Ditto. I’ve changed enough as I’ve aged so that I think I could be a decent father now, but jeez, I’m 47 years old. What do I want with a child at my age?
The only way they’ll take my pills away is from my cold, dead hands. And possibly not even then.
I suppose, with these people, if you have some medical reason not to have babies (I do!), then you aren’t getting married, huh?
I think the (mostly facetious) equivocation of those with agendas as described in the OP with the most recent example of a situation in which such an agenda has been implemented (which also happens to be an implementation by a group nigh-universially disdained by those of their ilk) might serve to open the eyes of the more lukewarm or persuadable elements of the movement to the truth of the situation: what they want is much like what the Taliban wanted. They are becoming, here at home, the very enemy their much-beloved president is fighting abroad.
[waxing philosophical]In a way it parallels WWII. We were fighting a xenophobic aggressor, all the while being xenophobic to a lesser degree. They rounded up Jews, etc., and held them to be executed,; we rounded up Japanese and held them for the duration. Now, the common strain is religious extremeism: they stoned adulterers, we preemptively ban gay marriage.
IMHO, there but for the grace of Democracy go we. Although the social right may try, there’s only so far they can go in remaking the US into Jesusland. At least half the people oppose hardline social conservative policy (those who voted for Kerry) and likely more (those who voted for Bush while holding thier nose). There’ll be dark times ahead, but someday we’ll look back and wonder how we could have been so much like the enemy we fought.[/wax off]
I love it.
This one twit in my office is loudly against gay marriage, but has been married three times, divorced twice, and has no kids.
I wonder if she’ll try to be their poster child.
Ava
Your co-worker is His4ever!
Dammit, Guin! You know that if you say her name three times she’ll appear! Shush!
While I agree that actual bans almost certainly won’t happen, don’t be too quick to make assumptions about the elites’ lack of hypocrisy.
Do you think the political elite didn’t drink at that time when Prohibition was introduced? Do you think that same elite wasn’t snuffling the white stuff up their nose and sucking deep on ganja while voting to spend untold amounts on the “war on drugs”? Do you think the elites weren’t ogling porn while passing laws against it?
The elites have always been willing to pass laws restricting the plebs’ activities in order to satisfy society’s self appointed moral guardians, while knowing that wealth and privilege would be enough to avoid any real impact on themselves.
Ok, here I go…I hope to clear the situation up for both sides of the issue. Of course being in the middle probably the most dangerous place to be - religious fanatics will dismiss anything I say as heretical, and the intellectuals of SDMB will say I do not go far enough to rid the world of evil religions.
Background -
Education: graduate student in medical research
Religion: Christian upbringing
Belief overview: a scientist who believes in God, evolution, and creation (not in the strict sense)
I’ve thought a lot about religion and politics, and I know they are two subjects you never want to discuss with anyone with whom you want to remain friends. But since I don’t know any of you we can have a civil, unoffending discussion even though we’re in the Pit 
My take, Cliff’s Notes version:
Religion has been a part of society for as long as man can recall, for whenever something occured that was unexplainable like thunder and lightning man said “the Gods did it”. Well along comes a scientist (who in my opinion asks “how”, not “why”) who says, “well maybe God did do it, but the observable cause is water smashing together causing a charge to be created in the cloud, resulting in the dispelling of this charge to earth, creating the light and sound we see”. Of course we all know that religion has never been a fan of science, and the majority without a scientific background would call such a person a heretic in almost every religion from the time of Socrates to the ban on science in the Middle Ages. Most people only see such a small range of our universe that they don’t take the time or are incapable of seeing the truth behind everything. Religion’s problem with science isn’t that it hates progress, but that generally science questions everything and disproves very, very long-held core religious beliefs and it takes time to change these without being too obvious - it wasn’t until 1992 that Galileo was finally absolved. Religion shouldn’t be at the whim of science anymore than science should be at the beck and call of religion. The two are, and should remain, separate.
So then, if religion works against progress why did it survive so long? Well here it is - survival of the fittest…yes the same principle used by Darwin. Religion is like a meme (an idea that spreads through society via “survival of the fittest”). The advent of monotheism allowed large regions to work together towards common goals and no longer battle over which city-state’s God is better. Religious tribes banded together to fight and kill the “unbelievers”. People following the moral teachings of religion had a greater chance at a healthier lifestyle and were more likely to survive and pass on their genes - look at Judaism, which bans the eating of pork, a very toxic meat if cooked improperly due to parasites. Or the spring cleaning which removes bread crumbs from households - this would help deter rodents that carry diseases like the plague.
Most religions today focus on living happy, healthier lifestyles. No pre-marital sex or homosexuality to prevent the spread of deadly diseases, as well as burying the dead. No drinking into debachery or gambling, two things that are fine in moderation but very often escalate beyond the normal weekend drinking or nickel slots. Don’t overeat or kill another person, don’t steal, don’t commit adultry. While many religions have extremist wings, a lot of their core beliefs are there for a reason, and I believe this reason is to promote a healthier life with the greatest potential for success and reproduction, because we all know that reproduction is what is going to spread the religion the most efficiently (I’m Catholic, and they ban every form of birth control for this very reason). A second way is to impose their beliefs and convert others to their religion, something we’re seeing daily around the world from all religions. A religion, like a cooporation, must follow the “if you aren’t growing you’re dying” motto. Homosexuality goes against this rule because it results in a religion having 2 less members after death due to lack of reproduction. And religion, being a successful meme, has a backup plan for those that do not follow the core beliefs or question it - persecution or Hell. It’s a paradox, God gives us free will but our only choice is to choose correctly according to religion or else - that doesn’t sound like much of a choice. It’s hard to believe that over five billion people on this planet alive today will be going to Hell - I can’t imagine any sort of God that would place creatures in His image on a planet only to let most fail in returning to Him.
Me, being a scientist, would much rather figure what living a happy, healthy lifestyle means on my own. Hopefully I will come to the right conclusions because I think things through thoroughly, but you have to remember that the majority of the people in this world do not. They can hardly see past the upcoming weekend, nor will they care to try. But for this majority of the world something simple like religion offers them easy-to-follow guidelines on how to live a happy, healthy life. The Bible is one such set of guidelines - many can ignore it and still discern between right and wrong on their own and live a successful life in God’s eyes because they think on a different wavelength, but the majority cannot. Without these guidelines civilization is in danger because the majority of people will not feel they need to be held accountable for their actions. At this point their discresions my affect others around them and weaken civilization.
The problem occurs when a religion decides that their lifestyle is not only suitable for them, but for everyone around them. As a libertarian (yes, another middle-of-the-road when it comes to beliefs, hated by conservatives and liberals alike) I cannot agree that a religion or government has any right telling anyone how to live their lives, so long as they aren’t affecting the lives of others. In counter-point, where would civilization be without rules and laws? It’s a very fine balance between anarchy, personal freedom, and civilization.
I don’t have the answers but I do know that I will come up with them on my own for me, and only me, and I will not impose these conclusions upon others. What I do believe though is that no man can speak for God. Homosexuality, like pork, may one day be accepted widely, but more than likely not ever embraced by modern religions. People against homosexuality are so due to very core beliefs embedded in them since childhood, the reasons as to why they or their parents or grandparents may not even understand, beyond “that’s unnatural”. You have to understand why they are against homosexuality and respect the fact that religion is probably one of the main reasons we even have society today. There are many examples where religionless societies have fallen - not because the intellectuals leaders let it happen, but because the common man was not able to achieve a happy, healthy lifestyle when he just lives day by day, unaccountable for his actions. For civilization to exist, we do need rules and laws, so pick your poison - religion, or none.
Your basic premise that religion is necessary to keep society from falling apart is bollocks.
Religious faith is associated most heavily with the third world, and is least prevalent in western societies.
Australia is very secular. Rates of religious affiliation are falling. Rates of participation in religious matters are falling (only a few percent of people spend any time on religious matters on an average day). Meanwhile, (based on historical norms) health is fantastic and for all the talk of increases in crime etc we live in an exceptionally peaceful society.
Can you say the same about Western Africa and South America, where religion is most pervasive?
Mostly your argument is a gigantic fatuous Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
There is society. There is religion. Therefore, religion is responsible for society.
There is religion. There is war and pestilence. Therefore, religion is responsible for war and pestilence.
I can’t remember…was His4ever only religious when it suited her purposes or was she at least consistent? I seem to remember some bit of consistency with her.
You should have heard my co-worker explaining a Catholic Mass yesterday regarding one of our co-workers who was murdered over the weekend (sad story - I’m not trying to make light of that) - she’s NOT CATHOLIC and fully admits that she’s NEVER BEEN TO A CATHOLIC CHURCH. She hasn’t even been to an Episcopal Church! She’s some kind of Pentacostal that’s apparently just indiginous to the Bible Belt, but even she said yesterday that she hasn’t been in years.
Umm…wouldn’t you leave the explanation of the Catholic Mass up to the Catholics in the office? Geez, I can’t wait to never work with this woman again (last day is tomorrow for me! Yay!)
[Upon preview - sorry, JayJay! Is she at least kinda fun to mess with like BeetleJuice?
Ava
IS there such a thing as “casual divorce?” I’ve never been divorced, myself, but considering the number of friends I’ve nursed through divorces, I was under the impression it was big, legal, expensive, painful, and a general pain in the bahonkus.
“Cohabitation.” Gonna be fun to see how they try to put a stop to that without denting the Constitution.
“Deliberate childlessness.” Okay, now, THAT’s scary. What’re they gonna do, start arresting childless women and sending them to Breeding Centers or something? Or try to outlaw birth control?
Re: the comparision to the Taliban.
I’d suggest reading “Reading Lolita in Tehran.” Pre-Revolutionary Iran was very secular. A lot of the revolutionaries were secular, some working for a democratic replacement to the Shah (she makes it sound like most she knew were Marxists). The Taliban (or the fundamentalist Iranian government) did not spring up overnight, there was a gradual encrouching of rights before the big stuff. First off women must be decorously dressed. Then headscarves. Then they can’t work outside the home. Then they can’t be seen in the company of a man not their husband, father or brother.
Another good book is “Before the Deluge,” which talks about Berlin in the late 1920s and early 1930s - the Christopher Isherwood era. Certainly the liberal, intellectual Berliners didn’t think the Nazi’s could ever roll back the clock as they did.
And a point made by both these books is that the elite still does what they want - they aren’t impacted by the morality laws - they simply use them as a tool. Since few can be 100% pure all the time, you have a convienent club to get rid of your enemy. Simply find a banned book in his house. Or banned liquor.
I’m not saying this is happeing here, just that its naive to believe it couldn’t. And naive to believe there aren’t Americans who would like a theocracy as restrictive as that of the Taliban.
Could they even really get an amendment against abortion? I realize that Roe v. Wade is potentially in peril of being overturned, but even if that happened it wouldn’t change a thing in states where abortion is legal. While I have no doubt that an anti-abortion amendment could easily achieve ratification by the states, I think they’d find it much harder to get it through Congress in the first place. They’d need two-thirds majority in both houses, which would probably be easy in the Senate, but not in the House.
I’d think it would be the other way around, if likely at all. The Senate tends to be much less fire-breathing in either direction than the House. I can’t imagine 66 Senators who’d actually vote for an amendment to ban abortion.
How about this article?
Some of the people quoted in the article are rather vocal about not liking or wanting children, but they should have them anyway? :rolleyes:
IMHO everything that exists today is a result of survival of the fittest, you, me, religion, war, society…Religion very well may be responsible for war and pestilence, but that is neither provable nor unprovable. But war, like religion, is a “meme” and is a means to achieve survival of your ways and your memes. I’d ask the Carthagineans but they died at the hand of the memes of the Romans. Even something like compassion for those unfit for survival can be seen as survival of the fittest as the result of the meme “compassion” which prevails throughout society.
:eek: I’m gonna end up like the women in The Handmaid’s Tale.
Your country is fucked up. Completely and utterly fucked up.
I pity you all.
I think many of you are misreading this. Yes, the Reconstructionalist group is scary. Yes, there are intolerant people in this group who have wildly different ideas about the role of government and religion in your life (and how they should interact) than most of us.
But, in the end, this is a step towards moral and intellectual honesty. People like Allan Carson (Sullivan cited this article today, he is also mentioned in the OP’s article) are saying that arguing that marriage is about procreation won’t work much longer in the fight against gay rights. It is too easy to debate around it, using childless heterosexual couples. Any justice (Carson mentions even Scalia) can see that there are rights associated with marriage, and there exists a disparity if a group of a population is systematically disenfranchised from these benefits. The GAO produced a list of over 1000 rights associated with marriage. All should be free to enter this contract.
So the argument around this has been that marriage is based on procreation. Well, the State of Massachusetts argued this and their court ruled against it, because the obvious rebuttal is that there are plenty of straight couples without children.
The honest intellectual answer is to argue that if marriage=procreation and therefore we need to save marriage, we need to go after the childless marriages, elderly marriages, and the easy divorce laws.
This leads to some bizarre arguments (like giving a marriage license and revoking after 5 years unless they have procreated), but at least it is intellectually consistent. Expect to see this among those vocal about gay rights – they will be hammering at the civil rights angle to this. They will be hammering at the hypocrisy inherent in going after the minor threat to marriage (as an institution for raising children) of gay unions and ignoring the major threats of infidelity, divorce, bearing children out of wedlock. They will put out very clearly the rights inherent of a heterosexual couple to childlessness (including things like medical visitation and inheritance that have nothing to do with having children) that are systematically denied to a gay couple. This is an attempt by right-wing think tanks and leaders to head this off at the pass. At least it is approaching it on an intellectually honest level rather than by exploiting inherent homophobia, which we have seen quite a lot of.
Look at the silver lining. It doesn’t further confuse the issue of gay marriage, it is not intellectually dishonest, and if people really believe this stuff about marriage=procreation, it urges them to take the next logical step. Of course they won’t, as it will be hella unpopular, but at least it points out huge gaping logical flaws in their arguments. Which may make them reevaluate their arguments in the first place.
You miss the point.
Things survive because they have characteristics that cause them to do so. Religion has characteristics that cause it to survive so it does. No argument there.
Your argument seems to be that the characteristic that religion has that keeps it alive is that it “is probably one of the main reasons we even have society today”.
That is a suggestion for which you have provided no evidence. The evidence runs counter to that suggestion.