You may have a good theoretical point here, Lib, but what are the odds of ending the entire [legal] institution of marriage versus expanding the definition? I can’t see your idea being realistic.
Simulpost. I had to read your response three times. I still don’t see an answer to Miller’s question, or mine. Defining marriage to include SSM does not exclude, oppress, or affect hetero couples in any way that I can see. Please detail how it does. Until then, using the transfer of a yoke from slave to master as an example is ridiculous. Equating SSM with simply throwing off the yoke of slavery is, while admittedly hyperbole, at least more accurate.
I don’t see that working either. She’s been fed a cetain viewpoint by her church. Why would she stop believing it because an athiest says so?
Fact. The magnitude of the Democrat’s loss yesterday stuns me. I do not know how to reverse the trend, either. When my party is attacked for being “Republican-lite” and “liberal and out-of-touch” in the same breath (not by you, though), I am at a loss as to how to combat that and change perceptions.
That’s what I was getting at, Lib, though Miller worded it… uh… more strongly than I did. I think trying to end the institution of state sanctioned marriage will only cause greater backlash and will “prove” the point of SSM opponents – gays are a threat to traditional marriage.
Political definition of marriage is Caesar arrogating to himself the role of God (the sin of blasphemy).
Thanks, man. Best offer I’ve had all day.
Since I have only one head, I have to pick one spokesman.
Not the institution of marriage, the institution of The State. Have you read the LP platform? What needs to change is how we are governed. The answer is not to make the politicians nosier than they are now. It won’t help to keep appealing to them to do something that isn’t politically expedient. You don’t want to draw them in deeper — you want to kick them out. It’s time to leave the Democrat party behind. It is a dinosaur.
In the context of these ballot initiatives, it’s hardly about what gay people are trying to do; it’s about what they’re trying to stop others doing. If you’re referring to getting SSM approved through the Supreme Court, that’s an argument for another day. Still, I suspect both you and I agree that the government should not be able to discriminate in this way (whether this is through complete non-involvement, or inclusive involvement), and I can’t blame gay people for trying whatever avenues are available to attain equality. This is the system with which they are presented, and through which they must act. I know you find it oppressive in all circumstances, but it’s hardly the fault of gay people. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant today: the majority have voted to oppress the minority, and it has nothing to do with what the minority wanted, or said. It’s fucking sad, no matter what the details.
Possibly, but Christianity is central to her life; I know by experience that I will never draw her onto neutral ground. I can focus on her obligations to Christ (as she sees them), but I don’t think this will help, as made clear later.
Again with the labelling and blame. Maybe some people go about expressing their opinion in an unconvincing or unfair way. Doesn’t matter; were they perfectly evenhanded, the inequity would remain, and most of the people at the polls would vote the same way. And on a day when a fifth of the country has voted that your relationship is not to be recognised, is unequal, I’m going to have a lot of time for people who aren’t perfectly evenhanded in their disappointment. They need sympathy and the assurance that someone supports them, not dispassionate deconstructions of their every mistake.
A good suggestion, but I strongly suspect she would reply that it is her duty as a Christian to help them overcome their sin and find God, and that as such she can’t vote to facilitate their actions. And we’re still on her ground, too. To do as you suggest, I would have to assault the whole foundation of evangelical Christianity. Tall order.
This is potentially good, and should it come to it, I shall certainly try. It’d never work on the grounds that she, personally, is suppressing free will - she’s just one person - but it’s possible that in the area of government rule, this one could work.
I tried this once before, when a visiting preacher went off on one about how God smote down the gay people with AIDS (which was the beginning of the end, for me). I believe she replied that to love a sinner is not to indulge them; the greater love is to help them overcome their sin. I do think I got her to acknowledge that AIDS was not heaven-sent retribution, but that was a bit pyrrhic, in the end.
Probably the best argument to be had, and one which I suspect many have tried. It is unfortunate that judgmentalism comes so naturally to people in general (not just Christians). It seems that no matter how many times judgmentalism is decried (even if it’s Jesus saying it) meddling is always fine. Ho hum.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I haven’t read the LP platform, but I’ll make it a point to do so.
I’ve read a lot of anger directed at Christians on the web today, but when I’ve talked to people in person, they’ve been crying, not yelling. So perhaps we can cutgobear some slack. It was a long night and it’s very alarming to look around at work or the gas station and think, “A majority of these people actively voted to put discrimination against me into my state’s constitution.” I wouldn’t say that I’ve had the most pleasant morning, either (though 3 of my highly Christian colleagues wanted me to know that they vote against Oregon’s amendment and will continue to fight for equality).
Both quotes from Romano, R. C. (2003). Race Mixing: Black-white marriage in postwar America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.
Did you say so in your church? Did you press your pastor to fight the bigotry in the pulpit? Would your church support your position? Did you press people in your church to find out where they stand and try to persuade them?
Prayer won’t get the job done in cases like this.
Most people who weekly attend religious services voted for the Beast. I may just stop going.
So you’re saying that the followers of Jesus are stupid and easily misled. Got it. Fits the recent voting results to a T.
All were constitutional amendments.
Oregon, Mississippi and Montana bar SSM.
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah ban SSM and civil unions.
Activists in Georgia and Mississippi have already announced legal challenges (both AFAIK under the theory that the ballot initiatives violated the states’ “one subject” rule). Activists in the other states are considering their options.
Here’s an article about what the current laws are. It also discusses the recent laws passed. It appears that about 90% of states have some sort of legal language in place that define marriage as man+woman.
I can’t belive people are so bigoted. Why are they so defensive of the ruined institution in the first place? How could loving couples ever be a threat to them? Why not pass legislation banning gameshow marriages or mail-order brides, if you’re damn concerned about “protecting marraige”. Protecting marriage my ASS.
And if Christianity is the reason for voting against gay marriage and the ONLY reason, then it doesn’t belong on the ballot at all. Religion is not supposed to be legislated. What about my freedom FROM religion?
faithfool the conservative Christians are the ones that most actively recruit, have revivals, and support the specialized industries (music is the first one that comes to mind). Liberal Christians, on a whole, seem far less into their faith. This is why the faith as a whole is slipping away from them.
Miller I’m not a Libertarian, but please. You’re interpretation of the party’s ideas is way off. Yes, Liberal is not a perfect window through which to view those ideas, but you just aren’t getting it even when he lays it out there. As it stands the SSM ban side has managed to conflate legal marriage wth religious marriage. Those of us who support SSM need to do two things, simultaneously, if progress is to be made. We need to make the seperation clear again and we need to make legal marriage a contract with no special status, clear of hooks to hang religious definition on.
On to the tangent about the Democratic party’s loss of influence I have this to say: the party offers nothing. Republicans are offering a clear vision and people who like that vision are voting in droves to make it reality. This also draws in moderates because they at least know what stink they are holding their nose to avoid. The Democratic party has been offering “Not Republican” and “Less Republican” on key issues. There is no cohesive image of the Democratic party’s plan out there. The core is made up of those who seem to primarily want “Not Republican”. Offer people a single vision of life under the Democratic party and the party will do better. Offer it even if you can’t deliver it, as that seemed to work well for the Republicans.
Must preview, must avoid embarassing sentence collisions. Replace the sentence with the wrong “you’re” with either “Your interpretation of the party’s ideas are way off” or “You’re interpreting the party’s ideas incorrectly.”
The Tim ~ I certainly know of what you speak, because I used to proclaim myself (loudly) as a Jesus Freak, Holy Roller, Bible Thumper. You name it. And I was into the scene 100 percent… only Christian music, no profanity ever, prayers daily at 6:00 am. I even tried to go without wearing anything but dresses/skirts, but I was completely unsuccessful at it.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree that those who find themselves on the more liberal side of their spirituality are “far less into their faith.” But instead, are more apt to believe it’s a personal matter/choice and that it should be expounded upon by how one lives rather than through verbal declaration. Or, there is those who feel speaking more softly and in deference to others’ morality is more in keeping with their principles. I know that (despite whatever label I fall under now) I choose to only share with people who desire it or are seeking information and wouldn’t dream of preaching anymore. It’s up to a Higher Power (if there be one) to judge, instruct and oversee. I just don’t understand how anyone is supposed to make a difference if they are basically backed into a corner, where they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Thanks for the reply though. I at least see better where you were coming from.
Don’t bother. The Libertarian Party is nothing but an echo chamber for freaks and losers who would send our government spiralling back down to the 1920s, leaving millions without the means to provide a home or food or medical care for themselves or their family. There’s a reason they never poll more than about 1% – they’re nutcases, as Liberal has often shown.
The State does many good things. It helps many people who would otherwise be helpless. It creates a more level playing field and thus prevents a privileged class from forever accruing all wealth and power. The State is the only tool the middle class has to prevent its oppression by the upper class.
I should have underlined, bolded, or italicized the word “seem” in my previous post. I don’t doubt the faith of those that are liberal Christians. I do doubt their ability to retain influence in the faith without the same outward displays.
What spectrum said.
Adam Smith’s theory of “voting with your dollar” only works if everyone has the same number of votes. In the real world, where us non-Libs live, implementing such a system would result in a two-tiered society where some were able to live a “normal” life, and the rest were imprisoned in soul-crushing poverty, from which they had no hope of escaping, save for the occasional spurt of generosity from “private citizens”, bestowed upon one person or another.
Now I’ve got you. I must have not paid much attention to that “seem” at all. Apparently I’m a little screwy and too-quick-to-not-use-reading-comprehension today. Sorry. Anyway, that last sentence did make it crystal clear and ultimately, what will probably always make it a problem.