Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But it's also their source for intolerance and disdain. Why does religion get a pass on this? Why isn't "well, I think homosexuality is wrong because my Dad is a lifelong Storm Front member and it was hammered into me from a young age" given the kid glove treatment?

True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

I don't understand the victim mentality, there's plenty of room for civil discourse, but it has to go both ways, and with INDY it does not.

Without going into his personal attacking past, let's just look at the post in question:

Originally Posted by INDY500

But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition,

INDY will forever be quiet when the courts "overstep" in favor of his opinions. He always has, and I can't see him getting principled on this in the future. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they use the word "principle" as much as he does but ignore every single time when he is directly asked about similar rulings that go his way.

Originally Posted by INDY500

now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage... So five judges redefine marriage for the country... just as drawn up at the Constitutional Convention I'm sure. Could be worse, in California just one clown in a robe had the honors.

Isn't this the least bit funny to you? He's furious about the court "impugning the motives and moral character", yet Scalia "got it right" when he did the same exact thing. Come on, that's funny. The definition of marriage HAS changed throughout time and society, the notion that it has not is a lie.

This isn't about wanting to create a liberal echo chamber it's about getting tired of consistent hypocrisy and consistent lies. There's no need for victim mentality about this... no one is a victim here.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).

i agree. Bono is a good example of this. he's explicit that his motivation to help the poorest comes from his religion.

[Galeongirl]

I'd say the Muslim form of religion has the most tremendous act of self sacrifice of them all. Funny that they're not metnioned.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

I thought this was a well written response that captures what many intelligent, loving men and women believe.

Sure, I would agree. I'd draw attention to this particular point:

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.

And ask you whether that is reflective of INDY's stated view:

But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition, now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i can perhaps see a small amount of merit in NBC's objection to how the opinion was actually arrived at, and the future of ballot initiatives in states, but that seems like incredibly small potatoes compared to the victory that was won.

Don't want to deviate too much from the victory.

The only reason I bring this up was today's LA Time OpEd piece by Irwin Chemerinsky. I took two Constitutional Law classes with Chemerinsky and while we are opposing views politically, he was (and is) exceptionally fair and methodical in teaching Constitutional Law.

When we talk about Supreme Court decision making, the process used to achieve a decision is far more important than the decision itself. The process is essentially the precedent to be used in future cases - the decision is usually tied up in specific facts.

[Irvine511]

i can see the larger questions related to when the government chooses not to defend a specific law, but i can't imagine that this is the first time, and doesn't the larger question lie with the legitimacy/efficacy of ballot initiatives?

the article is interesting reading.

[anitram]

Thanks for posting. I only took one American Constitutional Law class as I went to law school in Canada so I've been eagerly reading legal analysis of it. My old prof is at Yale but I haven't seen his commentary yet, though he's had plenty to say on Windsor.

I agree with that piece and with nbc and the dissenters who essentially said that this ruling gives elected officials a de facto veto, as they can simply choose not to defend the measure in the courts.

My feeling is that the majority simply didn't want to wade in too deep. This closely mirrors the general cowardice that has been showed by the executive and legislative branches on this point, so it is not particularly surprising.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by AEON

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

I think this place can be intolerant, for sure. In particular Christians are the punching bag around here and the 'acceptable target'. And in particular it is in threads about homosexuality. You just have to understand that many of us see it for precisely what it is. Bigotry. That's what it is. Period. That said, even if I am non-religious, I will (at least try to) outwardly defend your right to stick up for your own religious values on almost any other topic aside from bigotry against homosexuals and anti-science positions.

So anyhow...I think you should stick around. We need more dissension and (hopefully) constructive conversation going on. We need less partisan rhetoric which is about all Indy has devolved into these days. We just got NBC back, which is awesome. We could use more of that reasonable approach, I think.

That said, if you continue to refer to yourself in the third person, we'll have to ask you to leave.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).

But are these people only doing good because of their religion? (I would hope not and I don't think they are) It would seem they're only doing bad because of their religion. There are many non believers who also exhibit tremendous acts of love, self sacrifice, compassion, etc. Sure, there are non believers doing bad too, but they aren't irrationally motivated by their atheism/agnosticism/whathaveyou.

A little off topic: I'm crap with names and mostly associate people with their avatars. You used to have the Obi Wan avatar, right? If so, I remember thinking you were cool beans. Either way, welcome back.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I'd say the Muslim form of religion has the most tremendous act of self sacrifice of them all. Funny that they're not metnioned.

hehehe

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

I think this place can be intolerant, for sure. In particular Christians are the punching bag around here and the 'acceptable target'. =

It's important to distinguish between an ideology being a punching bag and people being punching bags. I have a distaste for religion in general. I like Christian people in general.

Also, Indy doesn't do himself any favours by posting as the embodiment of what most of the world thinks is wrong with part of the USA. He's a distillation of everything people hear about the US and roll their eyes at. I sometimes can't believe he's a real person

[Irvine511]

i think there's a lot of cutting and pasting from The Corner, Dennis Prager, and other TownHall columnists, with a lot of Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn and their grandiose, non-specific "prose" about decay and decline.

the petty nastiness towards Obama makes it impossible to take seriously.

[u2popmofo]

This certainly isn't limited just to "traditional" marriage and homosexuality, but I'm always surprised how much religious-based political rhetoric and argument can been created based off of so VERY little scriptural basis. Certainly there are passages that can be used to justify many of the stances on these subjects, the most notorious being located inside chapters teaching things literally NO Judeo-Christian sects have practiced or believed in centuries. The Old Testament has numerous examples of very nontraditional relationships / marriages, typically practiced by the then "prophets" of the time.

The argument could easily be made that religion has far more of a "tradition" of bending to the ever changing norms of society than actually guiding those norms.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by u2popmofo

The argument could easily be made that religion has far more of a "tradition" of bending to the ever changing norms of society than actually guiding those norms.

Who's Norm? One of the Prophets? The Gospel of Norm?

[u2popmofo]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Who's Norm? One of the Prophets? The Gospel of Norm?

Follow his traditions, JT.

[Jive Turkey]

His appearance on Conan is still the single funniest thing I've seen on live TV

[Irvine511]

Bono has made the point about the sexual obsession of many modern, politicized Christians and the relative lack of scriptural references vs. the Bible and Jesus' obsession with the less fortunate.

[anitram]

Have you guys seen what's been on the Family Research Council website since the SCOTUS decisions?

[Jive Turkey]

Oral day?

Even the little man on the poster looks like he's giving it a two hander