because no one has logically proven that homosexuality directly harms anyone, homosexuality should be tolerated and given equal status as heterosexuality. Its an innocent until proven guilty deal.

Using our example of gay rights, allowing gay marriage is not "reshaping society", because it only applies to gay people. It does not affect any one else. You can argue that it teaches one children that being gay is ok, but I say it simply teaches that the government does not have the authority to decide if being gay is ok or not, and is taking the innocent until proven guilty stance I explained above. And if you are so very worried that your children are being unfairly exposed to ideas that you disagree with, well thats a worry you are going to have to deal with. Unless you condone suppression of any ideas contrary to your own, your children are going to be exposed sooner or later,and will make up their own minds. After all, its not as if they are being brainwashed into loving gay people in primary school. What you, as a parent, should do in such a circumstance is raise a child who is unswervingly loyal to your philosophies/faith. But of course that carries the drawback of them being unable to think for themselves...

My line is pretty simple. You directly threaten or harm someone else's life, property, freedom, or physucal/mental/emotional wellbeing, you step out of line. This includes decieving someone, since lying threatens one of the above categories, and it includes disturbing/threatening the wellbeing of society. Its pretty easy to determine if someone has done such a thing, as long as you have all the facts. The line you argue, however, is based on a faith that not everyone shares, meaning if it is employed, the groups who don't share your philosophy lose.

 

The only reason I used dictate was you used it in your previous post. And you do have the right to express your ideas in a manner that may cause people to want to change their actions. However, my statement still stands. No one can dictate morality to anyone else, beyond themselves.

The state is not contradicting religion. In fact, because the state cannot openly condone any given religion, it is effectively forbidden from taking a stand on this issue. The government is neither pro-gay nor anti-gay. But even if it was, it still wouldn't be contradicting religion, because being gay isn't a religious issue.

*sigh* I'll need some help with this one, Gnarff. How does the Canadian government interfere with your right to teach morals to your children by allowing same sex marriages? There's many things that many religions believe that aren't illegal. One prime example is we don't ban the sale of pork because some Jews won't eat it. I imagine Jewish parents tell their children that while it is legal it is not part of their belief system. I can't see why you couldn't do the same thing. If you are worried that they will be influenced by the state at school, then I would recommend you send your children to a religious based school. Most churches have parochial school associated with them, and they give significant discounts to tuition to people who are members of the church.

 

If for some reason an appropriate private school is not available or affordable there is home schooling. Anyone intelligent enough and articulate enough to post on this board is certainly capable of teaching the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. The first years of a child's life are the most important in establishing morals. Later they may choose to walk a different path but that's life.

IMO State and Religion should be separate. No one has the right to force their moral or religious beliefs on me. All the State can do is try to protect us from actions that are harmful to us. Morals cannot be legislated.

Now are we ?

 

Gnarff, how are you going to teach your children about alcohol, or premarital sex for that matter? They're legal and directly contradict Mormon ethics. How do you propose to teach your children "right from wrong" when the government says it's okay?

The government doesn't raise your children -- unless you can't.

 

What T2B is pointing out is what I was trying to say, although he summarized it much more concisely than in my attempt. Basically my point is that there are many tennents of many religious beliefs that are not illegal. I used the Jewish not eating pork in my past example, but I just thought of one for Christianity as well.

Look at the 10 Commandments. How many of the 10 Commandments are actually illegal. Two? Gnarff, I'm citing the Exodus 20:2-17 version of the 10 Commandments. After a brief internet search, these passages are the ones most commonly cited as the basis of the 10 Commandments, but I have no idea if those are the exact wording of the ones Mormons follow. It's kind of strange, there's 10 Commandments, but 16 sentences, so obviously some of the Commandments require more than a one sentence explanation. If you want to actually read the 10 Commandments as printed in the Bible click here.

As far as I can see the only two commandments that are illegal are the ones that say "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not steal". So there's tons of stuff you are going to have to teach your children about your faith that aren't laws, so I don't see why your giving homosexual marriage special billing. AFAIK, Canada doesn't have a law that says you have to go to Church on Sunday either, but I imagine you will teach your children that it is proper to do so.