Southern Baptist Church, and Democrats Options

[CommieBastard]

The argument I saw on The Daily Kos was that the church was attempting to influence its parishoners political choices rather forcefully and therefore shouldn't have its tax exempt status. Or something along those lines. I don't think people mentioned it being illegal, beyond being stupid.

Tax-exempt status for religious institutions has always annoyed me... but that's neither here nor there. They have every right to try to influence people's political beliefs. When I argue politics on here, I'm trying to influence people's political beliefs. In fact, I'm always slightly suspicious of people who don't try to influence others - it makes me think they lack conviction.

[ravein]

Here is a update on this issue.

http://www.wral.com/news/4464161/detail.html

[ravein]

Here is the final update on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.po...s.ap/index.html

[believe]

CommieBastard: Here's a simplified version of the article I was reading on The Daily Kos.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S/50506020/1001

[Museum Girl]

On gay marriage, well, there's a couple of points I wanted to bring up.

For one, gay couples and persons getting more rights and protection has coincided with a lot of things that have been quite destructive to families. Higher divorce rates, unsafe and frequent sex, child abuse, absence of parents and the list goes on. Seperating homosexuality from that list and isolating as a factor or not, would be pretty damned hard. We don't have a sample group back from conservative times with the comparatively greater rights and protection they have now and making one isn't possible. I don't really see how it can be proven, unless you argue its proven by association according to the Bible. Thats not scientific exactly, which leads us back to what you place faith in (or not).

You can't say that these things have been increasing because of increased rights for gay people, which seems to be what you're insinuating. Eispecially promiscuity; straight people don't decide to have "unsafe and frequent sex" because gay people are allowed to. Also child abusers are not the same thing as gay people; infact they are totally different. And funnily enough most divorces are not because one partner is gay, plus we won't even know if the rate of divorce for that reason has increased because back when being gay was illegal people weren't going to state that as a reason.

Another point is that the Biblical view of health and harm is not the same as the ones of the average person or generally those of these studies. I'd argue that there's some radicial differences in the definition of harm here. The greatest harm would be things that seperate you from God, hurt others or cause you to sin and so on. Eternity and your soul is added into the mix. Health would involve things that brought you closer to God, as well as fulfilled you and the rest.

If I'm quoting out of context tell me but we are talking secular, it won't hurt Christians or Muslims of whatever if other people, i.e. people who are not them, have same sex marriages in a civil ceremony. It will not hurt them because it will not affect them and it will not insult god because it's secular, secular ok? Gay people will live together anyway and a marriage just gives decent inheritence and property rights. People who are not Christians (or Musilims or whatever) should not be affected by other peoples religeous views.

[Mata]

{quick note - My impression was that Believe was playing devil's advocate (pun intended) by explaining the views of some more enthusiastic religious groups towards homosexuality rather stating her own views. I just wanted to point this out early to prevent what I see as a misunderstanding from escalating - Mata}

[CommieBastard]

For one, gay couples and persons getting more rights and protection has coincided with a lot of things that have been quite destructive to families. Higher divorce rates, unsafe and frequent sex, child abuse, absence of parents and the list goes on.

Other things that have increased as gay rights have increased:

- Global warming
- The Internet
- Re-runs of That 70s Show
- Ikea furniture
- Mobile phones

Correlation ain't causation, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so. If causation can't be established, it probably doesn't exist and pointing out the correlation is misleading.

[believe]

You can't say that these things have been increasing because of increased rights for gay people, which seems to be what you're insinuating. Eispecially promiscuity; straight people don't decide to have "unsafe and frequent sex" because gay people are allowed to. Also child abusers are not the same thing as gay people; infact they are totally different. And funnily enough most divorces are not because one partner is gay, plus we won't even know if the rate of divorce for that reason has increased because back when being gay was illegal people weren't going to state that as a reason.

No.. I'm saying that if we go with the rather conservative viewpoint and say that homosexuality is an effect of embracing sin, part of whats causing these bad things that are happening and so on.. we can't prove any it as a cause with any sort of science. There's no way to isolate gay people living more freely and percentages either growing or just being more visible from other extremely harmful factors. Child abuse, divorce, far too early sex, violence and so on. You can't take one factor, ignore all the other evidence and say 'oh, this causes it'. Which I think you agree with, judging by your post.

If I'm quoting out of context tell me but we are talking secular, it won't hurt Christians or Muslims of whatever if other people, i.e. people who are not them, have same sex marriages in a civil ceremony. It will not hurt them because it will not affect them and it will not insult god because it's secular, secular ok? Gay people will live together anyway and a marriage just gives decent inheritence and property rights. People who are not Christians (or Musilims or whatever) should not be affected by other peoples religeous views.

You are, yes. Many of the conservatives or other religious people are not. If you consider your religion a part of you, you aren't like to just 'forget' it because some people consider it a purely secular issue. Marriage has a tradition that was entwined with religion, such as the marriage vows, seeing a pastor and getting married in a church. If you want people that are religious to forget all that and consider it purely secular.. I don't think its going to happen. *shrug* I'm not going to start suddenly taking it as just that because some people do. Respecting their decision doesn't mean agreeing.

I consider equal rights a seperate-ish and more secular issue than marriage because of the connotation and whatnot and support that. People are abusive enough to each with equal rights and I'm not sure how helping that pettiness and sadistic side would bring people to God. And preventing cruelty and the rest should be a goal anyway, regardless of whether you approve of someone's decisions. But thats just my take.

[believe]

Other things that have increased as gay rights have increased:

- Global warming
- The Internet
- Re-runs of That 70s Show
- Ikea furniture
- Mobile phones

Correlation ain't causation, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so. If causation can't be established, it probably doesn't exist and pointing out the correlation is misleading.

Thats what I said in my post.

For one, gay couples and persons getting more rights and protection has coincided with a lot of things that have been quite destructive to families. Higher divorce rates, unsafe and frequent sex, child abuse, absence of parents and the list goes on. Seperating homosexuality from that list and isolating as a factor or not, would be pretty damned hard. We don't have a sample group back from conservative times with the comparatively greater rights and protection they have now and making one isn't possible. I don't really see how it can be proven, unless you argue its proven by association according to the Bible. Thats not scientific exactly, which leads us back to what you place faith in (or not).

[CommieBastard]

believe, I'm having trouble getting the hang of your posting style. I can never tell when you actually mean an argument, when you're arguing Devil's Advocate, or when you're quoting an argument to refute it. It did seem to me like you were presenting that as a legitimate argument worthy of consideration.

[believe]

CommieBastard: My apologies. I'm just trying to be very tactul with this, considering feelings run pretty strong on both sides of the spectrum. >_o Hence watching wording and things very, very carefully. While I understand the Biblical point of view and don't feel I can deny it without denying my faith, I think that that particular argument is moronic and doesn't do anything but look stupid. 'oh, all these hideous things aren't hurting our children is much as the gay agenda/tv/whatever here'. Just bah.

What I feel people forget (and why I posted most of that) is the completely and utterly different world views involved. What might be a secular issue to someone, is a moral or religious one with a lot more to it and so on. You don't have to believe the other side to argue it obviously, but I think it helps make the debate a more intelligent and/or effective one. My naive side also hopes that people can eventually stop arguing over who's right and work on results.

[CommieBastard]

My naive side also hopes that people can eventually stop arguing over who's right and work on results. 

But unless we know who's right, we won't know which results we're aiming for. My results are very, very different from those of, say, your average Methodist preacher.

[believe]

But unless we know who's right, we won't know which results we're aiming for. My results are very, very different from those of, say, your average Methodist preacher

True. With issues like this, people are also not overly likely to agree. At least not for a long time. There are concerns in the middle that people can hopefully agree on though. Such is preventing people from being beaten, teen suicide and all sorts of issues that could be tackled more efficiently without expecting people to renounce views they hold dear and are still arguing over. But I might be more used to the insane parts of America. My own state appears to be much more sane and Britain might be as well.

[Museum Girl]

You can't say that these things have been increasing because of increased rights for gay people, which seems to be what you're insinuating. Eispecially promiscuity; straight people don't decide to have "unsafe and frequent sex" because gay people are allowed to. Also child abusers are not the same thing as gay people; infact they are totally different. And funnily enough most divorces are not because one partner is gay, plus we won't even know if the rate of divorce for that reason has increased because back when being gay was illegal people weren't going to state that as a reason.

No.. I'm saying that if we go with the rather conservative viewpoint and say that homosexuality is an effect of embracing sin, part of whats causing these bad things that are happening and so on.. we can't prove any it as a cause with any sort of science. There's no way to isolate gay people living more freely and percentages either growing or just being more visible from other extremely harmful factors. Child abuse, divorce, far too early sex, violence and so on. You can't take one factor, ignore all the other evidence and say 'oh, this causes it'. Which I think you agree with, judging by your post.

If I'm quoting out of context tell me but we are talking secular, it won't hurt Christians or Muslims of whatever if other people, i.e. people who are not them, have same sex marriages in a civil ceremony. It will not hurt them because it will not affect them and it will not insult god because it's secular, secular ok? Gay people will live together anyway and a marriage just gives decent inheritence and property rights. People who are not Christians (or Musilims or whatever) should not be affected by other peoples religeous views.

You are, yes. Many of the conservatives or other religious people are not. If you consider your religion a part of you, you aren't like to just 'forget' it because some people consider it a purely secular issue. Marriage has a tradition that was entwined with religion, such as the marriage vows, seeing a pastor and getting married in a church. If you want people that are religious to forget all that and consider it purely secular.. I don't think its going to happen. *shrug* I'm not going to start suddenly taking it as just that because some people do. Respecting their decision doesn't mean agreeing.

I consider equal rights a seperate-ish and more secular issue than marriage because of the connotation and whatnot and support that. People are abusive enough to each with equal rights and I'm not sure how helping that pettiness and sadistic side would bring people to God. And preventing cruelty and the rest should be a goal anyway, regardless of whether you approve of someone's decisions. But thats just my take.

Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. By marriage I don't mean marriage in a church or the religeous ceremony, I mean the civil rights, registry office and paperwork, which as far as I know is what people are campaigning for politically. I do think it would be wrong to force religeous leaders to marry people who are gay if the religeous leaders believe such an act sinfull. My point was that the marriage of individuals, (regardless of sexuality), when not in the form of a religeous ceremony will not affect believers; thus by preventing them from marrying their rights to happinness and financial security are being infringed (is that the right word?). Many religeous people are opposed to it because they feel more young people will be "persuaded" to be gay if they can marry. No one is persuaded to be gay, your sexuality is something you are born with. By allowing religeous people to prevent another group of people from an action that doesn't actually harm anyone is to give them unfair dominance; if one religeon was given dominance over another there would be outcry (I don't mean a state religeon like C of E by the way, I mean a theocracy).

[believe]

Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. By marriage I don't mean marriage in a church or the religeous ceremony, I mean the civil rights, registry office and paperwork, which as far as I know is what people are campaigning for politically.

Well, while I'm sure definitions of religious signifigance vary, there's more to this than just the rights of involved people even if thats what on the paperwork. Even with all the changes going on in our society, marriage is still a legitimancy stamp for relationships and has culture connotations. Which is why this issue is so much more inflammatory to some people, than hate crime laws or whatnot. I don't think that going after marriage first is an accident, as its what I'd do if I was planning to change public perception.

My point was that the marriage of individuals, (regardless of sexuality), when not in the form of a religeous ceremony will not affect believers; thus by preventing them from marrying their rights to happinness and financial security are being infringed (is that the right word?).

Er. I have to disagree with the not affecting people part. Cultural changes and shift affect people that live in that culture. Unless all believers get teleported to mars, changes like this affect them and everyone else. If marijuana was made legal tomorrow for example, this would make several changes. It would be legal, at least somewhat more acceptable and the people that believe its a legit choice would have a lot more solid backing.

This isn't quite the same category, but judging from possibilities and history, I'd say the aftermath would be somewhere in that category. If you could something a not acceptable option for whatever reason, generally, you wouldn't want the federal government proclaiming it legal, right, necessary and equal. Or at least not acceptable. That does encourage people to see it as all right and to do it if they want. Some people obviously believe its acceptable and that the rights of those involved outweight whatever else, but thats not my point. I just consider cultural changes an affect and one that people could well take into consideration.

Many religeous people are opposed to it because they feel more young people will be "persuaded" to be gay if they can marry. No one is persuaded to be gay, your sexuality is something you are born with.

I have to disagree here. I don't think sexuality is always the firm, ingrained people make it out to be. Certainly, some people display same sex attractions at ages that still boggle my mind. Some studies suggest that for some people, there's differences in the brain as well. I read one of those a while back and I'm not going to pretend they don't exist. That also doesn't apply to every gay man and women, every bi one or every straight one, for that matter.

There's a lot of people that display... flexibility. Some girls and more rarely (in my personal experience) boys, that have flings with the other sex and eventually return to mostly straightness. Some are bi, but may or may not practice it and all the grey areas in between. You could argue that they weren't gay in the first place and that might be true, but sexuality seems to have some malleability for a decent share of the population if studies, stories and the rest are anything to go by.

The scary sexual abuse numbers in the US also likely deserve some consideration. I don't believe abuse alone necessarily makes someone gay or not, or that its the only reason. As numbers are frighteningly high and as profound as the affect is on children, I don't see how we can rule it out as something that can affect either orientation. My own experience wasn't a dramatic one, but it threw my sexuality and views of off-kilter for several years. For people that have more traumatic ones, well.. its something that does affect people's urges, beliefs and sometimes inclinations. That some of the inclinations could involve orientation for people with more flexibility would seem reasonable.

By allowing religeous people to prevent another group of people from an action that doesn't actually harm anyone is to give them unfair dominance; if one religeon was given dominance over another there would be outcry (I don't mean a state religeon like C of E by the way, I mean a theocracy).

There is a messy issue, even for me. I've heard arguments (some good) that it shouldn't it even go to the ballot like it has. As long as it does though, the point becomes moot. While religion is the reasoning for a lot of the opposing argument, the bottom line is that people put measures to the ballot, had them voted for and won in the majority of cases. I consider unfair dominance the necessary evil of democracy, including when it applies to me. Religion holding that place in this issue doesn't seem more evil to me than the republicans or democrats doing the same thing about gun control, the death penalty or some other issue I might have strong feelings about.

[Museum Girl]

Er. I have to disagree with the not affecting people part. Cultural changes and shift affect people that live in that culture. Unless all believers get teleported to mars, changes like this affect them and everyone else. If marijuana was made legal tomorrow for example, this would make several changes. It would be legal, at least somewhat more acceptable and the people that believe its a legit choice would have a lot more solid backing.

This isn't quite the same category, but judging from possibilities and history, I'd say the aftermath would be somewhere in that category. If you could something a not acceptable option for whatever reason, generally, you wouldn't want the federal government proclaiming it legal, right, necessary and equal. Or at least not acceptable. That does encourage people to see it as all right and to do it if they want. Some people obviously believe its acceptable and that the rights of those involved outweight whatever else, but thats not my point. I just consider cultural changes an affect and one that people could well take into consideration.

Here's an example; at my school girls cannot wear trousers before 6th form. We asked to be allowed to wear trousers and were told we could not unless everybody in the entire school signed the list, including the boys. Girls wearing trousers does not affect the boys but many still refused to sign the form and we weren't allowed trousers. Ridiculous isn't it? That people who were unaffected by something we considered an ordinairy right should be allowed to deny us that. By straight people being allowed to prevent gay people from marrying they are doing much the same thing that those boys did to us; a group of people are denied something they want and that other people consider an ordairy right simply because those people denying them this feel they shouldn't have that right.

Drugs, if they became legalised, are something that would be open to all people. Gay marriage is only open to gays. The culture will change, and in that sense there will be an affect on believers; but if believers wish to go on believing homosexuality is a sin no one will stop them. It's not like legalising gay marriage will make believers marry people of the same gender, nor will churches be forced to preach it's acceptability. The gay marriage will be there, and believers may not like it but they do not have to participate, and in that sense it won't affect them. Also just because some people consider something not to be acceptable doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acceptable.

Also how will those changes affect them? You say that a change in culture will affect them, but what will those affects be?

[believe]

By straight people being allowed to prevent gay people from marrying they are doing much the same thing that those boys did to us; a group of people are denied something they want and that other people consider an ordairy right simply because those people denying them this feel they shouldn't have that right.

Sure. This is something people don't agree on and aren't likely to anytime soon. The people that believe its wrong will continue to fight it and the people that consider it a necessary right will fight for it. Though for the record people often vote on things that don't affect them personally during elections. State policy, gun control laws, laws on oh.. political fund raising, rights of illegal immigrants and whatever else are examples of things that affect a state or society, but not necessarily the individual voting. You could argue that this is an issue of rights and not the same as most of those, but I don't see it stopping people from voting or passing measures, regardless.

It's not like legalising gay marriage will make believers marry people of the same gender, nor will churches be forced to preach it's acceptability. The gay marriage will be there, and believers may not like it but they do not have to participate, and in that sense it won't affect them. Also just because some people consider something not to be acceptable doesn't mean that it shouldn't be acceptable.

Also how will those changes affect them? You say that a change in culture will affect them, but what will those affects be?

At the moment it wouldn't force churches to marry people of whatever orientation, but somehow I can see discrimination lawsuits. Its definitely true that they don't have to participate. And the reverse is true as well. Just because some people consider something acceptable, doesn't make it so. Public opinion once considered slavery a right and justified and lots of horrible things to be acceptable, along with the good ones like various peace movements, people now considering racism horrible and such. There's arguments for both sides, but people considering it acceptable or not isn't my favorite for that reason.

And it could affect whats taught in school (like the battle over sex ed, ect), what they see in movies and popular culture (already happening, but it could progress), what people around or known to them are allowed to do and what their children or others might be encouraged to do. Its not always a personal affect, sure, but we don't live in a vaccuum and friends and family might well be affected by whatever law, even if I'm not.

[CommieBastard]

At the moment it wouldn't force churches to marry people of whatever orientation, but somehow I can see discrimination lawsuits.

This isn't a realistic fear. That kind of lawsuit wouldn't hold a drop of water anytime within the next few centuries; the Supreme Court has been very clear about the right to freedom of expressive association (they've made similar rulings in favour of the Boy Scouts).

[believe]

This isn't a realistic fear. That kind of lawsuit wouldn't hold a drop of water anytime within the next few centuries; the Supreme Court has been very clear about the right to freedom of expressive association (they've made similar rulings in favour of the Boy Scouts).

heh. In America we can sue over hot coffee and all kinds of amazingly idiotic things, which is more what I was thinking of. If we can sue oreo's for being high fat, I wouldn't put other such things past that one crazy person thats out there.

I thought they'd ruled against the boyscouts, but I'm probably thinking of one of the cases before that. huh.

[CommieBastard]

heh. In America we can sue over hot coffee and all kinds of amazingly idiotic things, which is more what I was thinking of.

This is a tangent, but I'm kind of sick of the "hot coffee" story. The woman in question was in her 80s. The coffee was so hot she had third-degree burns over her abdomen and groin; not only excruciatingly painful, but leaving her with outstanding medical bills running to tens of thousands of dollars. She had every right to sue McDonald's.

I thought they'd ruled against the boyscouts, but I'm probably thinking of one of the cases before that. huh.

The case I'm thinking of is when they ruled that the Boy Scouts were within their rights when they dismissed a troop leader for being gay.

[believe]

True and true about the coffee woman. This was my dropping the ball, as it was very late and I elected to not look up a better list of stupid lawsuits for this debate. So I'll concede her legitimacy and still wish that other, far less legitiment claims didn't go to court.

Like.. http://www.atsnn.com/story/110030.html for a better example.