Minneapolis - The New Gay! (Ely: living in, cost, vs.)

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Your nonreligion is itself a religious point of view. What's hard to understand about that?

No, it's not. At least not when looking at the issue of state law versus morality or beliefs in the home. A person should be free to believe whatever they want at home or in church; they do not, however, have the right to force those opinions on others through government. Banning gay marriage is crossing a line. There's no non-religious argument that can be made for such a ban.

When I'm at home, yes, I do believe that there is nothing wrong with people who were born gay, and I do think that their relationships should be treated with the same respect as anyone else's. Just like you, if you so choose, can certainly go home and teach your kids that being gay is against nature and is a sin. But that's different from the realm of the government. There are a lot of things out there that don't fit within my own personal code of morality, but as long as they aren't hurting other people then I believe that, despite my own personal difference of opinion, it's not the state's place to step in and tell them otherwise. And yes, you're right, I do think that gay marriage should be fully legalized, and you are right that that's not the topic at this point in time. That said, then this proposed ban is not just a neutral stance, but an overt, hostile attack on personal freedoms, and an attack on the separation between church and state. Minnesota Spring's point about pork was a good one, and very applicable. This is a nation founded on the idea of freedom, and I find it very disturbing that so many of our politicians are willing to go backwards and attempt to limit freedoms (or possible future rights). Is that the direction we really want to go? Shouldn't this discussion best be left for the private realm, and not played out in our state government?

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by southernsmoke

Your nonreligion is itself a religious point of view. What's hard to understand about that?

"My non-religion"? I'm a practicing Catholic!
Just because my church is against homosexual marriage doesn't mean that I think the views of my church should be forced upon everyone else by the government!

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

No, it's not. At least not when looking at the issue of state law versus morality or beliefs in the home. A person should be free to believe whatever they want at home or in church; they do not, however, have the right to force those opinions on others through government. Banning gay marriage is crossing a line. There's no non-religious argument that can be made for such a ban.

When I'm at home, yes, I do believe that there is nothing wrong with people who were born gay, and I do think that their relationships should be treated with the same respect as anyone else's. Just like you, if you so choose, can certainly go home and teach your kids that being gay is against nature and is a sin. But that's different from the realm of the government. There are a lot of things out there that don't fit within my own personal code of morality, but as long as they aren't hurting other people then I believe that, despite my own personal difference of opinion, it's not the state's place to step in and tell them otherwise. And yes, you're right, I do think that gay marriage should be fully legalized, and you are right that that's not the topic at this point in time. That said, then this proposed ban is not just a neutral stance, but an overt, hostile attack on personal freedoms, and an attack on the separation between church and state. Minnesota Spring's point about pork was a good one, and very applicable. This is a nation founded on the idea of freedom, and I find it very disturbing that so many of our politicians are willing to go backwards and attempt to limit freedoms (or possible future rights). Is that the direction we really want to go? Shouldn't this discussion best be left for the private realm, and not played out in our state government?

We have several fundamental disagreements, including these two:

(1) You apparently think that a person can be "born gay" the same way that he can be born a certain race. I think that we are all born with different psychological make-ups, but that our sexual choices (like many other choices) are still choices. (Incidentally, if sexual choices/"orientations"/preferences are inborn and immutable as you say, then there is no point in punishing pedophiles as criminals because pedophilia is not a moral defect, but an inborn trait beyond their control.)

(2) You apparently think that religious people should not allow their moral compasses to bear on public policy, while (conveniently) nonreligious people should get to impose their moral leanings upon society with impunity--because there is supposedly some principled difference based upon what influences your worldview. I fundamentally disagree with this double standard as a normative matter. And I also recognize the practical impossibility of dictating that liberal moralizing is good, but conservative moralizing is bad. (Of course, the whole morality/religion argument should be moot to you if you firmly believe that homosexuality is a deterministic trait.)

I also have a question, based on this statement of yours: "A person should be free to believe whatever they want at home or in church; they do not, however, have the right to force those opinions on others through government." ... What if a person's moral sensibilities lead him to the conclusion that he wants to foster a certain culture in his family business and therefore he chooses not to hire gays? What about my wedding photographer example from a few posts ago (a religious conviction that dictates he only photograph traditional weddings)? I'm genuinely curious about whether you think that you have the right to force your opinions on these people through government.

[Movin-on-up2011]

I guess I'll be the first to say it.....that clip was funny!!

[webzu]

Hey Southern,

You make some good points. And I do chuckle
that liberals are very tolerant as long as
your beliefs are the same. :-)

But your continued comparison of being
gay and pedophile is weak.

What consenting adults do with each other
is nobody's business. Pedophiles are
abusing children. Same with
bestiality they're abusing defenseless
animals so yes they should be prosecuted
and jailed.

Two consenting male or female adults having sex
is just that.

I see the whole gay marriage issue a distraction
that politicians on both sides are using to
distract people from the real serious problems
in our great country and IMO, two guys getting
married is not one of them.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by rogead

Why on earth would we be so arrogant and self-pious as to put the civil rights of others to a popular vote?

We routinely vote on all sorts of civil rights issues. Why not this one?

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by webzu

But your continued comparison of being
gay and pedophile is weak.

What consenting adults do with each other
is nobody's business. Pedophiles are
abusing children. Same with
bestiality they're abusing defenseless
animals so yes they should be prosecuted
and jailed.

Maybe I have not communicated my position clearly enough. I agree that what consenting adults do with each other is nobody's business--this isn't what we are talking about here, though. And I am not comparing gay and pedophile in any way other than to talk about sexual psychology generally. I'll go ahead and throw heterosexuality, monogamy, polygamy, etc., in there as well--they are all choices (albeit influenced by our psychological make-up, just like any other behavioral choice). That was my only point about pedophilia.

[Glenfield]

First, let me state that I am not advocating one position or another on this topic. I am personally undecided and see merits and flaws to the arguments from both sides.

What I want to comment on is my observation that some seem to feel that it is somehow incorrect or inappropriate for individuals to make decisions regarding public policy that are informed by religious or moral views, that it is not appropriate to impose a "moral" view on others, and that to do this would violate the principle of the separation of church and state.

Last point first: the principle of the separation of church and state speaks to a restriction on government. Separation of church and state simply and only limits government from making any confessional and doctrinal requirement of citizens in the form of a state church. Separation of church and state is a limitation on the government, not individual citizens.

All kinds of laws impose some sort of moral belief on others. The reason that we have a speed limit is because of a moral decision that my selfish desire to get somewhere quicker needs to be tempered by the state's regard for the safety of others. And all of our decisions on these sorts of matters are informed by our own moral code, regardless of where we get that from. Some may have a belief that fairness calls for society to approve these marriages. That is a value judgment. Others may feel that there is some negative impact on society. That, too, is a value judgment.

I am not sure if anyone's opinion is being changed by these exchanges but they are interesting. But it would be more useful perhaps to lay out the pros and cons from our viewpoint that to attempt to nullify others' right to hold an opinion or to act on it.

[southernsmoke]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

What I want to comment on is my observation that some seem to feel that it is somehow incorrect or inappropriate for individuals to make decisions regarding public policy that are informed by religious or moral views, that it is not appropriate to impose a "moral" view on others, and that to do this would violate the principle of the separation of church and state.

Last point first: the principle of the separation of church and state speaks to a restriction on government. Separation of church and state simply and only limits government from making any confessional and doctrinal requirement of citizens in the form of a state church. Separation of church and state is a limitation on the government, not individual citizens.

All kinds of laws impose some sort of moral belief on others.

It is really important that we all recognize that all laws impose some sort of moral code on others. I was trying to make that point earlier in the thread, but accepting this reality is the first step to having an honest conversation.

I also want to second your point about the principle of "separation of church and state." You are right on, and perhaps that point got lost in the shuffle earlier on, as well. Too often, that principle is invoked as a lazy effort to silence legitimate dialogue.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

All kinds of laws impose some sort of moral belief on others. The reason that we have a speed limit is because of a moral decision that my selfish desire to get somewhere quicker needs to be tempered by the state's regard for the safety of others. And all of our decisions on these sorts of matters are informed by our own moral code, regardless of where we get that from. Some may have a belief that fairness calls for society to approve these marriages. That is a value judgment. Others may feel that there is some negative impact on society. That, too, is a value judgment.

The key phrase being the Safety Of Others here. How does allowing gay marriage affect the safety of others?
Someone please enlighten us on how allowing two consenting adults to marry will affect the rest of the population in a negative way.

I have not seen any information from anyone who opposes same sex marriage on how it will affect the safety and well being of others, other than their own personal feelings or beliefs on homosexuality.