4 ms·

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

by tntn 9y ago

majormajor 9y ago
Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
- Veelox 9y ago
  I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
- tntn 9y ago
  You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
    - Veelox 9y ago
      > Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? It isn't worse. I know pastors who would refuse to marry a couple that included someone how was divorced or a couple that was having pre-marital sex. They cannot get in legal trouble for refusing that but they might get in legal trouble for refusing to marry two women. > that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality Part of the Christian push back is that same-sex marriage was a none issue until around 2000. It was still unpopular enough in 2008 that Proposition 8 passed, in California! We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.
      - majormajor 9y ago
        > We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way. But that doesn't seem like a reliable guiding principle on its own, e.g. mixed race marriage. This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides, so from a least-harm perspective, it seems better to, as far as the state goes, pick the people who probably don't have a choice in the matter (I'm inclined to believe that homosexuality is primarily an innate thing, because I never chose to be straight, and can't imagine choosing to be homosexual) versus the beliefs of certain religious groups. And the history of racial discrimination in the US points the way towards the reasoning behind equal-service type requirements for businesses. Any problems caused seem much smaller than the (proven!) potential for abuse if the laws weren't there.

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

by tntn 9y ago

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

majormajor 9y ago

Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.

Veelox 9y ago
I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
tntn 9y ago
You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
- majormajor 9y ago
  Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
  - Veelox 9y ago
    > Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? It isn't worse. I know pastors who would refuse to marry a couple that included someone how was divorced or a couple that was having pre-marital sex. They cannot get in legal trouble for refusing that but they might get in legal trouble for refusing to marry two women. > that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality Part of the Christian push back is that same-sex marriage was a none issue until around 2000. It was still unpopular enough in 2008 that Proposition 8 passed, in California! We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      > We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way. But that doesn't seem like a reliable guiding principle on its own, e.g. mixed race marriage. This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides, so from a least-harm perspective, it seems better to, as far as the state goes, pick the people who probably don't have a choice in the matter (I'm inclined to believe that homosexuality is primarily an innate thing, because I never chose to be straight, and can't imagine choosing to be homosexual) versus the beliefs of certain religious groups. And the history of racial discrimination in the US points the way towards the reasoning behind equal-service type requirements for businesses. Any problems caused seem much smaller than the (proven!) potential for abuse if the laws weren't there.