The need to force everyone to conform to one side's opinions and standards
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): The need to force everyone to conform to one side's opinions and standards
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I am very curious about something. Why do certain groups feel that their way is the only way, and that EVERYONE must follow their choices? Things like Pro-life, prayer in schools, legalization of marijuana, etc. Why can't we all just live and let live?? If you are against something, the beauty of this country is you have a choice. Why do pro-lifers feel abortion should be outlawed, simply because *YOU* don't approve? Can't you just abstain? How about sex education. Those who think it should be abstinance only in schools, what is the harm in giving children ALL the information they need, and allowing the parents to instill their personal values on their children? The one thing I hate about this country is the people who feel everyone should live by their standards, and want to rob the rest of America of the right to choose. I understand having strong feelings about things, but trying to sway the laws about personal choices is unfair. I was always taught people didn't have to be the same, or agree on everything, but everyone in entitled to make their choices. Why does that offend so many people? It seems like we're turning into a fascist country, and that is not something I want to be a part of. Why can't we live and let live, and make decisions for our OWN families?!
Oh, lordy, Crystal, have you opened a hornet's nest or what? In general, I agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that you have opened up a hornet's nest.
Part of it, I think, is that people who send their children to public schools don't want their children exposed to things the parents don't believe in, or believe is morally wrong. I understand that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I sure do understand it.
And, people don't want "my tax dollars" going to support something they believe is morally wrong. Again, I understand that. And again, I don't agree with it. There are a lot of Quakers, for example, who don't pay federal income tax or withhold a portion of the income tax due that they feel is equivalent to what the government is spending on "war", out of strong moral convictions. And they usually wind up either having IRS liens placed against their bank accounts or houses, or even going to jail. I'd love to be able to direct, specifically, how my taxes are spent, but that isn't practical in running a government. And taxes are what we pay to have government services - both those we want and those we don't approve of. It's the price of living in a large community and the only way out of it is to buy an island that isn't part of any nation. I'm not sure how well one could live in such a circumstance, but I think that's the only way to manage it.
As long as we have a democratic society (actually, a republic), where people are used to the idea of "majority rule", we are going to have people trying to get laws changed or enacted to reflect their personal moral values. That's nothing new. The value of our constitution and the literal supremacy of the Supreme Court is that the minority is generally protected - not always in a timely manner, and not always, but generally.
What distresses me more than people trying to persuade elected representatives to enact certain kinds of laws, or even candidates campaigning on what they call "moral values", is that we have become such a drastically divided nation. I blame the candidates for that to a great extent, and I also blame "talk radio", which has become a ranting place for the most extreme examples of any particular viewpoint, without regard to fact, law, or anything even remotely rational. It is only because we are so drastically divided, with very few people seeing or even wanting to see that there is a middle ground or trying to find compromises, that you are seeing these efforts to enact "this is what I believe is right and so it should be a law".
For example, on the issue of abortion - in my opinion and in the opinions of a lot of people far better educated and more knowledgeable than I, far fewer women would seek or feel they need to seek abortions if there was adequate, fact-based sex education in schools and adequate birth control was made available to any person over the age of, say, 16, who declares that s/he is or intends to be sexually active. (Yes, I know 16 is far too late, but I'm also thinking viscerally here.) But a lot of the same people who are anti-abortion are also anti fact based sex education in schools. Yes, I agree, abstinence is the best birth control there is, and I also think it is mentally healthier for people to abstain from sex until they are at least adults, even if not married. But that hasn't happened for the last 50 years, and isn't going to happen. Reportedly, what does happen with young people who take these vows of abstinence is that they engage in a variety of sexual activities which don't include actual penetration, and think they are fulfilling their vows of abstinence - and for one thing, doctors are seeing a lot of STDS and other kinds of infections in teenagers arising from oral sex. It was recently reported that a legislator in one state is trying to pass a law requiring all medical facilities to report any underage girl who is having sexual relations because it is automatically sexual abuse and possibly statutory rape (even if her partner is exactly her age). That will sure stop those girls from asking about birth control. So if the goal is to stop or reduce abortions, couldn't there be a compromise on birth control and sex education? Obviously not.
There are similar compromises possible for some of the other issues you mentioned, but I'm not going to make another really, really really long post today (or at least I'm going to try not to).
LOL Crystal! Ditto you and ditto Ginny!
Ame
This is a hornet's nest! I do wish everyone could just do their own thing. Especially with religion. I have no problems with any religion, I only have a problem with people who go around telling others they are wrong. Each person's spirituality is so special and I think it's incredibly sad that some people actually go around telling others their way is the only way.
As far as politics go. I don't think any normal citizens even know what's going on with most of it because all we hear is through the media, and let's face it the media is somewhat untrustworthy.
 Groove
Ginny, I know I opened up a nest here, but I really want the answers. I don't want MY tax dollars going to aid other countries when our own people need help as well. I don't want my tax dollars going to public schools who provide inadequate educations, especially since I decided to homeschool. However, we have an obligation as a society to pay taxes. If you don't want your kid exposed to something you believe is wrong, you are the parent, and can choose to pull them from that area. For example, you believe dissection is wrong, teachers are obligated to give an alternative project to those who choose to abstain. You believe sex ed is wrong, you can ask that your child not attend classes where birth control is discussed. You don't like the teachings of evolution? Pull the kids from that class. Better yet, SEND YOUR KID TO AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL!! Public school is not meant to cater to individuals, it's meant to educate on facts, teach on a real world level. Religion and personal preference have no place in legislation, because we are all entitled to our own beliefs, and the freedom to exercise them. You (a general you) may believe masterbation is wrong, and it's fine to teach your children that. I, however, think it is natural, so when my children are touching themselves at an inappropriate time, I tell them it's ok, but only when they are alone, so they can go to their room if they'd like to continue. That's MY personal parenting preference, and I do not begrudge anyone of their opposing opinion. Does that mean masterbation should not be discussed in Sex Ed classes? School is not the absolute, it's our JOBS as parents to discuss what the kids learn, and convey OUR personal moral standpoints.
I'm so happy about how honest you are Crystal. I don't know anyone my age that teaches their kids masterbation is wrong anymore. To me, and this is just MY opinion,it's silly to tell your children it's bad to do something that is human nature. It only causes unstable guilt ridden kids who have to hide things from their parents. I really praise you for being so honest with such a sensitive topic, especially with a topic that is so poorly accepted by the religious community.
Groove
Thanks Groove. I'm not a religious person, which makes it a little easier for me to handle, but IMO it's something babies start doing in infancy, and it's considered normal then, so what is the difference. A place and time for everything!!! And again, as for the parents who object to their children learning about it, kids will learn about things on the streets if you don't teach them first. If you disagree with a topic taught at school, have a discussion about it!! Stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone by denying children the knowledge. That goes for every "taboo" or "debatable" topic.
I think that, when presented with all the same identical facts, many people still see things differently. It's human nature.
As far as society goes, yes, it is the beauty of this nation to have freedom of choice. But it can also be a curse. There used to be a set of standards by which everyone voluntarily lived, and for the most part, we all got along. (I take exception to civil rights issues- we definitely had a few bumps in the road with regard to that.)
I mean, yes, everyone can live by their own principles. But only to a point. There have to be guardrails in society, or the result is chaos. For instance, suppose it wasn't in my set of values to stop at red lights. I would cause chaos everywhere I went. So, I choose to follow the rules of the road. They are there for several purposes- to protect me, to protect others on the road with me, and to maintain order and traffic flow.
Having a set of morals, values, principles, and ethics to live by is much like abiding by the rules of the road; our guardrails, if you will. In today's society, many people have chosen to disregard certain principles and choose to keep others. So, I see many people going off the road and crashing and burning, and many conflicting sets of values causing disagreement and unrest between our neighbors.
Now, I am not suggesting that MY standards are the CORRECT set of standards to live by. But there once was a time when most everyone strived to do their very best. Everyone has flaws. But at least they tried.
As far as religion, I agree that each person's spirituality is precious to them, and I wouldn't dare take that away from them, even if I might believe that my religion is the "right" one or the "correct" one. However, as I stated in a previous thread a while ago, in Christianity, which is the religion of a majority of the citizens in the US, we are supposed to "go forth and be fishers of men" meaning to spread the word. So, when given the opportunity, I may attempt to relate my religion to someone else.
Ginny, I am curious about a couple of things you said. When you say you blame "talk radio", do you mean both conservative and liberal talk radio? I hear just as many radical points of view on the floor of the senate (cspan) as I do in talk radio. I listen to both liberal and conservative, tho mainly conservative.
Couldn't the divide in this country also be the result of a political party that has maintained a majority in our government for 4 decades and is now losing that majority? Could it be that they are pulling out all the stops to create this divide in an effort to regain power?
Why blame talk radio? Why not blame the millions of people who listen and who demand that their local radio stations carry such programs? Aren't the radio waves still subject to the force of the free market?
Second, are minority rights merely protected or are the majority rights being over ridden by the political swing of the courts? For instance, as I mentioned, the majority of Americans are Christian. But there has been at least one court that I have heard of that has in fact ruled that the words "under God" are not to be recited in school. Isn't that going a bit over the line and, rather than merely protecting minority rights, it in fact dictates minority rule to the majority?
Okay, I may have gone too far here. This is off-topic now. Sorry. But I had to ask.
Lisa, I agree with much of what you say. Here's where I kind of differ or want to respond.
Yes, I mean both liberal and conservative talk radio - and their listeners and participants. And both liberal and conservative pacs and organizations with political goals and strong political language. I send my political dollars to specific candidates or to the DNC, not to Common Cause or Move On, because I don't like the tone of Common Cause and Move On and think they are simply buying into the kind of language and tone started by (imo) Rush Limbaugh.
I don't agree that the divide is a result of the long Democratic majority in Congress. I think it is more a result of the success of Newt Gingrich and his colleagues, who demonstrated to the Republican party that it could get votes by being nasty. Not that Democrats haven't joined in the same sort of thing - they just do it so poorly and don't have the party unity to pull it off.
The "under God" thing - that's part of the Pledge of Alliegance (though a fairly recent addition - post WWII and, I think, post Korean War). Yes, there is this guy in California who persuaded a lower court that requiring his daughter to recite "under God" as part of the Pledge was a violation of the First Amendment. This judge was later overruled by a higher court (which is how the system works) and subsequent appeals by the guy to the next levels of courts failed.
Yes, the constitution "dictates" minority "rule" to the majority, by protecting the rights of the minority against the majority. And that the majority of citizens define themselves as Christian makes it even more important to protect the rights of non-Christian citizens against the wishes of the majority. The founders, bless their hearts, saw the danger of "majority rule" from the beginning, saw that "majority rule" could impinge on and affect the rights of citizens who were not in the majority, and decided that protecting the rights of the minority was sufficiently important to imbed it in the constitution. Of course, they had had recent experience with many of the situations banned in the Bill of Rights - a state sponsored religion funded by tax dollars, banning and persecution of forms of worship that were not approved by the state, forcible housing of troops in civilian homes, search and arrest without warrant, jailing without trial or without trial by jury, laws and regulations that favored one group and discriminated against another, and so on. So they pretty much knew what to guard against.
As an example you can probably relate to, there is a strong wing of the evangelical, conservative Christian movement that does not allow women to be ordained and believes that women should be subject to their husbands or fathers and not in positions of being "over" men. What if this became the majority and attempted to get laws that barred women from positions of authority? How would you feel then about the Constitution and the courts protecting the rights of the minority.
As for talk radio and free market. Yes, sadly, talk radio shows get a lot of listeners, and demographics drive the advertising dollar. Which is why when Howard Stern couldn't be on public TV any more because he is so raunchy and offensive that the network that carried him decided it wouldn't risk further major fines, he was almost immediately snapped up by a cable-type network, which isn't subject to the same constraints because people pay for it rather than hear it free, so they make a choice to listen. Once upon a time the airwaves were considered to be owned by the "public" (which they still are), because there were limited frequencies and the audience was the general public. Once upon a time broadcasters were regulated, and when they applied for licenses there were public hearings where any citizen could comment on whether the broadcaster was meeting its published plans to meet its civic duty. Once upon a time broadcasters had to broadcast a certain percentage of news, public service programs, and children's programming. Once upon a time, when a broadcaster "published" a particular point of view on a political issue, the broadcaster had to give matching free time to opposing points of view. But we deregulated. And now we have radio and TV free to appeal to the lowest common demoninator. I don't know about anyone else, but I watch very little TV, because I find most of the shows too violent, too sexually suggestive (and more than suggestive), or simply too inane. But, the broadcasters will tell us, that's what people watch and they are in the business of selling advertising, so that's what they will produce. I call it pandering. If we applied the same reasoning to the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no question about legalizing marijuana or other "drugs of choice", because it would be a free market.
Your welcome Crystal. I would never consider myself a religious person, but I am very spiritual. I was brought up Christian but always questioned it, and then when I was 18 I went to China. I saw all the people living there. Most people much more kind, accepting,forgiviging, and with stronger bonded families than those I had seen in the US. I started talking to them and asking them what they believed in. Most answered with "Myself of course!" While I was there I decided one way to "God" could not be possible, all those great people were not going to go to hell for being raised in a society which doesn't teach Christianity openly. I came home and flooded myself with religious books. I read the Bible again, this time with an open mind, not with the blinders I had been born with, then I read the Koran, many Buddhist and Taoist books, I meditated for at least an hour a day, then I took a class on the 5 major world religions. During that two years I focused almost solely on what I was going to believe in. I've never been one to take people for their word, I've always had to experience things for myself to really believe in them. So this is the road I've chosen. The conclusions I came to in my study is that most religions focused around one "higher power" or "concept" whether you call it God, energy, Allah etc... and in most of them there were people like Jesus or Buddha who were living on this earth to speak of love. LOVE for me is the bottom line, not whether you were baptised or any other religious technicality. Love yourself, love others. That is the main point to most religions, and in my opinion should be for life. I now have unshakable faith and also acceptance of others beliefs. I wrote in one of the posts here that I don't care if someone wants to worship the Cocoa Pebbles god, if that makes them a better person and more able to love themselves or others. Anyway I've kind of gone on a tangent here. But it sounds like your focus for your kids is love and you can never be wrong if that's the case.
Groove
Crystal,
I have to say I am much like you!
Let people live how they choose. Your way may seem right for you but it may not be right for someone else. Your children will learn lots of things at school, that you may not discuss in your home. This world is crazy, so I truly believe it is our job as parents to explain what goes on in greater depths then our parents ever had too! Its sad, but its necessary.
Groove,
I was also brought up in Christian churches. I've been a member of Methodist and Baptist churches, and have great respect for my hometown Methodist church, because they preach ACCEPTANCE. I'm tired of religions who teach hatred, and try to ostracize those who disagree, or guilt them into silence. Of course, that's a whole other topic...
BTW, in case anyone hasn't noticed, I'm in an argumentative mood lately, so anything I say is not meant to hurt people's feelings. I don't have to agree with you to respect you and consider you a friend.
Stori,
I feel like we've become too lazy as parents. We depend on schools to be the end all be all of education and moral standards, when in reality it is our job as parents. I can't see how one can have too much knowledge, it's how you discuss that knowledge with your children that forms their morals. The first bit of advice my mom gave me about teaching my children manners and respect was "Practice what you preach. They'll learn if they see you do it". Good enough for me!!
The things you mentioned are basically related to whether or not someone believes abortion is killing or not - religion or drugs. I wouldn' t expect people to have a half hearted opinion on those subjects.
If someone doesn't believe in something they should work for their beliefs following the laws of the country. That is what makes the country great and not facist. That we allow people to spout off and complain and fight and sue for anything they believe in.
Of course this part of the country is very liberal mostly. So I don't see this stuff too often.
Feona, I am confused by your statement. I'd like to discuss this further, and explore your post, but I have errands to run. I'll get back to you.
Feona, I wasn't discussing abortion on this thread, I'm simply saying the conservatives should not have the right to dictate laws saying PUBLIC schools should not be allowed to teach sex ed, or talk about other things that Christians don't approve of. If your kid learns about condoms in school, but you believe in abstinence, it's your job as a parent to convey your personal beliefs to your child. If you want to shield them from such things altogether, send them to a private religious school. I'm not saying everyone has to agree, I'm asking why certain groups feel they should be able to force their opinions on EVERYONE, rather than focus on their own lives and allow others to make their own decisions.
Extremism and intolerance can take many forms, and they are not all bad. Some Muslims from the Middle East apparently believe that certain cartoons demand a vigorously violent response. This is one example of "bad" intolerance. On the other hand, the "live and let live" crowd prevailed in the early days of the U.S. on the issue of tolerating slavery. The anti-slavery "zealots" of the days of the early U.S.republic were cast as intolerant extremists.
It seems to me that the abortion issue, like few other issues, practically DEMANDS passion, once you have made up your mind on it. If you are pro-life (does this include the death penalty?) or pro-choice (choice to do what?), your own conscience almost forces you to be "intolerant" of the opposing side, in THE SENSE OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH LAW THAT DEFENDS YOUR OPINION.
The old saying that "extremism in the defense of justice (I believe the original quote used the word "liberty" here) is no vice" is true. Unfortunately we (collectively) disagree on which side/cause is "just".
But why make it a law for EVERYONE?? If you are against it, fine, don't do it. However, I don't think zealots should choose how I live.
Crystal, what Wells is saying makes perfect sense. If you firmly believe that something is absolutely, completely, right/wrong, in this country you work to change the laws so that they conform to what you believe is absolutely right.
In the cases of abortion or homosexual marriage, the two issues about which much legislation is being discussed and passed, you have a set of people who believe that abortion and/or homosexual marriage are absolutely, completely wrong. In the case of abortion, that abortion is murder - the murder of a life or potential life. In the case of homosexual marriage, that it is a perversion of marriage and threatens the foundation of our society, the "traditional" family group based on "traditional", man/woman marriage. The people who are promoting these laws hold these beliefs in their hearts, and also believe that what they believe is wrong is wrong for everyone. They believe they are protecting something very important - life, or the foundation of society.
Given that they believe so strongly, I don't think they have any alternative but to work for laws to support their beliefs. And, while I disagree with them, I think it is a whole lot better than having people go out and shoot doctors who perform abortions or homosexual couples. Which is what happens in countries that don't have a system for changing or making laws peacefully and through "the system".
It's not a "live and let live" situation when you believe totally and absolutely that something is wrong/right (usually this happens when people believe strongly that something is wrong). A sterling example of this is Prohibition, which became a constitutional amendment. Another is the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote.
Right now the issues I mention are the subject of legislation and lawsuits. If either of them becomes a constitutional amendment, that will be decisive (unless the amendment is repealed, as happened with Prohibition).
Personally, I think you are spinning your wheels asking why. I think the "why" is perfectly clear. It's a matter of firm, strong, bedrock, deep down belief, usually rising from religious beliefs, and there is generally no way to change someone's beliefs, especially religious beliefs, by argument, rational or otherwise. I think what you need to be asking yourself (and others) is - if I don't want these laws passed, what can I do to stop them?
Zealots are nothing new, though I think I'd prefer to use the term "deeply religious people" in arguments - at least any argument where I'd hope people will listen to me, because zealot has a fairly negative connotation.
What is new, in this country, is the large percentage of the population that is committed to a particular basic set of religious beliefs and willing to spend the time, energy and money to translate those beliefs into the law of the land. This is the foundation and support of the kinds of legislation you are talking about.
I repeat - the question is not why they want to do it, but what can I do to keep them from succeeding. And the people who are trying to legislate their particular form of morality provide excellent examples of what to do - organize, support candidates with time and money, write letters to legislators, try to present your goals in terms of argument and persuasion that reach people "where they live", and vote - and make sure your like-minded neighbors and friends vote. Indifference to and non-participation in the electoral process by those who think "it doesn't matter" is what gives committed groups of people the power and ability to shape the laws.
Actually you mention pro life which is mentioning abortion.
Ginny actually described what I was thinking. Actually I noticed there is a deeping divide in country. People people seem to believe very deeply one way or another about many of the issues you discussed.
I know how much energy it takes to have an opinion or belief on anything because there is always someone who believes different than you and some people attack you for your belief or opinion if you express it. So if someone has a deep opinion or belief on something I really respect them for it because it cost them emotionally or sometimes more to have a real opinion or belief. Any opinion. I have had one or two opinions about things in my life and it always cost something.
Of course I don't respect people who would hurt other people for their beliefs or opinions.
What is a law today could not be a law tomm. There could be a federal or state changes in law. So if someone is willing to fight for the beliefs or opinion that is their choice. Actually I see some changes in the rules about things that I never thought would be changed. Sort of like chipping away at a rock.
For example in New York teens have to have parental notification on abortion ( I don't know if it concent or not). That is new.
Actually any law is in a way forcing people to comply comply with it. But you can change or chip away at any law.
I think anyone who maintains that we are or should be a "live and let live" society is thinking naively. This is a country founded on individual freedoms yes, but it has also evolved into a country where each person has individual freedom until the societal good outweighs that individual's right to "do their own thing" Once that societal good becomes paramount then usually laws are enacted to govern that particular issue or behavior. And in a democracy the majority rules.
I want so bad to answer but I don't have time.
So no one post anything til I get back!
Honestly, I was just kidding! Anyone could have posted, and I wouldn't be upset. I mean, like, what could I do?
I totally agree with Michelle. It is rather irrational to believe that we could all live in a society of "live and let live" where any and all behavior is without subject to some restraints and/or judgement.
Just look, for instance, at the thread about the protestors at the soldier's funeral. Everybody jumped all over the protestors and it was pretty much a general consensus on that thread that the protestors were just plain WRONG. But if we lived in a society of "live and let live" then what right do we have to say that the protestors were wrong? Both sides in that article can't be right without their actions having negative affects on eachother. It just isn't a viable reality.
The problem that conservatives have with issues such as abortion and gay marriage isn't simply one of Christian values. It is also one of judicial activism. The decisions that have been made allowing abortion and gay marriage have been made by the courts, not by a vote of the people. There were never any laws passed in a congress of elected representatives regarding either of these issues. The judges/justices who made these decisions without the blessing of the voters are said to have promoted their personal policy preferences by way of the bench.
So now I must ask you, how is that any different than what you are upset about? Those of us who may not agree with gay marriage or abortion rights are upset because these issues have been forced upon us by a court that has acted on the personal policy preferences of certain judges who were sympathetic to these causes. The wishes of the voters are bypassed in this manner in an effort to promote an agenda that could possibly be defeated if it were put to a vote.
Conservatives feel the need to include everyone in what they feel is the right thing because they are trying to initiate moral change in a nation that they feel has gone morally awry. This may explain why voters elected the republicans who conrol congress and the administration. (The ? is, can the conservatives hold on to that majority?) It goes to reason that voters are shifting their values towards more conservative Christian ones, and are reflecting that in their choices for leaders through the process of elections. Either that or conservative voters are finally finding their voices and are organizing themselves to effect a change in the direction of the country.
So, as Ginny said, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Run for a local office, donate money to the campaign of the candidate fo your choice whom you believe will work to keep your tax dollars here in the US or change schools for the better, organize a campaign drive in your neighborhood, take part in a basic grassroots effort to get the people elected who reflect your values and beliefs. That is what makes this country great- the ability and the will of the people to participate in their government rather than stand by and allow laws and decisions that you don't approve of to be made without your consent.
On a side note, with regard to sex ed, I do agree that it is the responsibility of the parents to enforce the morals that they want their children to have. Unfortuantely, in recent decades, it seems that children have not had the parental guidance that they need, and it shows itself in the schools. More and more, parents have relied on the schools to teach these life lessons. That may be changing, now, but it just hasn't been a reality for a long time.
I just think this should be a country of options, and that individuals should make their own decisions, provided they do not impeded on the rights of others. There are plenty of things that annoy the crap out of mr or make me see red, but I ignore tham, and continue to teach my children MY beliefs, and explain the beliefs of others. I don't think lawmakers should have the right to dictate everyone's actions based on their own (often religious) beliefs.
Crystal, the question is, is the issue a matter of personal preference, or do some legal issues arise? In the matter of homosexual marriage, marriage is presently a legal status with a whole lot of attendant matters, like taxes, property ownership, inheritance, guardianship of children, health insurance, etc., etc. And the granting of "partner" status doesn't cover all of these things, particularly whether a couple is filing as two single persons or one married couple for IRS purposes. So the same-gender persons who want "married" status are pressing for laws or for clarification of laws through the courts, and those who are morally and religiously affronted by this are opposing them and attempting to engrave the rule of man/woman only marriage in stone by imbedding it in the constitution and crying "judicial activism".
Same for abortion - those who believe that life begins at conception want legal personhood to begin at that time; Roe v. Wade says no.
There are a whole lot of other issues out there that don't rise to the status of legislation but are left as matters of personal choice, or there was legislation which has since been overrruled by the courts (birth control, sexual relations between persons of the same gender, as examples).
I suggest, Crystal, that you accept that for significant groups of people, some issues are bone-deep, bedrock issues and they want to see their position made law. Some because "majority rules", some because it is a "justice issue", some because it is a moral issue that they believe affects the fiber of the nation. Arguing with someone's belief is usually pretty fruitless (as much fun as it may be some times). You can, sometimes, reason to a slight change or slight compromise, working incrementally. But on the whole, if you don't like what's happening, follow the old union motto "Don't mourn, organize!"
I am certainly not trying to change anyone's mind, I just cannot understand why people are so concerned with other's business. For example, gay marriage.
Who cares (as a heterosexual couple) is a gay "married" couple gets the same legal rights as a traditional marriage? As it stands, many gays have false marriages to another gay of the opposite sex, just to get the rights they are entitled to. It just seems silly. I don't care what anyone does in their life, provided it doesn't physically or emotionally harm me, so why do some people care so much? I suppose it's a rehtorical question, or at least one that is cannot come to a difinitive answer.
I agree with Crystal here, with the addition of saying I disagree with Michelle that it is naive thinking. I think it's positive thinking and the way people should be. I am anything but Naive, and through all my trials I have come to the conclusion that Crystals way of thinking is the correct way. It shows the most love and compassion. It is not because I am Naive but the opposite, because I'm well educated.
I think it's a moral issue Crystal. If you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, then there's no way you want that to become legalized. Likewise from a parent perspective, if you think gay marriage is morally wrong, you don't want to explain to your child that "Hey, gay marriage is morally wrong but we live in a country that allows it because basically you can do whatever you want here with no morals, rules, or code of ethics because here, anything goes". How can we teach our children that yes, lines are drawn *somewhere at some point*, you know? For me, as a completely pro-life, anti-choice person, I'm going to say to my daughter (based on my beliefs) that "yes, we allow murder of unborn babies in the United States, but child molesters walk free. In the US dear Natalie, you can't murder your neighbor without punishment, but you can murder an innocent unborn child." That is a completely factual statement to her from my perspective. Will I be friends with my fictious neighbor whos had 5 abortions? Absolutely! Is it my business? No way. But when it comes to laws, you can bet that it's a serious issue with me and I will try to make my voice heard.
(This is not necessarily my opinion on gay marriage, I'm just using your example.)
However, the country is founded on freedom, and even if you think it's morally wrong, what give you the right to force everyone into your morals?? (that's a general you) Morals aren't meant to be laws, they are meant to be passed on by parents and personal beliefs.
But the fact that abortion is legal forces me into someone else's morals. Doesn't that go both ways?
No, because your morals allow you to CHOOSE not to have one. Morals are about making choices. Is it right to cheat on a test? Well if your morals say no, then you don't do it. Is it right to lie? Same thing, morals dictate whether you are a liar or not. Is it ok to cheat on your spouse? Morals are whatt guide you in your personal decisions. So, even though abortion is legal, your personal morals say you'd never do it, and that's fine. It's not like abortion being legal means you're FORCED to have one, you still have freedom of choice.
I see what you're saying Crystal, but to me it's murder. A crime that is punished in every other circumstance. I sit stunned that we allow murder to take place here...the freedom to choose to murder fits one scenario (unborn children) but not every other one (shooting your neighbor). I can cause my cigarette smoke to affect others, even though they aren't choosing it, but I get ticketed if I don't wear my seat belt. What??? I think smoking is wrong for a number of reasons and I don't do it, but because it is legal to smoke in my face at Applebee's, I'm going to get lung cancer...you know? My health is affected by someone else's bad decisions, so I think there should be a law that says public smoking is illegal. (Which I know it is in some states, but not mine.)
I also feel like now this is getting pretty specific to the topic of abortion, which is a really tough one for me. Not sure this is where you were really wanting this to go or not, I just kind of ran with the abortion thing!
More generally, I just think there have to be boundaries. There has to be a right and wrong or what society become? I personally think one reason the US is in such a sad state of affairs morally, financially (meaning individuals and their finances), and the status of public education is VERY MUCH based on the fact that "everything" is okay if that's what you believe in. Everybody do what they want and what they feel good about and that will be great for everyone. I think it is rearing its ugly head as the downfall of our country. That's just my opinion though, and I hope I said that in an understandable way!!
One more thing I thought of when I washing dishes ...morals are what guide some of our most basic laws. Murder, theft, violence against others and their property, even having multiple spouses at the same time (I can't think of the word for it right now). Morals guide lawmaking. Back to the gay marriage thing...man and wife are joined in marriage by law based on the Bible, which to me is about morals. The Bible established man and wife, those are still our laws for the most part, and so they have been guided by morals. If they weren't guided by that, couldn't I hypothetically choose (with my freedom of choice) to run over my neighbor's dog because he barks non-stop and I'm getting sick of it? Maybe I don't think it's wrong to run over a dog whose a nuisance. Some animal cruelty punishments are worse than crimes against people! I just wonder where does the freedom of choice end?
You would say morals guide our laws and morals come from religion, and I agree that to some extent our laws have a foundation in the primary rules of the world's religions. But, the cultures developed those laws and, in my opinion, promulgated them through religion, because when people live in groups that involve more than one family cluster, rules are needed if they are to succeed in living together. And the only way to protect yourself from the whims or "I want it and I'm strong enough that I can take" of others is to have rules that almost everyone agrees on and for the community to enforce those rules. Sure, you could choose to run over your neighbor's dog, and your neighbor could choose to club you over the head in retaliation. But because we choose to live in the company of others (because we can't survive except by living in groups), we have rules. You don't run over your neighbor's dog because if you do there is a punishment by the community and your neighbor doesn't club you in retaliation because there is a punishment by the community. That's just practical, not moral. If you live in a community, you can't allow the individual strong person to do what s/he wants with those who are weaker, or you quickly don't have a workable community.
The Bible put forth a list of rules that are pretty much accepted in the Western world as one of the foundations of our laws (along with Hammurabi's laws, as one important example of additional sources). In other parts of the world, other religions developed, but the basic rules are still pretty much the same, whether you are following Christianity, Judaism, Islam (basic, back to the Koran Islam, not the fanatical perversion that exists in many Moslem nations today), and Shintoism, Buddhism, and other faith structures. But I think that is because the social structure found it easier to get people to accept the existance of laws and easier to enforce them if they were put forth with the pressure of a higher being (one that could punish you) behind them. "Man and wife", for example, were established long before the Bible, because that was the only way people could reproduce - and generally the woman and her children were considered the property of the man, and the man could have as many wives as he could support. Even Abraham, in the Bible, had a concubine, by whom he fathered a son.
Taking gay marriage as an example, in most of Ancient Greece, which is commonly held to be the foundation of "civilization" and of the social and political structure of the Western world, homosexual relationships were valued and treated as very important.
I read Analog Science Fiction and Fact, and have read it since I was about 14 (back when it was Astounding) because I love science fiction. I also read it because I appreciate the editorials. The most recent one, by Stanly Schmidt, posited (quite correctly, in my opinion) that morality is cultural. It's not a universal absolute.
In some cultures today, a woman who is raped is considered the criminal, not the victim, and can be stoned to death. And, until fairly recently, in our culture a woman was raped was usually deemed to have been "asking for it". Our (western world) views of the morality of the rape victim have changed significantly in the last century or two, and even in just the last couple of decades.
To believe that your view of morality is universal is, in my opinion, one short step from attempting to impose your view of what is moral and what is not on everyone else - which is exactly what the Taliban did, quite successfully for a couple of decades, in Afghanistan. The Moslems believe, by and large, that making images of human beings is generally wrong and making an image of Mohammed is particularly wrong. Thousands of Moslems are marching, rioting, demonstrating, burning embassies, and taking lives, to enforce their view of what is morally right. And they believe we are morally wrong because we allow the offending images to be printed, from our political and moral belief in the right to free expression.
I agree, we can't have "live and let live" in many areas of our lives, because we choose to live in a community (out of necessity). But in others, we can, and I think should. And I firmly believe that the idea that the way I believe is the only way to believe, and that the rules by which I live (which are informed by my personal beliefs) are the rules by which everyone should live, puts us in danger of our own home-grown Taliban.
I understand the arguments, and the thinking and beliefs behind them. I don't agree. And I don't think that any "you" should have the power or the right to impose their value structure on me in areas which I firmly believe are not matters of personal or sectarian morality, and not a universal absolute, and do not affect our ability to live productively in community. And I believe that I am arguing for the greater good, except that I don't want to impose my personal values on "you", any more than I want "you" to impose "your" personal values on me.
I think a bottom line to this thread is that in this country we DO have the freedom to BELIEVE what we want to believe. We do NOT have the freedom to DO or ACT anyway we choose. That distinction seems to be getting muddled within everyone's views. For the most part, I think that we all agree that you can believe what you want and that we don't appreciate anyone who belittles us for our beliefs or tries to impose their beliefs on us. We also seem to agree that we know we can't just go around running red lights and hitting neighbors' dogs or killing people. And finally it seems we all agree that based on our individual morals, values, and beliefs, that some of us think certain things should be laws and don't like other laws that are already in place. As Ginny posted earlier, if you have a strong enough belief in something then this country has a system in place to allow you to push to make your belief a part of the moral code or laws of this country. Ginny, excuse my liberal paraphrasing.
Most people don't realize the 10 commandments are eerily similar to the rules of Paganism, one of the oldest religions in the world.
Reecie, you're right, we can't have anarchy, but when it comes to a personal decision that doesn't affect anyone but the person or people involved, what's the need for a law? So someone can say they won? Again with gay marriage, does it REALLY affect you if two women get married? Does it cause you harm? They are allowed to live together and have relationships, but they aren't given the rights of most couples, and many have been together longer than traditional marriages. So, how is making it legal affecting the hetero world??
I think it's just that it affects the moral fiber of our country as a whole. (in yet another way). You're right Crystal, in that it doesn't harm me or my loved ones. I totally agree and I see that viewpoint. But it does say (IMO) that immorality is okay as long as everyone is happy. I think it's also saying where does it stop? When do we stop erasing the morality lines that have been drawn? That's just the way I see it.
Deanna, your morality lines are my personal privilege. I don't want to erase "morality", I want it to be something that individuals manage for themselves and parents manage for and teach to their children. I don't want "morality", epecially someone else's view of what is moral or immoral, imbedded into law.
I know, we have lots of laws that seem to be based on morality. Like laws about prostitution, or child p**n. But those laws, in my view, serve a larger social purpose. Prostitution spreads disease, prostitutes are usually under the control of and abused by their pimps (and are usually under age when they are pulled into prostitution), and are usually controlled by illegal drugs as well as physical abuse. (And, in some western nations and in one state in the U.S., prostitution is legal and regulated to attempt to guard against those issues. Children are not of the age of consent and, by any nation's standards, cannot consent to sexual activities until they reach a certain age - which is only reasonable, because a child doesn't have maturity to be able to consent and is unable to physically defend against such abuse as an adult might. I think there is general agreement in all societies that children should be protected in ways we don't deem necessary to protect adults. (And I predict some major legal battles about this issue over the question of whether p**n using computer created simulations is illegal when no actual child is involved.)
But when you have a consenting adult, or two consenting adults, that's where I think no common social purpose is served by making laws based on a particular group's view of morality. I think morality is always going to be a personal viewpoint and personal opinion (even if lots of persons hold the same view and opinion). And I agree with Crystal, in that I don't want "your" morality imposed on "my" life.
Michelle, you paraphrased accurately, except that I would say "the laws of this country", not "the moral code and the laws". I don't believe that a "moral code" should be made law unless there is a universal community/social purpose. Where *we* (the MV community and the community at large) disagree, of course, and will probably continue to disagree, is whether certain proposed laws serve a universal community/social purpose.
I guess I just respectfully disagree with both Ginny and Crystal.
Deanna, I can agree to disagree, but considering we havean amicable relationship on this board, I'm going to ask you something I have been wondering. Do you think the whole country should abide by one groups' morals? That's what it comes down to, and I understand your point of the morals of our country, but don't I have the freedom to choose my own morals? Do you think laws should reflect the morals of a particular group, and screw what the rest of us believe? I HONESTLY don;t mean that in a snarky way, I justt know you and I can discuss this without getting personally attacking.
"Do you think the whole country should abide by one group's morals?"
I think I can only answer that back in terms of the abortion thing. That is a totally moral issue to me, so IMO, I *am* abiding by a whole country's morals because this country has made abortion legal. Again, it's morally wrong to murder as long as it's not an unborn child, then it's morally okay...or at least it must be if our laws say one is illegal and the other isn't.
Overall, outside of that issue...I have to think about it. And the way you present that question definitely DOES make me think!! And I don't think this thread has been personally attacking at all either
have to go for now!
No, you are not being forced to abide by one group's morals, because you have the right to CHOOSE. That is the difference. Anti-abotionists want to remove that choice, therefore forcing their morals on others. You can boycott something you don't like in this country, but you can't always make a law to have the whole country abide by your morals.
Herre's my standpoint. I am not "pro-abortion", I'm pro-choice. I feel that what may not be the right choice for me could be for someone else, and that they shouold have the freedom to choose. No one seems to talk about the effects banning abortion would have. Before it was legal, people use horrible means to abort babies, and many women died or were seriously injured because of "back alley" abortions. Compare it to abolition... it simply did not work, and even though some people, like some Baptists, feel it is against their morals, they have the CHOICE to abstain, while the rest of the US has the choice to abstain or partake.
I needed a break, and I got busy. But I couldn't resist. I kept thinking about this thread and had a few ideas. It just so happens that Crystal hit on the very thing I was thinking.
I don't care what anyone does in their life, provided it doesn't physically or emotionally harm me, so why do some people care so much?
The only way I can answer this is by referring back to what I said earlier. Conservatives feel the need to include everyone in what they feel is the right thing because they are trying to initiate moral change in a nation that they feel has gone morally awry. Think of it this way- let's say that you saw that your good friend was doing something that you could see was damaging to herself or her well-being. Something such as gambling, which is damaging to financial well-being. Or is behaving in a se xually promiscuous manner, or is smoking/drinking/abusing drugs, which are damaging to her health and self-respect. Wouldn't you do something to try and stop her? After all, her choices aren't doing anything to harm you personally. So why would you care so much?
Crystals way of thinking is the correct way. It shows the most love and compassion.
The most love and compassion could be shown by supporting people in doing things that correct destructive behavior. If I had the above friend, I would try to show her that there is a better way, for no other reason than because I CARE. This may be the key- if we didn't have any concern for our fellow citizens, we wouldn't utter a word about their behaviors or their beliefs. We would allow them to make their own bad choices and it would be no skin off of our backs. But as committed as we are to our beliefs, we can't simply sit back and allow it to happen without at least making an attempt to show others that there is a better way.
Morals aren't meant to be laws, they are meant to be passed on by parents and personal beliefs.
There is a lot that could be said about this statement, and I am struggling to put this in the best terms. Too many parents just aren't teaching about morals in the home, for whatever reason. So kids learn from society, from movies and TV, from music and from friends. There are morals being taught in schools because of this as well. What if I don't agree with what they teach my son about morals there? Isn't the school forcing my son to conform to their opinions and standards?
I don't want to create any more drama here, so I will go for now. I tend to type faster than I can think.
It's not your (general your) job to change everyone into your way of thinking. Since when do morals equal religion? No one is asking for the right to force their beliefs on others, except conservatives. As for school, it is my opinion that school should teach facts, and when discussing theories or beliefs, ALL areas should be covered, with an explanation that it is a personal decison. Why should I be denied my rights because someone else thinks it's wrong.
For example, we believe body modification (tats, piercings) are an art form, and support the right to get them. Some people, like my parents HATE them, but they overlook it because it's not their bodies. You do you, I'll do me, and if we ALL do a better job of parenting our children, there will not be a need for this discussion.
Cocoabutter - you said so many things better than I can!! Especially your first copied statement and paragraph.
Crystal - To me (and I guess I'm a conservative??? I have no idea what those political terms mean because I'm not too political in the textbook sense!) the way of thinking that you propose just seems like anarchy to me. That's a pretty harsh word, but the best I can come up with right now anyway. Definitely there are moments when I say to myself "Why can't everyone just mind their own d*** business?", but overall I think everyone sort-of wants to be "right". And as a democracy, it only seems like a natural progression that people try to convince others of what they feel strongly about.
Taking prayer out of schools: Totally against my morals. We could NOT pray at our h.s. graduation ceremony. Restricted. Had to go outside. Someone else is imposing their morals (which somehow don't even seem to be the majority) on me. Why? Because someone felt strongly enough about that that they did something about it.
Gotta go for now
Without reading all the responses...the original question is "why do we try to convince people that one way is right over the other?" The simple truth to me is some people just need to be protected from themselves. This is shown both via conservatives (via moral things) and liberarals (via low income housing, welfare standards etc). The moral stuff is easier to pounce on because very normal sane people have such different views. But the reality is we have to have agencies like CPS and laws on car seats, because some people are just stupid and have no morals.
I think the real answer is you have to really look at those points of contention. Why does it matter if I morally think wearing red is wrong? Why do I care what someone else wears. As far as being a Christian, if you believe the Bible as we have it in written form, it very clearly states that if you don't accept Christ you go to hell. So people who are trying to convert people, are doing it out of their fear of what could happen to them. I liken that to, you know someone is driving a car with their kids unrestrained. Do you say something? Most of us would lament about it and hope for an opening. Hoping that they aren't using car seats due to stupidity, not due to a choice they are making. Because come on, people making that choice are putting their child's life at risk. This is how Christian's feel. It isn't meant to be hurtful or demeaning, it is meant to help out. I know there are people who cross that line, just like friends you have (or used to..lol) that cross that parenting line and try to make you feel bad for the choices that you have made.
As for facts being taught in schools. Quite honestly I just believe there are very very few hard facts. It is awfully hard to deny teaching about something (evolution vs creation) when there are so many people on each side. Evolution is a fact in some very real ways, but there are also some VERY big gaps. We can prove that things change and evolve, but we can't prove that we evolved from nothing. Creation has a huge following, but there are also some inconsistencies with that story (at least the one we seem to read and acknowledge). But aren't we giving out kids a lesser education by not mentioning hey, BTW there are millions of people who thing there is a higher being that created everything? This is not a Christian belief, but one that encompases every contitent, every religion and every tribal group. So it is a fact that more people believe in some sort of higher being, creation, than fully believe in evolution, so shouldn't that be included somehow?
Tho I wasn't referring to religion in schools specifically, I will say that I wouldn't have a problem with religions being taught on the basis of facts, but technically, if you want to encompass ALL religions and teach about them and the cultures connected with them, then you have to include Christianity. Now, last year when my ds was in 2nd grade, his school music teacher put together a Christmas vocal concert. She included Christian songs, Jewish songs, Kwanzaa songs, etc, with religious overtones, and it was all very well received. However, in the classroom, if a teacher were to teach about Christianity in addition to other religions and cultures, they would get thrown out of the classroom. Just last year, I remember reading about a school principal who told a history teacher that he could not use letters written by important historical figures in our nation's history because they contained references to God. He intended to present them as factual historical documents, but was forbidden. How is that fair?
I was referring to schools teaching morals. My son's school has Life Skills training, which teaches the kids about respect and self-esteem. They also teach Core Democratic Values beginning in the 1st grade, which went completely over ds' head, but it is required by the state. I personally don't think students will understand about rights until way later when they learn about how and why our country was founded and about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is also science curriculum which teaches my son that we will run out of water if our population continues to grow and if we don't conserve. It said that families should have fewer children so as not to burden the water supply.
On the other hand, our school uses National Geographic magazines for kids, a special publication for schools to use. They had an article about why we have had so many hurricanes and they presented both sides- global warming vs natural cycles, and the fact that some people believe in one theory and some believe in the other.
There is sex ed in the higher grades that does NOT teach abstinence, ONLY birth control. Now, as you say, if they are going to teach these rather controversial issues, they should teach it ALL and allow the students to decide for themselves.
If schools are going to take over teaching all of these values, they should, as you say, present ALL sides of an argument, and allow the kids to decide for themselves what is right. The problems with that are that many schools are NOT presenting ALL sides of an issue which leads me to think that they have an agenda. Another problem with that is that kids are too young and too naive to make such important life decisions without some firm direction from trusted adults, preferably from their parents.
I also never referred to morals as religious. But Crystal, you didn't answer my question- what if you had a friend who was making destructive choices in her life? Wouldn't you care enough about her to do or say something to her?
This is the way we are by nature as humans- we care about the well-being of our fellow humans. Even when they don't perceive anything wrong, we do, and we want to protect them from it. Like it or not, it's the way we are.
Deanna, I don't think it's anarchy, I'm not suggesting a lawless state. I'm what I'd consider a moderate liberal, I'm not against prayer in school, just FORCED prayer in public school.I think the people who are clamoring for "Under God" to be taken from the Pledge are idiots. I am not offended by things like that, I just want equal opportunity to make my own decisions. With the exception of abortion (because of the debate of when life starts), many things are just a matter of personal decision, they don't cause anyone HARM. There should be laws to protect people from harm, but things like civil rights (gay marriage) don't harm anyone.
Heidi, I apologize for not answering your question, it slipped my mind. I would do my best to be there for my friend, and to guide her towards help, but not force her. Why? I've been that destructive, drug-addicted, going nowhere friend. Some people turned their back on me because I wouldn't do it their way, and others tried to help without making me feel like I was being forced. I CHOSE to get better. Back to your question, I'd do the same for my friend. It's not my place to "fix" or force a change on her, but I would certainly discuss it with her and support her with some guidance. Heidi, I feel even if I decide to send my kids to public school, and they are NOT taught a diverse curriculum, it's my duty to fill it in with the rest. I'll probably be homeschooling, and fully intend to learn about all cultures and religions with my children, since I didn't learn them in school. I don't believe in God, but my in-laws are Catholic, and my parents are Methodist and Baptist, so I will teach them about all religions, and allow them to experience diversity that way. You're right, morals are not religion, but some arguments against religion are "It's against God's will, therefore immoral" type of thing. One thing I think we can ALL agree on is having a family structure who cares enough to give direction on morals and values. We just disagree on if those morals should be law.
Everyone has many good ideas and points, even if I don't agree with all of them.I feel like this is a pretty deep topic, which involves lots of controversial issues, so it *is* hard to come to one conclusion for me personally. I keep thinking of things along the lines of specific controversial issues and then the area gets very gray for me.
I will agree to disagree and gracefully exit because my brain hurts from thinking so much!
Why do certain groups feel that their way is the only way, and that EVERYONE must follow their choices?
Holocaust, slavery, infanticide in China, genocide in Ruwanda, child sex trade, children's labor laws, Tuskegee syphillis testing, women's right to vote....
That's why.
One of my favorite quotes is by Dante in Paradise Lost:
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality"
While I don't agree with the theology of the statement, I do certainly agree with the implication.
Pam, every single example you mentioned relates to harming someone, with the exception of women's right to vote. That's different than gay marriage, where it harms no one, it's a personal choice that affects only the people involved. If you support a woman's right to vote, what's so different about a homosexual's right to marry?? If it's because the Bible says so, well, the Bible doesn't give women rights to do things like vote or own land, they are basically property to their fathers, then their husbands. So, do you think women should be treated as lesser citizens because the Bible says so?
Pam, every single example you mentioned relates to harming someone, with the exception of women's right to vote.
Ah, but that's where personal experience and perspective come in...and alas your morals as well. We both may think those things hurt people, but the govt. in China may perceive infanticide as being only helpful since it keeps the population in check. The people responsible for the genicide in Rwanda thought that the Tutsis were lesser people...or maybe not even people at all, so if they aren't people or are a worthless race then to the persecutors they aren't murdering. Again, the thought with the Tuskegee incident was that these are "sexually promiscuous sorry black people" so "what does it matter if we don't treat their disease they'd die of it anyway" when actually antibiotics were at ready disposal. All of those groups thought that they were doing good---the Nazis didn't slaughter Jews to be evil for evil's sake. They did it only as a necessary step in the plan to perptuate the perfect Aryan race.
That's different than gay marriage, where it harms no one
And as for this though, again morals and faith and upbringing, etc. come in to play. I DO think gay marriage harms others in the global sense that it is the breakdown of the family---same as I feel divorce hurts and having illegitimate children hurts society as a whole. There are repercussions on down the line, even though Joe and Tom's gay marriage may not effect me personally per se, I do think it alters the society that I live in and the world that my children will inherit in a way that I am not comfortable with. (And that's not solely "because the Bible said so"...although it does)
P.S. Women in biblical times did own land and worked outside the home. You are correct that they didn't vote, but neither did slaves. Also the Bible doesn't say that women are lesser citizens. It actually says that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
Yes, the governments of those countries may have thought they were doing good for their country, but they were harming other human beings. No one should be allowed to harm another human being, although I don't consider people who commit heinous crimes and are sentenced to death "human", so they don't count.
As for gay marriage breaking down the sense of family, you mention divorce and illegitimate children as also doing the same. Well, I'm an "illigitmate child" born of wedlock. So is my husband. We had wonderful stepparents who stepped up and taught us family values. We're both also divorced, me because of an abusive ex, and him because of a cheating ex. THOSE people came from "normal" homes, my ex is Catholic, but it didn't stop him from ruining our family structure.
Now, EVEN if gays are NEVER allowed to marry, they will continue to be couples, so your children will be exposed to them. What happens if one of your sons is gay? Wouldn't you want him to have the same rights with a committed partner that "traditional" marriages do? Or do you think you can change homosexuality? In the instance of legalizing gay marriage, if you don't approveof it, it's YOUR job to teach your boys that, but why should I have to explain to my children that 2 people who love each other aren't allowed to marry because some people don't like the idea. It's not all that different than sufferage, we couldn't vote , and the men wanted to keep it that way, but we demanded to have the rights of every other American citizen, and now I think gays should have that right, too. Or do you only have rights in this country if you fit the "traditional norm"?
That said, Pam, I mean none of this as a personal attack, I understand it is a heated debate because of the huge canyon between our beliefs, but I legitimately want to understand the view from your "side of the fence".
Pam, I'm sure you realize that many of the arguments against same gender marriage are very similar to the arguments used against interracial marriage - the Bible, the danger of damage to children seeing interracial couples accepted as part of the "norm", the breakdown of society, "natural" law.
And I'm equally sure that you would be horrified and upset if someone used those arguments today against an interracial couple that wanted to get married.
Some of us see it as the same thing - a matter between two individuals, a matter of justice, and no harm to society in general.
My United Methodist church is an Affirmation church - Affirmation being the UMC organization that speaks out against the UMC policy barring ordination of "practicing homosexuals" or homosexuals in a committed relationship. My church is also the church home of Beth Stroud, the lesbian minister whose ordination was recently removed by the UMC. We have several gay or lesbian couples in our congregation, many of them families with children, and they are just like any other family, as far as I can see.
Last week I was at a meeting in which we were discussing how we can act together with other UMC Affirmation congregations in our area, and also with other churches of other denominations with the same stated principal. One thing that struck me during the meeting was the woman who called and chaired the meeting. When we were going through our year long process of deciding whether to become an Affirmation congregation (some 14 years ago), this woman, a good friend, was very much opposed to joining Affirmation. Her argument was that she was concerned about the potential effects on her two daughters. As we went through the process and she got to know gay and lesbian persons in our congregation who had been deeply hurt by the UMC and other demonination's stances on homosexuality, but didn't allow themselves to be barred from worship or the church community, she began to change. She is now one of the strongest voices and activists in our church for Affirmation, and all that goes with it.
When my son first came out to us, I was generally OK with that, with him. But I struggled with the idea of "gay marriage" and didn't like it at all. Because marriage is a sacrament, a religious ceremony, and on and on. Gradually, however, I came to see it as an issue of justice, of denying to a loving, faithful couple who had been together for nearly 20 years, and who happened to be of the same gender, the same legal rights granted to an opposite gender couple who stayed married but broke all the rules - infidelity, unloving, and often in "serial" marriages, going from marriage to marriage to marriage. I tend to think that the strength and value of marriage in our society is damaged much more by the quickie marriage/divorce of a movie star in Las Vegas than by the now 25 year plus committed relationship of Charlie and Joe. Personally, if I were making laws about marriage, something I'd require would be a 30 day waiting period after the issuance of a marriage license, and that the couple had provably met at least 90 days before they applied for a marriage license.
Let me give you specific examples of the justice issues involved.
This was a case with extensive publicity in this area about 10-15 years ago. A young woman, a lesbian in a committed relationship, had a major stroke. The couple had all the health care attorney and surrogacy documents, owned a house jointly, and had named each other the beneficiaries of their wills. Despite the documentation, the hospital granted the woman's parents the right to decide her treatment and to ban her lesbian partner from visiting. The parents had strong religiously-based objections to the relationship. The lower court upheld the rights of the parents over the rights of the two women who thought they had taken the necessary legal steps to protect their relationship. The partner offered to pay for intensive therapy for the woman; the parents refused and placed the woman in a nursing home with little therapy. A higher court overturned the lower court ruling on the basis of the legal documents, the partner moved the woman to an intensive therapy setting and later brought her home. She took a long leave of absence from her job to provide 24/7 care and therapy. The woman who had the stroke eventually made about a 90% recovery, which would not have happened in the nursing home. (And, by the way, the healthy partner could not list her sick parnter as a dependant on her income tax return.)
In a neighborhood I lived in, two gay men in a committed relationship had both been married and had children in their marriages, before coming to a realization of their gender identities. These two men foster parented babies of HIV positive women who abandoned their children at the hospital, raising and loving these babies (4 or 5 at a time) until they had passed at least three blood tests showing them HIV negative, at which point they were made available for adoption. At the same time, their former wives, for whatever personal reasons, went through extensive court battles to deny these fathers the right to visit their children on the basis of the homosexual relationship. The mothers lost, and the fathers were allowed to visit their children, but had huge legal fees to pay.
Charlie and Joe own a house jointly. When one of them dies, the other inherits automatically, but because there is no marital/family relationship, has to pay inheritance tax on the inherited half of the house, plus the inherited half of any other joint assets. Had it been Charlie and Joanne in a marital relationship, there would be no inheritance tax.
I realize the same problems arise with opposite-gender couples who choose to live together without marriage. But they choose to not get married. The examples I give above don't have that choice. It is just that lack of choice that has caused many corporations and government bodies to set up programs in which persons in same-gender committed relationships can spread their health care and other benefits to their partner. But that doesn't legally resolve the tax issues, and often doesn't resolve the issues when the question of who gets custody and decision making power arise.
Ginny, I feel that comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is apples and oranges. The closest comparison that I can come up with, but it also has its failings, is polygamy. What if a man with 2 wives if in a loving, nurturing relationship with both wives? Both wives are comfortable with and content with the husband having a second wife. The church is very uncomfortable with the notion and the triad "had been deeply hurt by the 'denomination' and other demonination's stances on polygamy, but didn't allow themselves to be barred from worship or the church community." (your words from the example above). I would be truly sad that this family had been hurt and I would hope that reconciliation between the church and the family could occur, but I would still not condone---or to use the pc term of the day, be "tolerant"---of polygamy.
You may find it hard to believe, but I really do know homosexuals in real life. One of my favorite co-workers is a lesbian, I know several gay men from high school and college, and we have a friend who is bisexual and we invited her and her son to our house for Christmas dinner. She has been very burned by the church in the past, but will come to youth worship services because she knows that she has been dealt with kindly by my DH and me. We love and care for her, but do not condone her lifestyle and would not be in favor or her marrying a woman (or even a man until she has fully come to grips with the bisexual issue so that it would not affect her marriage). I don't think homosexuals are "bad people" any more than gossips, cheaters, people who covet, etc. Unfortunately "the church" has made it the one big taboo issue and I think that is sad. However, I still think homosexuality is wrong and I won't support homosexual marriage.
Anyway, the original thread was on the live and let live mentality and why people voice their opinion. I answered that question without discussing gay marriage because the original post wasn't about gay marriage. Crystal was the one who brought up that whole can of worms and I wanted to respond to her, but this is the end of my discussion on that subject since it is tangential to the original intent of this thread. And you and I have discussed this subject a time or two before. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I surely wish we could do it in person where there is more conversational give and take.
I agree, Pam, I'd love to have this conversation face to face.
Can I just add that if yall do have this conversation face to face I just want to sit and listen??
I will say that between the two of you I always feel like the discussion is very well debated. Very rarely does my opinion change, but I love reading the discussion.
All the ladies on this post, thanks for letting me just be part of it. As Crystal said in one post above, "there is a huge canyon in our beliefs", but I do truely enjoy reading the other side. I think having beliefs to stand by is so hard to do when you never even consider the other side!
**Sigh** Do you ever get tempted to post something you KNOW would be taken down? I have that feeling right now, but I won't do it. I don't think it's a "whole can of worms" when you are admitting you want the laws to reflect your religious beliefs!! Pam, I think you missed Ginny's comparision to interracial marriage. It used to be considered "wrong" and not accepted by churches. However, we don't have to form our laws around other people's religious beliefs.
\i"However, I still think homosexuality is wrong and I won't support homosexual marriage."
Do you REALLY think gays can just not be gay? I bet there are millions of gays who wish they could be "normal", but it doesn't just work that way.
Had you said "I think being Black is wrong" you'd be torn apart for it, but just like skin color, sexual orientation isn't something one can choose.
You say you have gay friends and co-workers, but essentially you think you deserve more rights than they do, because they shouldn't be allowed to be married. You may "tolerate" them, but deep down you think they are lesser citizens who deserve less rights.
Bobbie and Ginny, I know you both warned me, and I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... again, I'll take it down if you want me to, and won't be upset if you do so.
"I don't think homosexuals are "bad people" any more than gossips, cheaters, people who covet, etc."
Pam, you are comparing homosexuality to vices that people "choose" to have. I don't think my family member "chooses" to be gay. I think she was born that way, has always been that way and will always be that way. And I think she deserves to be just as happy as anyone else. She's Catholic too , BTW, and having big issues with religion righ now because of the stance on homosexuality.
I just don't like the things you compared it to. People that gossip and people that cheat are selfish and hurting other people.
Oh boy do I not want to be in this. I just thought I would throw that in and I am going away now!
I think if we're going to debate whether being homosexual is a choice or something you're born with, then *that* debate should be started on its own.
Crystal, i think what Pam is trying to say reflects purely her beliefs. That is what this is all about, isn't it? That we all have different beliefs and can agree to disagree. Just as a note, some Christians believe that homosexuality can be "cured" so what you say about it not being something people can choose, for some Christians this is clearly not the case.
Anyway, i think Deanne is right. That is another whole debate that deserves its own post.
Sorry, i meant Deanna
Kim, I agree. Deanna/Reds, I agree. Crystal, I won't take it down (not speaking for other moderators, however), but I do think this is another discussion, about a very specific issue, and while it is one of the matters within the general question you raised, I'd like to see it in a "dedicated" thread. Maria, the issue of whether there is a "cure" for what I personally do not believe is a "disease" is another discussion.
Ya know, Pam, with you and Karen and Pam in Louisiana, and I don't know who else - who knows? I might just take y'all up on it.
That's what i wanted to say Ginny, in fact Deanna suggested it should be on another post and i agree. I just wanted to point out to Crystal that that line of thought actually exists (i am not saying i agree with it).
Yes, that line of thought does exist Maria. I know people who truly believe that. It seems that everyone has a different idea of "why" someone is gay. That's why I thought that if we were going that direction it should be on another thread.
We've actually had the homosexuality debate before, and I know some people believe it can be "cured". We saw a billboard in Lawrence, KS for a program to bring your child back to the "Godly" way of heterosexuality. It made me want to vomit. Perhaps we can revive the topic on a new thread, because I'm very interested in the thoughts of those who think it can be "cured" verses other things like race and gender. Perhaps another thread soon?
UGH! I can't keep up with you gals!
I haven't finished reading all the latest responses yet, but I ditto Kaye! There are so many good points being made, I don't think I can contribute much more to this than I already have. Everyone else has managed to make this a very enlightening experience.
I had some things to say on homosexuality, but I will save them for the next big debate thread.
Those of us who are considered conservatives generally contend that we know the right decisions based on our faith. At least, for me anyway. I just know that abortion and homosexuality are wrong because they are wrong in God's eyes. I am certain that the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination and I am certain that God considers the unborn child a person. But I also know that God still loves the homosexual and the woman who aborts her baby. Therefor, so shall I. It may be rather difficult for a non-Christian to understand. You just have to be here.
So, in a free country, making laws which protect heterosexual marriage and unborn babies may not be the right thing for us to do. After all, God gave us free will.
But what do we do with laws against murder and robbery? In the eyes of God, all sin is equal. So, why do we have laws against some sins but not others?
we don't have to form our laws around other people's religious beliefs.
I also believe that laws had to come from a basic moral code. That moral code had to come from somewhere. The question is, where? Who was the first person (or what was the first society?) to come up with a distinction between right and wrong? Sure, at some point in time it became apparent that there had to be laws regulating behavior so as to ensure that citizens could live together successfully. But how did they know what laws to make? How did they know what rights to protect? Where did the idea of right and wrong come from?
When our founding fathers declared independence from Britain, they also acknowledged that there was a Higher Power that existed in the universe that granted them their freedom. The founding fathers understood the basic rights that all humans have, and acknowledged that they came from our Creator. I believe that they put that understanding to work when they created our government, and our Bill of Rights. Therefore, I believe that laws, at least our laws, were born out of a basic understanding of Christian moral code.
The basic Christian morals were based of Pagan morals, a much older religion. So, in this country, we have cicil rights, provided we don't harm someome. An Ye No Harm, Do As Thou Wilt. Harm none.
Crys, I think to some extent it depends on whether you believe "God's law" started with Adam and Eve and the eviction from the Garden of Eden. Certainly the Bible has God talking to individuals long before Moses.
I agree with you, but I can understand that point of view.
But, many of our founding fathers were, according to their surviving writings, closet free-thinkers, non-theists and atheists, Jefferson being the most prominent among them.
The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and to a "Creator". Those are the only references to a higher authority.
The Constitution itself makes no references to God or Creator, and to religion only in the First Amendment.
Personally, I think those are somewhat tenuous references from which to claim a Christian foundation for our nation.
I agree... Those who settled on the Mayflower were mostly Quaker, but THEY had left their homeland because they wanted the right to choose religions as they pleased. In the late 1700s, as we were forming our official constitution, why do you think they made that first in their rules?? *sigh* If we are a "Christian Nation", why are we allowing immmigrants in who are not Christian?
I didn't mean to suggest that we were a "Christian Nation." Obviously we cannot make that declaration. We are, however, a nation that was born out of basic Godly principles, one of those being freedom within the boundaries of our constitution and the First Amendment in particular.
We allow immigrants to come into our nation b/c we are a nation of free people, hence the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to William Canby, a grandson of Betsy Ross: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
John Adams wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."
Samuel Adams wrote The Rights of the Colonists:
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772: " 'Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,' in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former."
Benjamin Franklin said in his Speech to the Constitutional Convention (June 28, 1787): "I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?"
I understand that Benjamin Frankilin was a Deist, "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." They believe that God is eternal and good, but flatly reject having a relationship with Him through Christ. Nonetheless, he did acknowledge that there is a basis for God's laws in governing the affairs of men. Franklin also later admitted that he had never explored the divinity of Jesus.
There are several more examples of our founding fathers' beliefs in God and how they used these beliefs in constructing our government. I do understand now, after having done this research, that there is a discrepancy when we refer to Christian values being the foundation of our government. These men didn't believe as strongly as Christians (that Jesus was the Son of God and died on the cross so that we may have eternal life in Heaven) as much as they did in a Supreme Being, in God, having granted us certain rights that cannot be taken away by any man or government. Therefore, I am perpared to specify that these men were not Christians, but I do maintain that our independence, our laws and our government are based on basic Godly beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson did have some wacky spiritual beliefs though. I don't think that he was a theist, but can't recall. I'll have to ask DH.
The leadership and driving force of the emigration lay with the adult members of the Scrooby congregation from Leiden, Holland. They were part of a group of Separatists who had fled persecution in England to live in Holland in 1608, finally settling in Leiden in 1610.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/Maysource.html
The Mayflower Covenant:
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
The Society of Friends (Quakers) was begun in England in the 1650s and 1660s. The Mayflower Covenant was entered into in 1620.
Sorry, Crystal. While I have tremendous respect for the Society of Friends, I don't believe there were any Quakers on the Mayflower. (And, as a note, they fled persecution in England only to meet persecution in the United States, and several Quakers were executed, while others were hounded out of New Englad states and fled to Pennsylvania, which was founded by a Quaker.
Thomas Jefferson was very critical of the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, etc (Christianity) and constantly reiterated that his religion and beliefs are strictly between himself and his god.
Ginny, I am a direct bloodline of William Brewster and a member of the Mayflower Society. Because of that, I am TERRIBLY embarrased for getting those facts mixed up, you are very correct. They were indeed separtists who fled the Church of England to Holland, where they then decided to come here. The official site of the Mayflower Society credits them as devout Christians who set the stage for religious freedom, not just their Christian beliefs. My Aunt would kick my butt for having made such an error in our history, she's the one who spent so much time tracing our bloodline!! **blushing**
Mayflower Society
|
Members
