This is TOO much!

[tvashtarkatena]

The point of the example is that you seem to be of the opinion that its not the specific verbiage of the law that matters, but the motives of the people who support it. Ergo if the KKK came out in favor of affirmative action, the correct thing to do would be to oppose the legislation, no matter how it was constructed or what it's effect would be in practice.

 

If you laid off the post-modern language generator a bit, perhaps you wouldn't so readily confuse yourself.

 

As I've clearly stated in a non post-modern fashion, I am not of the opinion you've outlined above at all.

 

If the KKK, or any other group came out if favor of gay marriage, I would support that endorsement for the same reasons I support my own; it is in accord with the equal protection clause. I object to arguments against gay marriage, regardless of the proponent, because they violate the equal protection clause. I object to anti-gay marriage initiatives by many religious groups because they explicitly use biblical references to support their position. 'Ergo' they are proposing to violate the equal protection clause based on purely religious beliefs...a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

I thought that Off's point was that since the term marriage is loaded with both legal and moral/religious meanings, that it would be better to completely separate the two so that the state was only involved in the legal side via the civil union, and those that wanted to acquire the moral/spiritual sanction offered by a particular church or faith could feel free to do so if they wished.

 

Better, perhaps, but not at all realistic.

[Off_White]

If you ask me, religion is much more of a choice than sexual orientation.

 

Jay, I'd start an initiative on the idea of getting the government out of the marriage business if I didn't think I'd wind up in the same bin of "human interest stories" as the guy to tried to float an initiative to ban "irritating daytime running lights on cars."

 

I do understand your antipathy to the way the initiative process has panned out in WA state. What do you think of the idea to ban paid signature gatherers? It seems to me that if you believe in your idea, and the support is there, you should be able to get enough people to volunteer to tilt at your windmill. Of course, I have no idea how that squares with the current legal concept of money=free speech.

 

Tash, I sure there are any number of people here who would prefer to refer to you as "biatch" but thanks for supporting the cause!

[ClimbingPanther]

The only “person” who can judge a sin in Christianity is God.

 

So when a Christian person claims that homosexuality is a sin, they are in fact acting like a “god” by their judgement, and this act of judgement violates the first commandment whereas it states “There shall be no other Gods before me.” Only God can make a judgement on sin.

 

In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief! Maybe this does make logical sense, but you're first statement is not even true. The only "person" who is an ultimate source of morality and truth is God, but if by "judge" you mean reiterate God's morality, then the Bible makes no such prohibition against "judgment;" au contraire, we are commanded to do so.

[tvashtarkatena]

Tash, I sure there are any number of people here who would prefer to refer to you as "biatch" but thanks for supporting the cause!

 

After what I've been called so far, I'd consider "biatch" a term of endearment.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[chucK]

In my opinion, we should remove the phrase "marriage" from all law, and make all the legal and contractual piece of things attached to the "civil union" concept. The churches (of all types) can have the term "marriage" as a non-legally-binding ceremony honoring whatever they choose to enshrine. I certainly don't think any church should have to marry any two individuals they choose to reject, whether it's two people of the same sex, or one of the pair who isn't jewish/catholic/muslim/lutheran/whatever. Separation of church/state spirtual/legal is the best protection for everyone, whatever their belief.

 

Word. That is just a fantastic idea. If I didn't hate entire idea behind initiatives/referendums so much I'd suggest that you start gathering signatures. Failing that, those of us who think that this is a good idea should share it with our representatives via a letter or two.

 

Totally agreed. Except for the sizeable minority who feel all homosexuals should be vaporized (excepting, of course, those that they actually know, personally), this debate is merely fighting over a word.

 

Gay-marriage opponents feel that heterosexual marriage is somehow soiled if homosexual marriage shares the same term. (A bit analogous to denizens of this board objecting to some groups labeling themselves "climbers") Conversely, gay-marriage advocates feel gay couples are belittled if they aren't allowed to share the word.

 

I heartily endorse Off White's proposal!

[JayB]

"If you laid off the post-modern language generator a bit, perhaps you wouldn't so readily confuse yourself.

 

As I've clearly stated in a non post-modern fashion, I am not of the opinion you've outlined above at all.

 

If the KKK, or any other group came out if favor of gay marriage, I would support that endorsement for the same reasons I support my own; it is in accord with the equal protection clause. My objection any argument against gay marriage, regardless of the proponent, is because it violates the equal protection clause. I have an additional objection to the objection of gay marriage by many religious groups because they explicitly use biblical references to support their position. 'Ergo' they are proposing to violate the equal protection clause based on purely religious beliefs...a clear violation of the separation of church and state."

 

 

 

I actually don't think the separation of church and state is compromised in any fashion by the existence of people who ground either their support of or opposition to particular policies in their particular religious perspective. What matters is the policies themselves, not the motivations or perspectives of the people who happen to support them.

 

If would be more accurate for you to say that you base your objection to people using bibical references to support their position on your private perception of what constitutes separation of church and state, rather than what the founders actually intended or the law actually states.

[tanstaafl]

 

i stand corrected! but you are a particularly unique individual

 

thanks ...but maybe not as unique as you think. I know many, from yuppie Seattle liberals to a 72-year old rural Baptist minister's wife. they're out there.

[tvashtarkatena]

I actually don't think the separation of church and state is compromised in any fashion by the existence of people who ground either their support of or opposition to particular policies in their particular religious perspective. What matters is the policies themselves, not the motivations or perspectives of the people who happen to support them.

I've violently agreed with you on this point so many times I've lost count.

If would be more accurate for you to say that you base your objection to people using bibical references to support their position on your private perception of what constitutes separation of church and state, rather than what the founders actually intended or the law actually states.

 

No, it would be more accurate for me to state my positions in exactly the way I've already stated them. Your failure to properly comprehend those statements is none of my concern.

Edited November 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

 

i stand corrected! but you are a particularly unique individual

 

thanks ...but maybe not as unique as you think. I know many, from yuppie Seattle liberals to a 72-year old rural Baptist minister's wife. they're out there.

 

Praise the Lord....

[tanstaafl]

The only “person” who can judge a sin in Christianity is God.

 

So when a Christian person claims that homosexuality is a sin, they are in fact acting like a “god” by their judgement, and this act of judgement violates the first commandment whereas it states “There shall be no other Gods before me.” Only God can make a judgement on sin.

 

In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief! Maybe this does make logical sense, but you're first statement is not even true. The only "person" who is an ultimate source of morality and truth is God, but if by "judge" you mean reiterate God's morality, then the Bible makes no such prohibition against "judgment;" au contraire, we are commanded to do so.

 

eh? I remember "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" but I seem to have forgotten the part where I was commanded to judge.

[ClimbingPanther]

I just can't stand the constant criticizm and hatredz leveld at me any more. Why can't you liberals stop being so mean to me??? I can only take so much verbal abuse!!!

 

Wait... what verbal abuse?

 

Off-topic a little, but...

I get annoyed at all the lashing out that seems to happen on this board from both "sides." It's largely absent from this thread, and that's cool. We should all discuss things this maturely more often I'm learning stuff I wouldn't have if I had the wrong attitude, and I'm sure I'm not the only one

[minx]

I just can't stand the constant criticizm and hatredz leveld at me any more. Why can't you liberals stop being so mean to me??? I can only take so much verbal abuse!!!

 

Wait... what verbal abuse?

 

Off-topic a little, but...

I get annoyed at all the lashing out that seems to happen on this board from both "sides." It's largely absent from this thread, and that's cool. We should all discuss things this maturely more often I'm learning stuff I wouldn't have if I had the wrong attitude, and I'm sure I'm not the only one

 

nope you're definitely not the only one learning stuff. i like discussions like this. mostly mature with a small side of sarcasm.

 

it's definitely eye opening to read the views of other people. i always find it interesting

[tvashtarkatena]

I get annoyed at all the lashing out that seems to happen on this board from both "sides." It's largely absent from this thread, and that's cool. We should all discuss things this maturely more often I'm learning stuff I wouldn't have if I had the wrong attitude, and I'm sure I'm not the only one

 

I can't believe you have to gall to assault my painstakingly and lovingly constructed hatred of christianity.

 

But seriously, the conversation is a bit richer when fewer 'fucktard's, 'asshat's, 'just like a damn liberal's, 'far right wingnut's are issued.

 

Compare this discussion to the national political discussion on the same issue and weep.

 

A certain good natured 'frankness' does provide some spice, though.

[catbirdseat]

The only "person" who is an ultimate source of morality and truth is God, but if by "judge" you mean reiterate God's morality, then the Bible makes no such prohibition against "judgment;" au contraire, we are commanded to do so.

Gosh, you sound like you are actually serious about this. As I see it, morality may come from God, but God is man's construct. Therefore, morality comes from man.

[tvashtarkatena]

Therefore, morality comes from man.

 

The source of morality is arguable based on religious/non-religious beliefs. One thing I think we can all agree on is that internalizing a moral code and acting on it, regardless of the source of that code, is clearly man's choice.

[JayB]

If you ask me, religion is much more of a choice than sexual orientation.

 

Jay, I'd start an initiative on the idea of getting the government out of the marriage business if I didn't think I'd wind up in the same bin of "human interest stories" as the guy to tried to float an initiative to ban "irritating daytime running lights on cars."

 

I do understand your antipathy to the way the initiative process has panned out in WA state. What do you think of the idea to ban paid signature gatherers? It seems to me that if you believe in your idea, and the support is there, you should be able to get enough people to volunteer to tilt at your windmill. Of course, I have no idea how that squares with the current legal concept of money=free speech.

 

Tash, I sure there are any number of people here who would prefer to refer to you as "biatch" but thanks for supporting the cause!

 

 

I hate the initiative process for a few reasons, none of which really have anything to do with particular policy outcomes. The first reason is that I think that drafting good legislation to address complex problems requires mitigating way too many conflicting perogatives and interests for even the most responsible citizen to ponder in their spare time, and often requires a considerable degree of specialized expertise that's in short supply in the general population. This is one of the main reasons why we have full-time representatives and committee's etc, because the general public simply doesn't have the time or the expertise or the mandate to make informed decisions on most micro issues like assessing twelve different transit options. Circumventing this process by means of a direct popular vote leads straight to the Eyemanesque retardation that has prevailed in Washington State.

 

The second reason I hate initiatives and referendums is that it allows politicians to weasel out of making tough, controversial votes by saying "Let the people decide." If you are a politician you should be expect to make these calls for the record so that people can accurately asses your performance and perspective, and vote for or against you on that basis. "Letting the people decide" is shirking the fundamental responsibiliy of their office and depriving them of the right to have an informed decision made on their behalf.

 

The final reason I hate initiatives is that I have trouble with the idea of a majority having the right to determine the rights of a minority via a direct popular vote. I'm much more comfortable having the instantaneous popular will filtered through a full accountable legislature and subject to scrutiny by the judicial branch.

 

I vote no on all initiatives and referenda regardless of whether I agree with the legislation or not.

[ClimbingPanther]

I knew I should have just let that post die. This is kinda off topic now, but by stefan's definition of "judge" being "claim[ing] [insert moral issue here] is a sin," try this on for size:

 

Ephesians 5:11

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

 

11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;

 

The whole issue of "judgment" and what it means can be the subject of lots of debate, which probably doesn't belong here.

 

Suffice it to say that by claiming something is wrong based on the Bible's definitions of morality, you are not judging, rather you're informing someone else of God's previously-issued judgment.

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree with all of this. The initiative process seems to be a form of uninformed, special interest democracy.

 

Are there any states that do not have an initiative process?

[tvashtarkatena]

Suffice it to say that by claiming something is wrong based on the Bible's definitions of morality, you are not judging, rather you're informing someone else of God's previously-issued judgment.

 

The hitch comes when they differ in their interpretation of the bible or do not believe in the bible at all.

[minx]

Suffice it to say that by claiming something is wrong based on the Bible's definitions of morality, you are not judging, rather you're informing someone else of God's previously-issued judgment.

 

This is the point where discussions between many christians and those with more secular views breakdown. ..the supposition is that b/c it is in the bible it is right and there can be no arguing the point. i don't believe in the existence of god therefore i can't accept that foundation for an argument.

[ClimbingPanther]

Yeah, I'm with you on the initiative thing too. People don't have time to read and fully extrapolate all the consequences like legislators are elected to do. Like that stupid nuclear material transport initiative which, had it not been suspended, would have put out of business [or relocated out of state] the medical isotope research company here in the Tri-Cities.

[ClimbingPanther]

This is the point where discussions between many christians and those with more secular views breakdown. ..the supposition is that b/c it is in the bible it is right and there can be no arguing the point. i don't believe in the existence of god therefore i can't accept that foundation for an argument.

 

yup. kinda makes for an impasse, doesn't it?

there is a solution...

[tvashtarkatena]

The initiative process resembles a form of simplistic parlor politics that goes something like "if I were king for a day I'd..." Affected constituencies are not consulted, unintended consequences are not considered, and legal ramifications are ignored.

 

These are all considerations that legislators must consider under public pressure. Big difference in outcome.

 

We've just witnessed over the past six years what happens when the executive branch puts into affect a similarly insular and ill thought out agenda.

 

How about an initiative to ban initiatives?

[tvashtarkatena]

yup. kinda makes for an impasse, doesn't it?

there is a solution...

 

True. We atheists will welcome you with open arms.