Benton County Oregon Bans All Marriage

[Mystech]

like Mystech's appeal to religious hatred and my own stupidty

Well lets give credit where it's due here. I only hate religion when someone is trying to force their views on me. I'll admit, however, that I hate stupid people all the time.

The matter does not concern religion.

yes, despite your insistence that your theological views matter at all on this issue, it is certainly not a religious issue, maybe now you and the rest of the religious right can back off?

It's irrelevant why marriage means what it means to me or why it means something else to Mystech.

I think that that is very relevant. We're not mindless slaves to tradition and arbitrary rules, it's our job as citizens of the United States to make sure our laws and our government makes sense within it's own context.

So a religious argument, while having no bearing on the law, can indeed effect someone's meaning of a given word.

Yes, however if someone tries to impose their particular take on an issue in order to conform with their religious beliefs then that's nothing but government institutionalization of religious views. It's inherently immoral.

Perhaps Mystech might want to explain why the Spartans, where homosexuality was openly practiced, never considered it marriage? Now the Spartans were not being racist, bigots, or morons. They knew that marriage was between a man and wife.

Well that's a fine straw-man, do you really want me to justify the actions of a civilization that passed away thousands of years before either of us were conceived? I find that a bit hard to do. I don't even see how this is relevant, as by your own previous arguments a marriage between two ancient Greeks could not really be a marriage because they're a bunch of heathens with more gods than you can count. Their institution of marriage was much different than the Christian institution and different from the one we live under today, I don't see how we should be accountable to thousands of years old traditions that weren't even practiced in our own culture.

Similarly, black's rights were not denied by marriages being of only the same race without assuming the superiority of whites. The truth of the matter is that a white couldn't marry a black and a black couldn't marry a white. Yet if both races are considered equal, as a person should, the restriction affected both whites and blacks equally. The rationale behind the distinction was, nonetheless, racist without making the distinction racist. When the rationale was rejected, there was no motive behind making the distinction between mariages.

You're able to tie your mind in more knots than I thought was possible. Does cognitive dissonance come easily to your people, or do you have to work hard at it?

 

[okinrus]

Well lets give credit where it's due here. I only hate religion when someone is trying to force their views on me. I'll admit, however, that I hate stupid people all the time.

You really shouldn't hate anyone.

yes, despite your insistence that your theological views matter at all on this issue, it is certainly not a religious issue, maybe now you and the rest of the religious right can back off?

I don't consider myself a member of the religious right. I do, however, defend my right and those in goverment's right to define words based upon their religion. It's part of the freedom to practice religion.

Yes, however if someone tries to impose their particular take on an issue in order to conform with their religious beliefs then that's nothing but government institutionalization of religious views. It's inherently immoral.

What are you suggesting Mystch? Am I to define every word by the opposite of what my religion defines it to be? My religion defines stealing, lying, and marriage. For marriage, it defines recognized and unrecognized marriages and things that are plainly just not marriage. Of course, behaving in a matter exactly opposite to my religion is just as religious as my religion. Who am I to say to a Satanist that he can't have his own personal definition? He can, and he can get it approved with enough votes.

Now, you're also showing a lack of trust in our democratic goverment, because quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors. I assure you that their meanings for the words "free", "right" and "man" may well have came from the bible.

 

[Tiassa]

You really shouldn't hate anyone.

Why is it always the people who inspire hatred who say that?

Look, I agree. I don't hate you. I just think the world would be a better place if all the Christians went home to God now. They'd be happy, I'd be happy, real estate costs would come down, the job market would open up . . . .

I do, however, defend my right and those in goverment's right to define words based upon their religion. It's part of the freedom to practice religion.

Note the words "their religion". They can define words according to their religion however they want. You cannot execute those opinions as laws, however. This is the United States of America. Get used to it. Supremacy is not equality.

Am I to define every word by the opposite of what my religion defines it to be?

That's the difference between whether you want to think or merely obey.

God gave you a brain ... let me guess--are you going to say that rational thinking is a tool of the devil?

Who am I to say to a Satanist that he can't have his own personal definition? He can, and he can get it approved with enough votes.

And it can still be taken apart if it fails to preserve equal protection before the law.

Now, you're also showing a lack of trust in our democratic goverment, because quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors. I assure you that their meanings for the words "free", "right" and "man" may well have came from the bible.

(1) Many Christian clergy are homosexuals.
(2) The definitions do not come from the Bible, but from the person.

That second point, Okinrus, is rather important.

You know when critics accuse Christians of not thinking, either for themselves or at all? You know, the rhetoric about "blind sheep," and the stupidity of a flock that does whatever it's told despite the obvious ramifications? You know, the disparaging talk about the difference between reason and faith? The sacrifice of the intellect that most delights God?

Definitions from the Bible?

No. Definitions from their brains, from their characters, from their own selves.

 

[SpyMoose]

If god knew that this whole "Definition" thing would become such a hot issue in this great nation, which is allegedly struggling to save its Christian soul, why didn't he put a glossary in the bible?

 

[okinrus]

Why is it always the people who inspire hatred who say that?

Look, I agree. I don't hate you. I just think the world would be a better place if all the Christians went home to God now. They'd be happy, I'd be happy, real estate costs would come down, the job market would open up . . . .

I have not once attacked Mystech or any other gay. Although I've attacked certain actions that some people might do, I attack my own faults as well.

Note the words "their religion". They can define words according to their religion however they want. You cannot execute those opinions as laws, however. This is the United States of America. Get used to it. Supremacy is not equality.

I don't follow the distinction here since often times secular society defines words based upon religion. Take, for example, the right to freedom of religion in the consitution. Where is religion defined? Not by the secular society or the individual but by religions. What makes the word "God", the "Ten Commandments", and "Bible" have any meaning outside of religion? How can a court decide that the "Ten Commandments" are religious when they clearly have no meaning outside of religion? How can you define seculalism without religion?

Now, as you've probably guessed, quite a good portion of what I consider "religion" is just defining words. Shouldn't members of goverment have the right to practice my religion, that is, defining words and acting accordingly?

That's the difference between whether you want to think or merely obey.

God gave you a brain ... let me guess--are you going to say that rational thinking is a tool of the devil?

It is only an occasional tool. Not the rational process itself but the creation of a rational trap or circle. The Devil is more rational than we are, so in a direct confrontation of wits, we will surely loose.

(1) Many Christian clergy are homosexuals.
(2) The definitions do not come from the Bible, but from the person.

(1) Does not really matter. Though I would consider that if these people define marriage by the same bible, then they can only be as guilty as I am.

(2) Almost nothing comes from the person alone. Ok, so if that person uses Webster's dictionary for their definition of their marriage. But this dictionary probably uses religious sources along with literary ones. Basically, the dictionary uses popular usage of the words. Yet to say that popular usage is not formed by religion is false. Thus, using a dictionary can be just as "religious" as using the catechism.

You know when critics accuse Christians of not thinking, either for themselves or at all? You know, the rhetoric about "blind sheep," and the stupidity of a flock that does whatever it's told despite the obvious ramifications? You know, the disparaging talk about the difference between reason and faith? The sacrifice of the intellect that most delights God?

Definitions from the Bible?
No. Definitions from their brains, from their characters, from their own selves.

The brain. Well, given enough biblical exposure words are often times derived by one's faith without consciencly realizing it. Characters or personalities are both formed and part of someone's identity. I'm afraid, however, that a Christian pastor's belief in only one God might be stronger than his belief in freedom, suggesting that both God and the ideas of freedom may be encompassed by personality. Our own selves may decide what is right(ie., the belief that slaves should be free), but it clearly does not define the meaning of words, as is observed by any foreigner.

 

[Tiassa]

I have not once attacked Mystech or any other gay. Although I've attacked certain actions that some people might do, I attack my own faults as well.

And?

I don't follow the distinction here since often times secular society defines words based upon religion.

First off, I don't doubt that you don't follow the distinction. More importantly, though, is that the rest of that is true to a certain extent, but not according to your supporting argument:

Take, for example, the right to freedom of religion in the consitution. Where is religion defined? Not by the secular society or the individual but by religions. What makes the word "God", the "Ten Commandments", and "Bible" have any meaning outside of religion? How can a court decide that the "Ten Commandments" are religious when they clearly have no meaning outside of religion? How can you define seculalism without religion?

The word religion is not defined by religions in this case; atheism is protected as a religious position according to the idea of "freedom of religion." Words like "God," "Ten Commandments," and "Bible" refer to ideas, the latter two more concrete than the first. The court can decide that the Ten Commandments are religious specifically because their primary authority is religious. Secularism without religion is ... humanity in a hitherto-unknown condition. But essentially, secularism can't be defined without religion. Without religion, secular means human insofar as what we might speak of as a "secular idea" bearing no consideration of religion is merely a "human idea." When you strip away all the artificial labels, you're still a human being.

Shouldn't members of goverment have the right to practice my religion, that is, defining words and acting accordingly?

That all depends on how the religious idea enters the civic arena. If one's only real objection to murder is that God says it's wrong, that's no reason to not enforce laws against murder. But if one's religious interpretations are effected within the civic sphere in such a manner as to restrict unnaturally and unfairly the freedoms of others, a better, more rational reason needs to be found.

It is only an occasional tool. Not the rational process itself but the creation of a rational trap or circle. The Devil is more rational than we are, so in a direct confrontation of wits, we will surely loose.

The sad thing is that there's allegorical truth in that; I hold myself answered.

Does not really matter.

Fair 'nuff. But just to be clear, for the record, your point that quite a few of the abolitionists were Christian pastors and the assertion it is meant to buoy are similarly invalid.

Almost nothing comes from the person alone. Ok, so if that person uses Webster's dictionary for their definition of their marriage. But this dictionary probably uses religious sources along with literary ones. Basically, the dictionary uses popular usage of the words. Yet to say that popular usage is not formed by religion is false. Thus, using a dictionary can be just as "religious" as using the catechism.

You're only making my point for me:

• Fair enough: nothing that a person thinks on their own is independently their own.
• But we might ask here: One million people believe one-million different things about what God wants from humanity according to the Bible; some of these things contradict each other; can it be said that all one million interpretations are correct? So much for the eye of the needle.
• While the Bible, for instance, influences a person's definition of a word, so, too, does the person's other experiences and knowledge influence their perception and definition of what the Bible says.
• You're running from the point: If the definitions came from the Bible, there would be fewer conflicting definitions. To wit: Christianity, to me, is encapsulated largely by two passages in Matthew. But those words don't necessarily read the same, and can be construed so that one should be joyous when burned at the stake; "We're doing this because we love you; this will hurt us more than it will you." Be there a God in Heaven, at least the second part is probably true.

I would never endorse a system that leads to burning people at the stake, especially for those reasons. Yet if I leave it simply to those passages in Matthew (chs. 5 & 25, latter portions of each) without assessment of the rest of those chapters, the rest of that gospel, the rest of the Gospels, the rest of the Bible .... And then we move into a slightly different dimension, and this is where it becomes, well, I think it gets rather quite apparent, but it seems I'm wrong about that:

• All of what the Bible means to any one person is determined not only by the words on the page, but what those words mean to the person.

It's the same as two people having a different opinion about what a line in a song means. What, for instance, does this mean? Or this? (Hint: They have something in common, aside from being by the same band.)

The only real difference is the consequences people choose to invest in the diverse opinions.

Well, given enough biblical exposure words are often times derived by one's faith without consciencly realizing it.

This is true, but to what extent?

Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist--it's amazing how much brainpower men devote to their penises, regardless of faith.

What I'm after is that there's plenty of influences. People in the business world talk business; people in the entertainment industry talk entertainment. By and large, the Biblical influence is minor; it is only apparent because the identifiable ideological commonalities among diverse people cover a range broader than the specialized world of insurance adjuster, industrial electrician, software designer, market analyst, parent, student, friend and social creature, member of family, &c.

Our own selves may decide what is right(ie., the belief that slaves should be free), but it clearly does not define the meaning of words, as is observed by any foreigner.

I disagree. A note I include in SFOG and other discussions from time to time is the usage note for the term "ad hominem." Simply, observe the discussion of the evolving usage of the term; this is a result of people defining words independently of what they actually mean.

Thus, while burning someone at the stake might seem cruel to you and me, if we are to love our enemies, and we are to do unto the least of His Brethren, it's not hard to see how some people arrived at the idea that it was a merciful thing to torture and execute people for witchcraft. The faithful sought to save the witches' souls, a reward certainly worth agony and death.

As perspectives change, so do definitions. When you get down to the practical, words are just words until you add up what they mean, and you can only figure what they mean by putting that meaning into action. In other words, words are just words until you add up what they do, what they communicate.

In order to apply any "definition" to a word, we must still define the words in that "definition."

We can agree, for instance, that it's best to "respect" people. But when we apply that word to measure our actions, what that definition means and how it informs, advises, and influences our choices is entirely up to us. There comes a point where one of our respect will equal disrespect in the eyes of the other.

The Bible influences definitions, but when you add it all up that influence is in its common connections between diverse people. In terms of individual decisions and action, the Bible is a very subtle influence, and even a minor one.

 

[okinrus]

And?

The comments made by Mystech suggest that he was offended somehow by anyone disagreeing him. So I'm stating here that I do not believe that I'm better, more holy, or more good than Mystech. Yet I do have eyes that can see what is wrong, and I do not feel that I'm hypocritical by pointing out what is wrong.

But I'm not going to debate whether homosexual marriage is good or bad. I'm defending our leader's right to define words by their religious experience, knowing full well their are religion, and even sects of Christianity, that have looser definitions of marriage.

That all depends on how the religious idea enters the civic arena. If one's only real objection to murder is that God says it's wrong, that's no reason to not enforce laws against murder.

I don't think so.

But if one's religious interpretations are effected within the civic sphere in such a manner as to restrict unnaturally and unfairly the freedoms of others, a better, more rational reason needs to be found.

You're assuming your case has been made here, I think.

• Fair enough: nothing that a person thinks on their own is independently their own.
• But we might ask here: One million people believe one-million different things about what God wants from humanity according to the Bible; some of these things contradict each other; can it be said that all one million interpretations are correct?

My view is that the govermental law is not about correctness. While I do believe that the law should protected the innocent, minorities, and the weak, unless if the majority of the people support this view, then the goverment is already bankrupt.

So much for the eye of the needle.
• While the Bible, for instance, influences a person's definition of a word, so, too, does the person's other experiences and knowledge influence their perception and definition of what the Bible says.

Of course, I do not believe in the bible alone stuff. Yet this would all be collectively under religion. I know that some atheist are even inspired somewhat by passages in the bible. I defend their freedom to support views in goverment that might have been inspired by reading any number of religious texts. F

Furthermore, I believe that the separation between Church and State never asks why someone believes what they believe, but only looks at the objective "what" to determine if it is religious. While someone could have million religious reasons, that same person could have a billion secular reasons. Need I mention that the most common secular reason is money?

I disagree. A note I include in SFOG and other discussions from time to time is the usage note for the term "ad hominem." Simply, observe the discussion of the evolving usage of the term; this is a result of people defining words independently of what they actually mean.

In general, however, someone's perception of what the word "ad hominem" means comes from some, perhaps incomplete, knowledge of what it means. Very few words are just made up.

Thus, while burning someone at the stake might seem cruel to you and me, if we are to love our enemies, and we are to do unto the least of His Brethren, it's not hard to see how some people arrived at the idea that it was a merciful thing to torture and execute people for witchcraft. The faithful sought to save the witches' souls, a reward certainly worth agony and death.

Those burning witches were not trying to save the witches' souls. Although the torture was an attempt to gain a confession, the killing however seems to be stop the spread of influence.