Comments on: Response to “Vote ‘yes’ on preserving society” http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/ The Personal Webspace of Nathan Rice Sun, 16 May 2010 21:27:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Nathan http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-114 Nathan Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:06:55 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-114 Florian, I'm so glad you found us! Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Florian,

I’m so glad you found us! Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

]]> By: Florian http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-113 Florian Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:36:28 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-113 Hi, I found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog :-) Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day :) Hi,
I found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog :-)
Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day :)

]]> By: George http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-112 George Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:05:30 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-112 "I’m and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters." Exactly! The religious right has two choices: they can agree that legal marriage and religious marriage are two different animals, and accept that gays are entitled to the former; or else deny the government the right to marry anyone, homosexual OR hetereosexual. If marriages can only be obtained from churches, and governments can only give civil unions, gays will STILL be able to marry because there are plenty of churches that will marry them. "Polygamy is probably socially destructive" There's a simpler reason for not giving marriage status to polyamories. If gays are denied marriage, they are essentially being told they cannot have romantic relationships because of an accident of their birth. Polygamists are still homosexual or hetereosexual, and are not being denied a romantic relationship with the person of their choice. They are simply being told they must choose the 1 person who is most special to them as their companion. That said, I must admit I am not certain where I stand on polygamy. The justification I just gave for not according it marriage status is a logical one, I think, but I am not sure I agree with it, and am willing to be convinced either way. “I’m and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters.”

Exactly! The religious right has two choices: they can agree that legal marriage and religious marriage are two different animals, and accept that gays are entitled to the former; or else deny the government the right to marry anyone, homosexual OR hetereosexual. If marriages can only be obtained from churches, and governments can only give civil unions, gays will STILL be able to marry because there are plenty of churches that will marry them.

“Polygamy is probably socially destructive”

There’s a simpler reason for not giving marriage status to polyamories. If gays are denied marriage, they are essentially being told they cannot have romantic relationships because of an accident of their birth. Polygamists are still homosexual or hetereosexual, and are not being denied a romantic relationship with the person of their choice. They are simply being told they must choose the 1 person who is most special to them as their companion. That said, I must admit I am not certain where I stand on polygamy. The justification I just gave for not according it marriage status is a logical one, I think, but I am not sure I agree with it, and am willing to be convinced either way.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-110 Nathan Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:28:16 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-110 Rob, Well said! There are many things that I, as a Christian, think are wrong, as does the catholic or the Muslim or the humanist. As you said, legislating religious morals into law for no other reason than their presence in a particular religious dogma is utterly absurd. Matthew, It is indeed about definition. Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere, as things very easily slip down the slope in our culture. However, there must be some reason for drawing the line. Polygamy is probably socially destructive (as illustrated by the various polygamous cults in the US), and I imagine that statement would probably stand up to evidentiary scrutiny. If so, it would be in the interest of the country to restrict people from doing that (as it is currently, for good reason). The same for beastiality, pedophelia, etc. "Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me." Read this: http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/11/07/election-day-2006/ I'm and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters. Rob,

Well said! There are many things that I, as a Christian, think are wrong, as does the catholic or the Muslim or the humanist. As you said, legislating religious morals into law for no other reason than their presence in a particular religious dogma is utterly absurd.

Matthew,

It is indeed about definition. Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere, as things very easily slip down the slope in our culture. However, there must be some reason for drawing the line. Polygamy is probably socially destructive (as illustrated by the various polygamous cults in the US), and I imagine that statement would probably stand up to evidentiary scrutiny. If so, it would be in the interest of the country to restrict people from doing that (as it is currently, for good reason). The same for beastiality, pedophelia, etc.

“Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me.”

Read this: http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/11/07/election-day-2006/
I’m and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters.

]]> By: Matthew D. http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-111 Matthew D. Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:54:30 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-111 The bottom line is that the issue has nothing to do with legislating morality (something that is generally untenable). It is about a definition. If somebody wanted to claim their dog, cat, and lizard as "child dependents" on their tax form- and demanded subsequent tax deductions on that basis- their claim would not hold water. Why? Because dogs, cats, and lizards are not children. Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me. The bottom line is that the issue has nothing to do with legislating morality (something that is generally untenable).

It is about a definition. If somebody wanted to claim their dog, cat, and lizard as “child dependents” on their tax form- and demanded subsequent tax deductions on that basis- their claim would not hold water. Why? Because dogs, cats, and lizards are not children. Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me.

]]> By: Rob http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-109 Rob Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:18:32 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-109 I think it would be wise for for us to be careful to make a distinction between what Scripture says is right or wrong and what we as a secular democracy should consider legal or illegal. Just becasue something may be morally evil does not necessarily mean we should make it illegal. Certainly as a Christian I believe that worshiping a false god is evil (the first commandment God gives is to have no other god before Him!), but I would not want to make it illegal to worship Allah, Yahweh, or any other god or goddess (or none at all) in our country. I think when it comes of homosexuality, Christians should be careful to draw that distinction and do the exegetical work to show that the Bible considers homosexual behavior a sin and then do the more difficult work on sociological / political grounds to prove the case that it should therefore be illegal in our particular non-theocratic society. I think when we don't make this distinction, we muddy the waters and don't present our case well. I think it would be wise for for us to be careful to make a distinction between what Scripture says is right or wrong and what we as a secular democracy should consider legal or illegal. Just becasue something may be morally evil does not necessarily mean we should make it illegal. Certainly as a Christian I believe that worshiping a false god is evil (the first commandment God gives is to have no other god before Him!), but I would not want to make it illegal to worship Allah, Yahweh, or any other god or goddess (or none at all) in our country. I think when it comes of homosexuality, Christians should be careful to draw that distinction and do the exegetical work to show that the Bible considers homosexual behavior a sin and then do the more difficult work on sociological / political grounds to prove the case that it should therefore be illegal in our particular non-theocratic society. I think when we don’t make this distinction, we muddy the waters and don’t present our case well.

]]> By: George http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-108 George Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:50:44 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-108 Even the Catholics are now admitting that homosexuality is not a 'choice'. However, this makes their logic even more twisted than the fundamentalist Protestants who abhor gays. According to the Catholic hierarchy, homosexuality is not a choice, but having gay relations is. Therefore, so long as gays never have gay relations, it's ok. So basically, because of something which THE CATHOLICS ADMIT is nothing more than an accident of birth, an entire group of people is told they can never be allowed to have a romantic relationship. Ever. Even the Catholics are now admitting that homosexuality is not a ‘choice’. However, this makes their logic even more twisted than the fundamentalist Protestants who abhor gays. According to the Catholic hierarchy, homosexuality is not a choice, but having gay relations is. Therefore, so long as gays never have gay relations, it’s ok. So basically, because of something which THE CATHOLICS ADMIT is nothing more than an accident of birth, an entire group of people is told they can never be allowed to have a romantic relationship. Ever.

]]> By: Ubuntu http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-107 Ubuntu Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:31:57 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-107 I think a lot of anti-gay advocates /are/ vicious. Like these nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE&NR And the people who murder gays, also nuts (but a minority). This pretty much closes up the whole gay issue (well not quite): [link removed, not because the article wasn't applicable, but some of the content might be objectionable. the link essentially gave examples of homosexual activities in the animal kingdom |~nathan] I think a lot of anti-gay advocates /are/ vicious. Like these nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE&NR

And the people who murder gays, also nuts (but a minority).

This pretty much closes up the whole gay issue (well not quite):

[link removed, not because the article wasn't applicable, but some of the content might be objectionable. the link essentially gave examples of homosexual activities in the animal kingdom |~nathan]

]]> By: George Daole-wellman http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society-2/#comment-106 George Daole-wellman Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:18:05 +0000 http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/12/31/response-to-vote-yes-on-preserving-society/#comment-106 Thank you for this. In case any readers accuse you of not backing up your facts, here are some studies that do indeed show children of homosexual parents are equally well adjusted to their peers from 'traditional' families: http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm?pagenumber=2 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670 http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html Thank you for this. In case any readers accuse you of not backing up your facts, here are some studies that do indeed show children of homosexual parents are equally well adjusted to their peers from ‘traditional’ families:

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm?pagenumber=2
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html

]]>