Last night on facebook after watching the election coverage I posted my status as "Val thinks moving home to Canada is a good idea now. :)"
Here are some of the fun responses I got.
friend 1 - "so what are Canada's immigration policies?"
friend 2 - "that is the best thing that's been said all night. I might go study abroad until the next election. Australia anyone?"
friend 3 - "Val, I only live 2 miles from the border, so please pick me up on your way. I'll start packing now!"
Yes, amid all the media coverage of the celebrations across the United States there are some young adults asking themselves, "How do I get out of here?!"
I am asking myself, what's next?
Is he really going to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?
"The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 3719/S. 2020) is a bill in the United States Congress which, if enacted, would abolish all restrictions and limitations on the right of women in the United States to have an abortion, whether at the State or Federal level."
Well he did say no to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, so probably.
So we can be sure that Barack Obama is going to allow another 1,000,000 babies to die through abortion on demand in this country in the next year without a fight.
This has also been weighing in the back of my mind.
So I guess we should start praying that FOCA doesn't happen and that we aren't tested by terrorists. Why would Biden say that? So weird.
Hrm....... roll up your sleeves Pro-Life Movement, this is going to be a really tough 4 years.
My friend Neil posted some really amazing comments from a prominent apologist about the election. Check this out.
http://thedepositoffaith.blogspot.com/2008/10/coming-election.html
I hope Neil doesn't mind me reposting it on here. Wow, Martignoni, Wow!
-------------------------------------------
Here is a few Words from John Martignoni from the Bible Christian Society about what is at stake in this election. This is from his newsletter: "Apologetics for the Masses"
What I have tried to do in the past two newsletters is simply provide information pertinent to the upcoming election. I have given you information regarding what the bishops have said – as a group and individually – regarding Catholic moral teaching and how it relates to this, or any, election. I have given you the positions of the two main candidates for President on pro-life issues – the issues that should be the most important, bar none, to any Catholic who believes that God is the Author of life. And, I have told you how I, personally, am going to vote.
In this newsletter, I would like to ask you to ponder a few questions that I believe get to the heart of what is at stake in this election, and hopefully make it crystal clear what you are voting for this Tuesday, regardless of how you vote:
1) If Adolf Hitler said that electing Barack Obama would result in the gassing of more than one million Jews per year, could you still vote for Obama, in “good conscience,” even if you agreed with his position on the economy, the war, welfare, education, and so on?
2) If the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan said that electing Barack Obama would result in the lynching of more than one million blacks per year, could you still vote for Obama, in “good conscience,” even if you agreed with his position on the economy, the war, welfare, education, and so on?
Now, I want to be clear in that I am not comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler or to the Grand Wizard of the KKK. The point I am making with these two questions is this: If someone who has knowledge of, and a vested interest in, the gassing of Jews, or the lynching of blacks, says that the policies instituted by another person will result in the killing of millions of Jews and blacks…do you think they might know about that of which they speak?
Which leads me to my third question: 3) If the abortion industry said that electing Barack Obama would result in the killing of more than one million unborn babies per year, could you still vote for Obama, in “good conscience,” even if you agreed with his position on the economy, the war, welfare, education, and so on?
And, guess what? The abortion industry has said just that. The abortion industry has stated that the restrictions that a majority of states have put on abortion – parental consent laws, 24-hour and 48-hour waiting periods, informed consent laws – have all worked to reduce the number of abortions by a few hundred thousand per year over the last several years. Plus, the abortion industry has further stated that the lack of federal funding for abortions has “forced” women to carry more than a million pregnancies per year to term. In other words, more than one million babies per year are being born, that wouldn’t be born, if we had federal funding for abortions.
Now, Barack Obama has vowed to do two things that are relevant to these questions. He has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will eliminate all of the restrictions on abortion that have been enacted by the states; and, he has vowed to repeal the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment currently prohibits federal funding of abortion. In other words, Barack Obama has promised to do the very things that the abortion industry has stated will result in a million or more additional abortions per year.
So, if you answered, “No,” to the first two questions above, then to be morally consistent, you should answer, “No,” to the third question. But, there are any number of people who call themselves “Catholic,” who have no problem answering, “Yes,” to the third question. How can that be?
How can one not vote for a man if they know his policies would end up killing a million or more Jews per year, or killing a million or more blacks a year; but they can vote for that man even if they know his policies will kill an additional million or more unborn babies each year?
I’ll tell you how: Catholics, or any one else, who would not vote for Barack Obama if he was going to institute policies that would kill Jews or blacks, but they are more than willing to vote for Barack Obama knowing that he will institute policies that will indeed kill unborn babies, have de-sensitized themselves to what an abortion actually is. They speak of killing babies in terms of a woman’s “right to choose,” or a “woman’s reproductive freedom,” but they never think of abortion in terms of a baby getting sliced into pieces which are then removed, piece-by-bloody-piece, from their mother’s womb. They never think of abortion in terms of a baby being literally burned to death through saline poisoning within its mother’s womb and then being expelled from its mother’s womb by induced labor.
That is why I challenge anyone who plans to vote for Obama, but especially those who call themselves Catholic, to go to this website and view this short video on what an abortion actually is. If you’re going to vote for a man whose policies will result in the killing of an additional one million human beings, then by golly you have the moral responsibility to take a good long look at what it is your vote will allow to happen.
And, if you cannot bring yourself to look at this video, because something in your gut is telling you that what you will see will be too horrible for you to stomach, and will cause you to lose sleep at night, then how in the name of all that is holy, can you vote for a man who is promising to visit this horror upon a million or more babies each year?!
If you do not watch this video, yet you go on and vote for Barack Obama, then I call you a coward and a hypocrite and I ask you what, pray tell, will you say to the Creator of Life when you stand before His Judgment Seat with the blood of millions of unborn babies dripping from your hands? Will you say, “I didn’t know?” Or, will you say, “But I was worried about my tax bill?” May God indeed have mercy on your souls.
Now, if you are all in favor of increasing the number of abortions in this country; or if you don’t believe in God and that God will have the last say in regards to the horror of abortion; or if you believe the killing of millions of unborn children is just one issue among many that you need to consider…well, it is clear that you need to vote for Senator Obama and I am happy to offer this newsletter as an informational source that will help you to solidify your vote.
In Conclusion
Please pray for God’s will to be done in this election on Tuesday, and may God have mercy on us, every one!
38 comments:
does canada not have freedom of choice?
The current Prime Minister is slightly more Pro-Life than Obama. And everyone likes Canadians, no one really looking to bomb us since we have a new president that needs to be tested as VP elect Biden said.
Oh yes, and in the state I currently live Physicial Assisted Suicicde has just been approved and is now legal.
I admire your commitment to the pro-life movement. However, there are people living in poverty in the United States and people who are extremely marginalized by economic and federal social policies. For this reason Obama may actually work to decrease racism in the US and improve the image that the US has globally through improving international relations. Given the status of health policies in general in the US pro-life movements may be the least of their worries in the next 4 years. Internationally health must be a HUMAN RIGHT above all and the focus will hopefully be to achieve this over the next 4 years in the US. Remember in your goal to push through a pro-life movement, policies are often not changed drastically but in small parts. Take smaller steps to achieve your ultimate goal and try and advocate for the small policy changes that will ultimately lead to the larger ones! I do not believe abortion should be condoned but at this time with the status of the world I believe there are larger issues to be dealt with first!
How many millions of lives are being lost because of HIV/AIDS each year and abstinence based approaches that DO NOT work??
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, from 1973 to 2005,
45 MILLION legal abortions have taken place in the UNITED STATES ALONE.
http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
According to the statistics compiled by our government the cumulative number of people who have died from aids WORLDWIDE is 21.8 million.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html
There are your numbers. The number of deaths from abortion alone in this country trumps AIDS twice. ABORTION VICTIMS are being KILLED LEGALLY.
I have reconsidered my move, because I don't want to be thrown in jail for preaching against same sex marriages. At least here, for the time being, I can speak the Truth without legal retribution.
True....
You can spew out stats on HIV and abstinence approaches but the truth is that stats on AIDS deaths are underestimated as a result of poor data collection in third world and developing countries! And the stats that you cite are produced by the US government which until the other day had very little separation of church and state! According to peer review epidemiological research abstinence based approaches have been shown to be less effective in HIV prevention than health promotion, harm reducing approaches!
Lets be clear here! I agree that human life begins at conception, I agree that it is a terrible thing and is being used as a form of birth control for many women in North America, However, I also believe that education is key! I do not believe that using contraceptives in order to Prevent conception or egg fertilization is a form of abortion. If women were educated on these options and educated on the adverse outcomes that can occur post-abortion both physically and mentally most women would make the choice to not have an abortion! It is the overly idealistic religious fundamentalist approaches that lead to young women not having the adequate education they need to make healthy decisions because of abstinence approaches. And colonialist religious approaches in Africa that have prevented millions from receiving the education they need to survive in an AIDS epidemic. When the AIDS epidemic becomes out of control in the US perhaps sexual education approaches and AIDS prevention efforts will be acknowledged and utilized to their full potential. But until its a threat on your own home turf its okay to take an approach to prevention that has been proven to not work! If catholics such as yourself focused on educating women on their right to PREVENT a pregnancy before fertilization occurs then you could win your battle against abortion and prevent many of the terrible consequences that occur for women who receive abortions and later regret it! I agree with your overall cause but I do not agree with the religious fundamentalist attitudes that underly. Abortions will continue as long as young people continue to receive inadequate sexual education!
By the way, Canada has one of the world's most liberal abortion policies. Henry Morgantaller, the man responsible for legalizing abortion in this country, was recently awarded the Order of Canada. You may want to reconsider a move home to a country that undertstands that a woman's right to make decisions about her own body is a valuable thing.
The historical election of a black man (and more importantly, a man who has invigorated the country in a way not seen for decades, and who I believe will make an excellent leader) in a country haunted by slavery and still plagued by racism is significantly more important than your religious ideals.
"However, there are people living in poverty in the United States..."
"... health must be a HUMAN RIGHT above all..."
What about the health of those tens of millions of babies in the US alone that have been slaughtered as punishment for the mistakes of the parents? And besides, any right to being healthy or right to making decent wages doesn't mean anything without the most fundamental of all rights: life. It's impossible to say that a person who devalues life truly cares about any kind of true social justice at all. Besides, nearly eliminating abortions would be a pretty quick fix. Eliminating or even drastically reducing something such as poverty (again, a less importan issue) will not happen quickly, and we won't even come close to doing so in the next four or eight years.
"You can spew out stats..."
First, if you're using the US alone, deaths due to abortion far exceed deaths due to AIDS. If you are going broaden the comparison to be worldwide, there would be two issues. The first would be that you would probably be hard-pressed (to put it mildly) to prove that having a greater accuracy in AIDS statistics throughout the world would triple or even double the stats that have been posted, meaning abortion deaths in the US alone could still easily exceed worldwide deaths due to AIDS. Second, if you count worldwide deaths due to abortion (of which statistics are probably equally skewed on the low side), deaths due to AIDS will still be far, far less.
"According to peer review epidemiological research..."
First, it would be interesting to have the links. Second, real-life situations seem to disagree. I've heard of two examples recently that seem good. The first is a country that began sex education and distributing condoms to the public around ten years ago, and the abortion rates or very, very high. The second country has had widespread abstinence teaching over some amount of time, and the abortion rates dropped very sharply and remain low. I've also read a study put out by Planned Parenthood itself that showed that sex education didn't reduce the rates of pregnancies (and thus abortions), and I've also heard that Clinton said the same thing (I'd have to look it up myself to verify it).
Abstinence-only education needs to be given a chance in order to work and results wouldn't happen instantaneously (as with any program). As it is, people attempt to stifle it, cut it off early and do away with it and then state that for the brief time that it was used in some small area it didn't have a significant impact. That doesn't seem to be the most effective research method...
What happens when the only education that you give people is to tell them anything they want to do is ok and tell them how to indulge themselves in a more safe manner? What happens when you then do things like distribute condoms freely? What happens when you add overly-sexualized media into the mix and take away any assistance that might help people to control themselves? You encourage indulgence rather than self-control. This results in unwanted pregancies, which results in abortion. If you teach people self-control, they are more controlled. If you teach them only that there is no need to control themselves and even encourage the opposite, the result is inevitable. It should be no surprise, then, that with sex education a high percentage of the highest risk groups don't even use condoms, etc., and the practical failure rate for condoms (especially among younger people) is quite high.
It's interesting that people keep trying to blame AIDS and similar epidemics on external things and especially on people who are seen to be opposed to them. It's also interesting that people encourage so much the behavior that leads to the STD epidemics, when normally when we have an epidemic people are quarantined and prevented from engaging in whatever behavior caused the outbreak in the first place (please, no silliness about saying that I think everyone with AIDS should be stuffed in a box and forgotten about).
Scientifically speaking, sex causes AIDS and all other STDs. Sex also causes pregnancies. Condoms don't prevent AIDS and many (all?) other STDs. The only way to stop them is to help people learn self-control (hence, abstinence-only education). Sexual desire, like all other desires, can be abused to an unhealthy degree. Abortions (and other issues) will continue as long as people don't learn to control themselves and instead encourage each other to do whatever they feel like doing (as far as sexuality is concerned). The solution has been to keep decreasing the grade at which people are exposed to sex education. Younger and younger audiences are exposed to the overly-sexualized media. What is the result? Certainly not any kind of decrease in negative consequences. Rather younger and younger people are having sex, getting pregnant, having abortions, and contracting possibly deadly diseases.
Jenn...
First, there doesn't even exist such a thing as "gay marriage". Even if don't consider yourself religious, this is something that is agreed upon pretty much universally across cultures. A good example of this is the passage of proposition 8 in the most liberal state in the US. Biologically speaking, gay "marriage" isn't possible, so it seems a bit silly to even discuss it, but if you're rather speaking of giving gay people the same rights and benefits as married people...
Sexuality is obviously a very large part of human nature, so it's understandable that people don't want to admit that a sexual desire that they have is wrong. But certain sexual desires are wrong. The interesting thing is that so many people are willing to admit that certain sexual desires are wrong but totally discount the possibility out-of-hand that others could possibly be wrong. Similarly, people who experience those sexual desires seen as wrong are encouraged to seek treatment and can successfully overcome such desires, but those who exhibit the other, more popular, sexual desires are only encouraged and told that they're desires can't be changed, that it's just in their nature. And this is disregarding the fact that so many people who were previously "gay" are living very contentedly as totally straight people now.
Being sexually or romantically attracted to a member of the same sex is a condition that can be treated, just as similar desires for animals, children, etc. People who are against so-called "gay marriage" simply recognize this fact and that such a thing just isn't possible (or beneficial for society). They aren't taking away anyone's rights just as preventing people from engaging in other sexually deviant behavior isn't taking away their rights. It doesn't have to do with intolerance but rather with a simple recognition of reality. It also doesn't seem to work very well for societies that attempt to implement it...
Laura:
The value of life is a practical ideal, as it's the most fundamental of all human rights. Saying that symbolic occurrences (such as electing a black person) are more important than the value of life is a difficult position to take at the very best. On a side note, attempting to discount someone's position simply because they are a religious person is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Being religious doesn't make anything someone says false.
Besides, electing a black person in itself doesn't change anything in regards to negative attitudes some people might still have toward black people. Even if his presidency did end up lowering racism by some measure, it wouldn't justify placing such a thing about the value of life. It's impossible to say that you're focused on the good of society if you can say "I support the ability of people to kill babies" at the same time as "I'm against racism." And if you are one to try to nitpick with language ("babies", etc.), as far as Obama's voting record shows, he does, in fact, support infanticide.
Sara:
"... that undertstands that a woman's right to make decisions about her own body is a valuable thing."
This is another one of those phrases that sounds good but ultimately means nothing upon reflection. A similar example is calling people who are against abortion "anti-choice".
To address the first, it's obvious that people who oppose abortion don't have the purpose of oppressing women. Of course they recognize that being able to make decisions about your body is a good thing. However, you have to recognize two things. One is that the law already regulates things that you can do with your body, even things that don't effect others. This isn't oppression; it's common sense. The second thing is that abortion doesn't only affect a woman's body but rather involves the slaughter of a human life. Desiring to prevent someone from slaughtering human life is definitely not the same thing as preventing a woman from making choices about her body.
Calling someone "anti-choice" is also an equally silly statement. Of course a person who opposes abortion isn't simply against "choice"; I'm sure that no rational person would ever actually try to argue that point. People like choices. This is one reason why we live in America. Rather, people who oppose abortion are against the choice to slaughter innocent human life, just as they probably also oppose the choice to slaughter people who make you angry, and many people even oppose choice to slay criminals as a punisment. Are people against the legal definition of murder "anti-choice"? No.
Using such phrases only demonstrates that the person who uses them either hasn't thought out their position enough to debate or is simply present in an attempt to inflame tempers. Of course, I'm not going to be so uncharitable as to assume either of those, so if you're interested in debate, that's fine, and if I misunderstood your comment, I apologize. :)
Jonathan,
While I recognize your point about the phrase "anti-choice," I note that I also did not use that phrase at any point in my previous posting. To characterize pro-life individuals as "anti-choice" is as illogical as calling pro-choice individuals "anti-life" or "pro-abortion." As a person who believes in an individual's right to choose, I also recognize that abortion is not a positive thing, and something that I do not believe any woman wants to go through. While I recognize that others will disagree, to me, abortion is not a black or white moral issue. However, in the grey zone in which these decisions fall, I strongly believe that it is an individual woman who is best positioned to make decisions about her body and her life. And yes, I know that it is not just about "her life" in your eyes, but in my opinion, it remains her choice that is paramount.
OK, "kids", grandma has something to say! The first replies I read talk about 'leaving' - as in abanoning the ship. Excuse me while I go get my 'soapbox' . . . If it bugs you that much, don't wimp out - work to get it fixed! You're all grown-ups now and it's your turn to work on the machine! Put on the "Full Armour" and get in the fight!
gramma j
Here's a little story:
A woman had to drive into the city for a business appointment. She finally found a parking spot along the curb, and got out of her car onto a crowded sidewalk. She was horrified to see on the curb a very small filthy child in dirty worn and skimpy clothing playing with leaves, cigarrette butts, etc. in the gutter, all the while people were passing by on their way here and there and taking absolutely no notice. What if the child ran out into the busy street? What if another car parked, running over the child in the process? She looked up at the sky and cried silently "God! If you're so good and kind and merciful, why don't you do something about this little child?" Then she literally jumped, because she heard a reply: "I just did. I showed it to you"
Yes Gramma you're right. We shouldn't abandon ship.... it's time to get down and do some dirty work.
Yes Gramma you are right... God is good kind and merciful that is why Obama was voted in to look after ALL citizens, improve international relations, improve the economy for the poor and middle classes and not start useless wars and kill thousands of people!!!
Sara:
I know that you didn't use the phrase "anti-choice"; I was simply using it as a similar example. Sorry if I was confusing. :)
It is interesting to note that abortion supporters (not to necessarily lump you in this group) ignore the fact that while they say they are against the suppression of a person's right to choose and choices which negatively affect others, they support the opposite in the case of abortion. The unborn child doesn't get a choice, and the choice of the mother has the ultimate negative consequence for the child.
It's easy to say something like "I am personally against abortion, but I want others to be able to choose it for themselves." The key here is that actions speak louder than words. The person who is "personally opposed" to abortion but supports the practice in action (voting, etc.) is indistinguishable from the person who personally supports abortion and acts in the same manner, with the exception of the occiasional statement "I'm against abortion... really, I am" coming from the former.
The issue is whether or not a woman should have the right to end an innocent human life. It isn't just about her. What if she has a child that is physically, emotionally, and financially draining outside of the womb? Why can't the mother kill that child? Because the child is visible? What's the difference? In either case, the woman is ending an "inconvenient" human life. The same statements also apply to elderly relatives.
Who chose to engage in the act which resulted in pregnancy in the first place? By choosing to engage in such an action, the woman has already made her choice. The problem is that people want to be able to act without having to take responsibility for their actions. The result is the death of a human being. When it comes to ending another's life, the point is that there shouldn't be that "choice", just as there isn't a (legal) choice in the other examples outlined above. There is no room for gray area.
We have laws based on morals that dictate what choice is legal and what choice is not. There is nothing wrong with this; the goal is the betterment and preservation of society, and sometimes it's simply necessary to legislate such things. We are guaranteed the right to life, though people like to try to toss in exceptions such as "My right to happiness or convenience trumps your right to life" when it comes to the unborn.
I would also have to respectfully disagree that the individual woman is in the best position to make such a decision. The woman is probably very emotional, high-strung, probably pressured from every side to kill the child, probably not informed of what is actually happening. This is not the basis for a rational choice. The issue, at its base, is about whether women should be able to kill their (unborn) children, to ignore their right to life. That doesn't leave much of a "choice"...
gramps:
"... Obama was voted in to look after ALL citizens..."
He wasn't, however, voted in to look after the largest majority of human beings affected by poor choices (the unborn), both in the US and internationally. "I will look after your best interests; let me help you kill your children."
"... and kill thousands of people!!!"
Thousands of people die in the US alone every day to abortion. War and every other issue simply don't compare if you want to base your position on numbers.
Jonathan
To say that war and other human rights issues do not compare to abortions and issues that are on the top of Catholics agenda's is an ignorant statement that I will not dignify with a response! People who are "so called" God warriors should be concerned with all injustices in the world and care about the well-being of all people. ? Thats my opinion anyways! There is no point in arguing with people like yourself whose only response is to say "baby killer" in a million different round about ways. Until you have walked in a woman's shoes... which you never will... you will not be qualified to make judgment or have an opinion on the issue. You will never progress in your battle against abortion until you learn to have compassion for others! And that is ultimately what young confused mothers need - compassion and NOT classic Catholic judgment!
Gramps:
It's interesting that people assume that they know everything about a person (and even one's religion) based on one small thing that they say. I said only two small things in my post:
1) Obama was voted in to look after all citizens but the unborn
2) That if you're going to use numbers, no issue compares to abortion
The only thing that I did was state two simple facts. There is no evidence of any agenda from anyone but yourself who feels that they have to try to attack and belittle people who disagree with them. Responding this way to someone who simply states two points refuting your own is, I hope you will agree, not the best way to debate or discuss. But then, it seems obvious by your post that you are not here to discuss but simply to judge. Who is the one who lacks compassion?
It is interesting that having only made two statements, you pull all of these judgements out of the air about how I personally don't care about any other issue, that the only thing that I say is "baby killer", etc. You also demonstrate in your post a total lack of knowledge of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. If you spend the time to think for yourself and read a bit, you will see that the Church has compassion for all issues and people, and demonstrates this by actions to which, I'm sure, neither yours or those of others that you support can compare. If you wish to make an intelligent point, a good piece of advice would be to do a little research before you lay in with the blatant ad hominem attacks.
That being said, while it is important to speak of other issues, abortion is simply the most important of our time. Again, the Church demonstrates it's compassion for all issues in both word and deed. I gave numbers; you simply gave opinions and judgements. If you wish to make a charitable attempt at discussion, I am open to it. If you are so open-minded (as people so often pride themselves as being), show me, rather than hanging on to your baseless assumptions, inaccurate information, and mis-judgements. :)
From your logic Gramps, does this mean that I can't possibly have an opinion about the war if I am not a soldier? Last time I checked women are not asexual. The Father is all the more responsible for a child as is the Mother. Men are and have always been in the same boat.
Also Johnathan never said that he didn't care for other injustices around the world. Only that the 40 million children since the 70's that have been killed by "choice" weighs a little more heavily on his heart as it does mine. If we as a society can't care for our own children, how do you suppose we can possibly care for others?
No one here is judging the women that "choose" to abort there children. We as Catholics want to educate and try to bring healing to these women. "Fire and Brimstone" speeches I agree are not effective. The truth tends to speak for itself.
Also, to note, marriage is not a christian invention and there are several African tribes that have been practicing same-sex marriage for many, many centuries.
There was once a time when marriage was not at all about love, but about property arrangemets, and that time was a mere 100 years ago and less.
Christianity and religion cannot lay claim to the concept of marriage. It's a legal contract, plain and simple.
"Foetuses = not babies nor children"
Of course the term "foetus" is different from the term "baby" and "child". No one is disputing that point. The point is the taking of human life. The reason that one might use "child" or "baby" interchangeably is simply because they recognize it to be a human life. You can argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't help you prove anything logically.
"Also, to note, marriage is not a christian invention..."
Of course; any good Christian will know this. Assuming that a Christian wouldn't understand this simply shows a lack of understanding about Christianity on your part. Further study might help before further comments. On a side note, I hadn't realized that we had switched the topic of conversation to that of marriage, but if you want to switch the topic, that is fine, although it would best be reserved for another forum, since attempting to discuss multiple large issues in a single place under the current format tends to make things convoluted quite quickly.
"... there are several African tribes that have been practicing same-sex marriage for many, many centuries."
There are always groups of people doing something wrong. The fact that someone or some group does something doesn't make it right. This statement isn't very logical.
"Christianity and religion cannot lay claim to the concept of marriage."
Again, Christianity has never tried to lay claim to the concept of marriage, and as far as I know, neither has any specific religion. That would be slightly presumptuous.
"It's a legal contract, plain and simple."
This is, of course, the only natural response for one who doesn't believe in God or spiritual matters. Suffice it to say that such a person will never accept any sort of religious argument. There are, of course, people who would consider themselves "religious" or "spiritual" who also believe that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, but that case follows the same pattern as the first; explaining what I believe to be the nature of marriage will only lend itself to comments from the other person along the lines of "Well, that's not what marriage is" (with the unspoken "according to what I believe"). Even if marriage were simply a legal contract and nothing else, there would still be ample reasons for the institution and privileges associated with it to be limited to certain unions and not others.
Nevertheless, I will provide a small amount of information on what Christians actually believe about marriage, not for the purpose of changing opinions, but rather for the purpose of understanding. Christians believe that Christ (God) raised marriage to the level of a sacrament, so that not only could people be drawn together and lifted up by natural means, but grace could also be conferred. Christians believe in a spiritual level to marriage alongside the obviously physical and legal level.
This point, of course, isn't necessarily needed in the discussion of the meaning and purpose of marriage and any privileges associated with it (though it does have importance in this country, which was founded on Christian principles). There are others reasons why certain privileges are given to unions ("marriages") between one man and one woman and not to other unions. The purpose isn't just giving privileges away to a group of people without reason, which is why the previously mentioned union is given such privileges, and other random groups of people are not given the same privileges.
Also important to note is the importance of the use of "privileges" over "rights" in such cases. In every society, people have never had the "right" to do anything that they wanted. So-called "rights" have always been restricted; what is "wrong" is never a "right".
“Of course the term "foetus" is different from the term "baby" and "child". No one is disputing that point. The point is the taking of human life. The reason that one might use "child" or "baby" interchangeably is simply because they recognize it to be a human life. You can argue semantics all you want, but it doesn't help you prove anything logically.”
Logically, a fetus, at the point any rational doctor would abort it, is not a child or a baby. Human life is not equal to personhood, which is the important part when it comes to abortion.
“There are always groups of people doing something wrong. The fact that someone or some group does something doesn't make it right. This statement isn't very logical.”
The point is that the idea that same-sex marriage somehow corrupts the idea of marriage or that the definition of marriage is ‘man and woman’ is ridiculous.
“This is, of course, the only natural response for one who doesn't believe in God or spiritual matters. Suffice it to say that such a person will never accept any sort of religious argument. There are, of course, people who would consider themselves "religious" or "spiritual" who also believe that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, but that case follows the same pattern as the first; explaining what I believe to be the nature of marriage will only lend itself to comments from the other person along the lines of "Well, that's not what marriage is" (with the unspoken "according to what I believe"). Even if marriage were simply a legal contract and nothing else, there would still be ample reasons for the institution and privileges associated with it to be limited to certain unions and not others.”
Last I checked, religion and government were to be kept separate. And marriage is a legal, government-sanctioned institution. There is no logical reason for the contract to be limited to purely men and women. It cannot be anything but prejudicial and bigoted to do so, provided you believe in separation of church and state. Which, in the US, is a judicial precedent.
“This point, of course, isn't necessarily needed in the discussion of the meaning and purpose of marriage and any privileges associated with it (though it does have importance in this country, which was founded on Christian principles). There are others reasons why certain privileges are given to unions ("marriages") between one man and one woman and not to other unions. The purpose isn't just giving privileges away to a group of people without reason, which is why the previously mentioned union is given such privileges, and other random groups of people are not given the same privileges.”
The US may have been founded on so-called “Christian” principles, but some very important founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were more deists than Christians. There is still the judicial entrenchment and convention of separation of church and state, which negates any presumption that Christian values should have anything to do with legal, governmental decisions.
“Also important to note is the importance of the use of "privileges" over "rights" in such cases. In every society, people have never had the "right" to do anything that they wanted. So-called "rights" have always been restricted; what is "wrong" is never a "right".”
A “right” to a certain freedom is not the same as “right” meaning “correct.” Try not to confuse your homonyms.
Things aren’t illegal or legal because they’re wrong or they’re right, in a moral sense. They are illegal because they infringe on the civil and political rights over other people. Stealing is illegal because it infringes on peoples’ rights to property, not because it’s morally wrong to steal. It’s illegal to murder people, because it infringes on their rights to life (and liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Same-sex marriage should not be illegal because it doesn’t infringe on anybody else’s rights, as constitutionally defined. There is not constitutional phrase or amendment that states that Christians have a right to dictate a person’s ability to enter into a legal contract.
What I dont understand now, is why Christianity gets to say that gay marriage is wrong? Why can't the African tribe be right, and you be wrong?
You say it as if it is fact, and because you believe it, it must be true.
I just noticed this comment from Matthew:
"I have reconsidered my move, because I don't want to be thrown in jail for preaching against same sex marriages. At least here, for the time being, I can speak the Truth without legal retribution."
That displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada's free speech laws. You would only get "thrown in jail" for hate speech, which is defined as inciting violence against a certain group. You can preach against same-sex marriage all you want in Canada. You just can't yell "Kill the gays!!"
"Logically, a fetus, at the point any rational doctor would abort it, is not a child or a baby. Human life is not equal to personhood, which is the important part when it comes to abortion."
I never said that a fetus is a "child" or "baby"; please re-read my clarification on the use of the terms. "Personhood" is simply a term used by people who want to ignore that they support the destruction of human life. This term is only important in the attempt to ignore the real face of the issue in a similar manner to phrases such as "it's only a lump of tissue" (and whether or not the latter phrase is scientifically unfounded is beside the point).
"The point is that the idea that same-sex marriage somehow corrupts the idea of marriage or that the definition of marriage is ‘man and woman’ is ridiculous."
Please, offer more proof and less opinion. There aren't only theological reasons to oppose the concept of "gay marriage". The concept of marriage has existed since the beginning. There have always been very practical and natural reasons for it, and any concept of "gay marriage" flies in the face of nature. Any attempt to discredit this by saying that such things are no longer necessary don't work, because such arguments still ignore the fundamental nature of humanity. I have also already mentioned that there are very practical reasons for associating certain privileges with unions between one man and one woman, which I could explain further. You, however, have given no "proof" for your statements besides opinion and emotional appeal.
"Last I checked, religion and government were to be kept separate."
First, this concept isn't in the constitution, though I note that you have been careful to use the term "judicial precident". However, US courts continue to this day to make statements such as "The ACLU makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome" and that American history "is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."
"There is no logical reason for the contract to be limited to purely men and women. It cannot be anything but prejudicial and bigoted to do so, provided you believe in separation of church and state."
Again, this argument falls flat in the face of the fact that there aren't simply theological reasons to oppose the concept of "gay marriage". But you can, of course, continue to state opinions and attack the opposition ("It cannot be anything but prejudicial and bigoted...") rather than addressing the issue if you so choose. Simply be aware of who will be proving themselves to be "bigoted" and "prejudicial" if you do so.
"A 'right' to a certain freedom is not the same as 'right' meaning
correct.' Try not to confuse your homonyms."
I have never confused the concept of "rights" with what might be considered "right". You have simply misunderstood my statement. It is possible for a government to give people a certain "right" that may be arguably morally wrong; this follows the legal definition of "rights". Under this definition, "gay marriage" is not a right in the vast majority of states. The other definition of the word "rights" is, in fact, governed by morals. Under this definition, "gay marriage" is not a right, because it allows and encourages depraved and unnatural behavior, among other reasons.
"It’s illegal to murder people, because it infringes on their rights to life..."
What does abortion do besides infringe upon the right to life? Again, people attempt to appeal to "personhood" and similar arguments in order to ignore the real issue, which is the destruction of human life (and for the sake of convenience). Abortion may be legal in this country, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.
"Same-sex marriage should not be illegal because it doesn’t infringe on anybody else’s rights, as constitutionally defined."
There are other things that are illegal that don't have a negative impact on other people. However, there are other reasons for making something illegal than whether or not it seems to immediately harm the other person directly involved. Some things, such as the concept of homosexual marriage, are dangerous for society as a whole. This isn't simply an opinion; it has to do with the way that things have played out internationally and the way that things will logically work.
You say that "There is not constitutional phrase or amendment that states that Christians have a right to dictate a person’s ability to enter into a legal contract." This, in your own words, means that the founding fathers (and their successors) have based the legality (or lack thereof) of homosexual "marriage" not on religious principle but on logic. Perhaps they thought the issue through a bit more than you have and understood something that you are missing..?
"What I dont understand now, is why Christianity gets to say that gay marriage is wrong? Why can't the African tribe be right, and you be wrong?
You say it as if it is fact, and because you believe it, it must be true."
Please cite my statement that "because [I] believe it, it must be true." This is not something that I have said. As well, I have offered reason, whereas others posting (assuming Anonymous isn't the same person each time) have only offered opinion and emotional appeal (the equivalent to "because [I] believe it, it must be true").
To reiterate, I have never stated simply that "[given issue] is wrong simply because my religion states that it is wrong." "Right" isn't an arbitrary label that can be assigned based on our emotions or desires. Things are right or wrong based on certain factors. Religion is a major one for me, but I have stated (as others recently have not) non-religous reasons for my positions. It isn't only Christians that are dictating policy on gay marriage, but non-Christians as well.
"That displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada's free speech laws. You would only get 'thrown in jail' for hate speech, which is defined as inciting violence against a certain group. You can preach against same-sex marriage all you want in Canada. You just can't yell 'Kill the gays!!'"
This is the way that the law was portrayed and is also the way that similar laws have been portrayed, but this isn't how they work out. They are rather used to stifle opposition to certain positions. Those who support such laws because they think that the laws are limited to prosecuting those who are truly speaking in a hateful manner are being a bit naive.
The effect of the law is governed by the opinion of the ones responsible for the prosecution. In Canada people have already been prosecuted for simply expressing their opinions, without any hateful words or manner. You can only preach against same-sex marriage in Canada as long as the person who decides that they want to be offended by your opinion isn't supported by the one responsible for dispensing any potential penalty.
“I never said that a fetus is a "child" or "baby"; please re-read my clarification on the use of the terms. "Personhood" is simply a term used by people who want to ignore that they support the destruction of human life. This term is only important in the attempt to ignore the real face of the issue in a similar manner to phrases such as "it's only a lump of tissue" (and whether or not the latter phrase is scientifically unfounded is beside the point).”
That is a completely bogus argument, because I could just say your terminology is an attempt to ignore the fact that it IS just a lump of tissue.
“ Please, offer more proof and less opinion. There aren't only theological reasons to oppose the concept of "gay marriage". The concept of marriage has existed since the beginning. There have always been very practical and natural reasons for it, and any concept of "gay marriage" flies in the face of nature. Any attempt to discredit this by saying that such things are no longer necessary don't work, because such arguments still ignore the fundamental nature of humanity. I have also already mentioned that there are very practical reasons for associating certain privileges with unions between one man and one woman, which I could explain further. You, however, have given no "proof" for your statements besides opinion and emotional appeal.”
What are your practical and natural reasons for marriage, beside a legal contract and connection so that two people may openly share their lives together.
“First, this concept isn't in the constitution, though I note that you have been careful to use the term "judicial precident". However, US courts continue to this day to make statements such as "The ACLU makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome" and that American history "is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."”
That doesn’t make it acceptable, or repeal the convention. Every liberal democracy is founded on secular principles, and all philosophers and political theorists acknowledge the necessity of the separation of the two. Liberal democracies are based on individual freedom and liberty. That is not what religion is based on, therefore it has no place in contemporary government.
“Again, this argument falls flat in the face of the fact that there aren't simply theological reasons to oppose the concept of "gay marriage". But you can, of course, continue to state opinions and attack the opposition ("It cannot be anything but prejudicial and bigoted...") rather than addressing the issue if you so choose. Simply be aware of who will be proving themselves to be "bigoted" and "prejudicial" if you do so.”
Then name your reasons. I’ve yet to hear anything logical.
“I have never confused the concept of "rights" with what might be considered "right". You have simply misunderstood my statement. It is possible for a government to give people a certain "right" that may be arguably morally wrong; this follows the legal definition of "rights". Under this definition, "gay marriage" is not a right in the vast majority of states. The other definition of the word "rights" is, in fact, governed by morals. Under this definition, "gay marriage" is not a right, because it allows and encourages depraved and unnatural behavior, among other reasons.”
Morals don’t exist. Ethics, yes. Morals, no. But that’s something we’re going to have to agree to disagree on, because that comes from me being a militant atheist, and you being religious.
"It’s illegal to murder people, because it infringes on their rights to life..."
“What does abortion do besides infringe upon the right to life? Again, people attempt to appeal to "personhood" and similar arguments in order to ignore the real issue, which is the destruction of human life (and for the sake of convenience). Abortion may be legal in this country, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.”
Rights only apply to legal beings, who participate in a social contract. Foetuses are not legal beings and they do not participate in a social contract, therefore they have no rights.
“There are other things that are illegal that don't have a negative impact on other people. However, there are other reasons for making something illegal than whether or not it seems to immediately harm the other person directly involved. Some things, such as the concept of homosexual marriage, are dangerous for society as a whole. This isn't simply an opinion; it has to do with the way that things have played out internationally and the way that things will logically work.
You say that "There is not constitutional phrase or amendment that states that Christians have a right to dictate a person’s ability to enter into a legal contract." This, in your own words, means that the founding fathers (and their successors) have based the legality (or lack thereof) of homosexual "marriage" not on religious principle but on logic. Perhaps they thought the issue through a bit more than you have and understood something that you are missing..?”
I want to hear how you can logically deduce that same-sex marriage can destroy societies.
What makes the founding fathers’ decisions the right ones? They also dictated women and other minorities couldn’t vote. Obviously they weren’t an authority on everything or even most things. But fact remains that your country’s laws are subject to constitutional interpretation, and the Christian Authority principle is not stated.
“This is the way that the law was portrayed and is also the way that similar laws have been portrayed, but this isn't how they work out. They are rather used to stifle opposition to certain positions. Those who support such laws because they think that the laws are limited to prosecuting those who are truly speaking in a hateful manner are being a bit naive.
The effect of the law is governed by the opinion of the ones responsible for the prosecution. In Canada people have already been prosecuted for simply expressing their opinions, without any hateful words or manner. You can only preach against same-sex marriage in Canada as long as the person who decides that they want to be offended by your opinion isn't supported by the one responsible for dispensing any potential penalty.”
I want citations of situations where people who were jailed for peaceful, non-hateful protest.
Stay in the States though, please. We don’t want you in Canada.
"That is a completely bogus argument, because I could just say your terminology is an attempt to ignore the fact that it IS just a lump of tissue."
You could say that, but science would disagree with your "fact".
"What are your practical and natural reasons for marriage, beside a legal contract and connection so that two people may openly share their lives together."
I have stated that "practical and natural reasons" refers to assigning privileges with unions between one man and one woman and not simply to "marriage". However, one simple reason for marriage itself (and the creation of related benefits) is to encourage stability in the raising of children, since stable children are much more likely to become stable adults. This, of course, leads to a more stable society.
"That doesn’t make it acceptable, or repeal the convention."
This is beside the point. As "liberal democracies are based on individual freedom and liberty," I agree that there shouldn't be an enforced state religion. However, there are many guiding principles in religion that are very beneficial for society, and these principles don't negate "individual freedom and liberty." Of course, to make the blanket statement that "that is not what religion is based on" only shows a lack of understanding of basic religious concepts and the meaning of freedom.
"Then name your reasons. I’ve yet to hear anything logical."
To start, unfortunately many people call "illogical" any arguments that disagree with them. Feel free to state what you think is illogical with supporting reasons. Gay marriage doesn't build foundations for a stable society. Studies have shown that gay "marriages" are shorter-lived (if they are entered into at all where they are legal), more often involve multiple partners (and more partners), divorce was more common for couples with children (and more common than if no children were present), are more likely to involve "unprotected" intercourse, seem to have higher incidences of domestic violence and molestation, and the children of which seem to be less stable and perform less well. Biologically speaking, such behavior is also deviant. It is interesting how proponents are so quick to assume that some things are biological while they will at the same time propose that we can overcome our biology if we so choose on the issues of relationsips and intercourse.
"Morals don’t exist. Ethics, yes. Morals, no."
This statement shows a lack of understanding of the English language. The concept of morality is a purely natural and logical one (although it can also be theological). It would also probably be a challenge to find a definition of "ethics" that doesn't mention "morals". I agree that you can disagree, but I would suggest refreshing yourself on the actual meanings of the terms before attempting to use them in conversation (especially a conversation in which you are attempting to prove something).
It seems to me that the theme of your post is that there is no God. People seem to believe this because they personally have no experience of a God figure that can't be explained away in a manner that is agreeable to them. In other words, their entire conception of reality is based upon personal experience, and they attempt to use this personal experience as "fact". In effect, they make themselves out to be some sort of seer who can tell the nature of the universe at a glance. That doesn't sound very "enlightened".
"Rights only apply to legal beings, who participate in a social contract. Foetuses are not legal beings and they do not participate in a social contract, therefore they have no rights."
Legal rights only apply to those deemed to be "legal" beings. But this only explains how abortion remains legal in this country; it does nothing to address the fact that it involves the destruction of a human life and is therefore opposed to a fundamental right to life. I hope that you aren't saying that you base your values on the law (in essence, on the opinion of others). I see that human life is valuable simply due to its very nature of being human. Besides, using your logic, people have no right to gay marriage (in most states), and therefore should never have the right. In fact, it never should have been granted in the first place, because it wasn't a "right" in this country from the beginning.
"Obviously they weren’t an authority on everything or even most things."
How is it that you can state that you are? And who is the ultimate authority? Is it the one who agrees most closely with you?
"I want citations of situations where people who were jailed for peaceful, non-hateful protest."
Here are a few, though simple searches will turn up many more:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg17-2008jun17,0,6999887.column
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers
http://www.zenit.org/article-21689?l=english
The key here is in the first article: "Hate speech is essentially defined as anything certain 'victimized' people find offensive." Laws that criminalize anything that leads to violence (whether intentional or unintentional) can also be very liberally interpreted. A key for Canada is the following (also from the first article): "Dean Steacy, an investigator for Canada's national commission, explained it nicely: 'Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.'"
“You could say that, but science would disagree with your "fact".”
Science doesn’t agree or disagree, because they are ethically restrained from being able to do the studies that could determine it. All concepts of personhood in a foetus are purely philosophical, and there is philosophy to support both sides of our argument.
“I have stated that "practical and natural reasons" refers to assigning privileges with unions between one man and one woman and not simply to "marriage". However, one simple reason for marriage itself (and the creation of related benefits) is to encourage stability in the raising of children, since stable children are much more likely to become stable adults. This, of course, leads to a more stable society.
“To start, unfortunately many people call "illogical" any arguments that disagree with them. Feel free to state what you think is illogical with supporting reasons. Gay marriage doesn't build foundations for a stable society. Studies have shown that gay "marriages" are shorter-lived (if they are entered into at all where they are legal), more often involve multiple partners (and more partners), divorce was more common for couples with children (and more common than if no children were present), are more likely to involve "unprotected" intercourse, seem to have higher incidences of domestic violence and molestation, and the children of which seem to be less stable and perform less well. Biologically speaking, such behavior is also deviant. It is interesting how proponents are so quick to assume that some things are biological while they will at the same time propose that we can overcome our biology if we so choose on the issues of relationsips and intercourse.”
Firstly, stability for same-sex couples will be encouraged by allowing marriage because same-sex couples raising children currently, do not have access to the same kinds of social welfare programs that heterosexual couples do. Also, in an article entitled “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents”, written by Charlotte J. Patterson and published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 15, Issue 5, she completed studies and found that children in same-sex coupled families are did not adversely affect the children in any way, and children in same-sex couple families were within the ranges in every case of children who were in heterosexual families. So you can be nothing but DEAD WRONG in your assumption that children are negatively affected if their parents are homosexual.
In addition, biologically speaking, it is not deviant. There are plenty of other mammals (bonobos and dolphins to name a few) that also engage in homosexual activity. Biologically speaking, it’s perfectly acceptable because humans are one of the few animals wherein the females have hidden ovulation and subsequently sex is pleasurable. Our biology designed us to have sex for pleasure, so why would it be biologically deviant to do so? If sex wasn’t intended for pleasure (in addition to reproduction), why do women even have a clit? Its sole function is to provide sexual stimulation and pleasure. It has no function in reproduction. Often the outcome of having sex is having children, but isn’t always the case. What about females are infertile, like myself? It would be extremely difficult for me to get pregnant naturally, because of a chronic illness I have that affects the ability of my ovaries to produce eggs and create a viable uterine environment. Therefore, should I stay a virgin forever (for the record, I currently AM a virgin) just because the result of me having sex will never result in me having a child?
As well, it is contrary to the general direction of human society to only participate in activities which are the supposed biological intention. In that case, why even have medical technology? Our bodies aren’t biologically meant to fight cancer, so let’s all just succumb to it anyway. It’s the same logic that you are using.
“This is beside the point. As "liberal democracies are based on individual freedom and liberty," I agree that there shouldn't be an enforced state religion. However, there are many guiding principles in religion that are very beneficial for society, and these principles don't negate "individual freedom and liberty." Of course, to make the blanket statement that "that is not what religion is based on" only shows a lack of understanding of basic religious concepts and the meaning of freedom.”
I argue that people would have, and DO know of and appreciate those guiding principles that are found in religion that are beneficial for society, regardless of religion. This is because they are common sense. It’s my opinion that Jesus was just a very englightened, loving fellow and he had a lot of great philosophies, but just because he was friendly that doesn’t make him divine. John Locke had great ideas too, and it’s upon his ideas mostly that the US structure is based upon, and his philosophy does not come from divine intervention.
“This statement shows a lack of understanding of the English language. The concept of morality is a purely natural and logical one (although it can also be theological). It would also probably be a challenge to find a definition of "ethics" that doesn't mention "morals". I agree that you can disagree, but I would suggest refreshing yourself on the actual meanings of the terms before attempting to use them in conversation (especially a conversation in which you are attempting to prove something).”
In my interpretation, and has been reinforced in the several university philosophy courses I have taken during my educational career, morals imply an absolute, whereas ethics are more “relative” or situational.
“It seems to me that the theme of your post is that there is no God. People seem to believe this because they personally have no experience of a God figure that can't be explained away in a manner that is agreeable to them. In other words, their entire conception of reality is based upon personal experience, and they attempt to use this personal experience as "fact". In effect, they make themselves out to be some sort of seer who can tell the nature of the universe at a glance. That doesn't sound very "enlightened".”
I wouldn’t ever claim to know the nature of the Universe. What separates me from a religious person is that I am completely okay with saying I Don’t Know. I’m not necessarily content that I don’t know how the Universe started etc. But I’m content with saying I Don’t Know for now, until science can continue its quest for knowledge and perchance explain it one day. I’d also never say there absolutely is no God, because it can’t be proven and it would be naive to think it could. It can’t be proven either way. I’m agnostic atheist; I don’t think you can prove whether God does or does not exist, but I am not going to believe just in case, and there is nothing that religion offers me that I feel like I need. I’ve been to Church and I’ve read the Bible (several times), and it’s just not for me. I’m open to it, I think. If you can explain to me what it is I’m missing from my life that I need that religion can offer me, I’ll listen. But as of right now, I don’t see that there is anything.
“Legal rights only apply to those deemed to be "legal" beings. But this only explains how abortion remains legal in this country; it does nothing to address the fact that it involves the destruction of a human life and is therefore opposed to a fundamental right to life. I hope that you aren't saying that you base your values on the law (in essence, on the opinion of others). I see that human life is valuable simply due to its very nature of being human. Besides, using your logic, people have no right to gay marriage (in most states), and therefore should never have the right. In fact, it never should have been granted in the first place, because it wasn't a "right" in this country from the beginning.”
I was just explaining that that is why abortion is legal. To make it legal, you have to redefine the legal definition of what is life. And that is why the abortion debate is moving nowhere; because both sides are arguing parallel to one another. To pro-choice people, there is no moral problem with abortion because a foetus isn’t a person. To pro-life people, it’s murder because they do believe it to be a person. I don’t believe a foetus to be a person at any point that a rational physician would perform an abortion, so therefore I see no moral objection. I don’t prefer it, and I don’t believe abortion should be taken lightly. But I believe it should be an option.
“How is it that you can state that you are? And who is the ultimate authority? Is it the one who agrees most closely with you?”
There is no ultimate authority. We never can and never will be 100% right ever on everything, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as 100% right. But we can just work to fix things that we interpret to be wrong. Absolutely I believe I’m right in this situation and those who closely agree with me are right. Not because I think I’m some kind of moral divine authority, but because I believe I have the most compelling evidence. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be debating with you right now.
“Here are a few, though simple searches will turn up many more:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg17-2008jun17,0,6999887.column
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers
http://www.zenit.org/article-21689?l=english
The key here is in the first article: "Hate speech is essentially defined as anything certain 'victimized' people find offensive." Laws that criminalize anything that leads to violence (whether intentional or unintentional) can also be very liberally interpreted. A key for Canada is the following (also from the first article): "Dean Steacy, an investigator for Canada's national commission, explained it nicely: 'Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.'"”
Firstly, opinion editorials do not appropriate citations make.
Seriously Jon, I need some real examples. Not some crap biased editorial that is projecting its own agenda onto the situation. Here is an example of what an unbiased source looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada
This Wikipedia link lists trials wherein people were charged for hate speech. Your job now is to explain to me how they got charged when their speech did not incite hatred or advocate genocide.
And your quote from the opinion article is not an appropriate source! It’s an opinion based on that person’s individual interpretation. It’s not about offense. If it were, the Grits and the Tories could have sued the pants off each other in the last election for being mean to one-another. It’s about INCITING HATRED and ADVOCATING GENOCIDE. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
Enlightened... the name is suiting! you are! haha
"Science doesn’t agree or disagree, because they are ethically restrained from being able to do the studies that could determine it. All concepts of personhood in a foetus are purely philosophical, and there is philosophy to support both sides of our argument."
The qoute of mine to which this comment is referring and the quote of yours that it referenced had nothing to do with personhood. You stated that "...your terminology is an attempt to ignore the fact that it IS just a lump of tissue." Science shows that the product of conception is indeed a human life and not simply "a lump of tissue." This is not an issue of ethics or philosophy; it's simple biology.
"So you can be nothing but DEAD WRONG in your assumption that children are negatively affected if their parents are homosexual."
You would be right to say that I would be wrong to simply make an assumption about the issue without any evidence or basis. However, I didn't make an assumption. Everything in the eighth paragraph of my post (from "Studies have shown" to "perform less well") was quoted from multiple studies done internationally over the course of decades. These studies are also from areas that have allowed same-sex marriage, so arguments along the lines of "allowing same-sex marriage benefits would make them as stable" don't hold up. Obviously giving someone an easier time of doing anything with make the process more stable, but that still wouldn't change the underlying issue that there are so many more problems with and stemming from homosexual marriages.
You may also want to visit the following site before quoting from the Patterson study. It outlines the flaws and bias in the study:
http://www.narth.com/docs/patterson.html
"In addition, biologically speaking, it is not deviant."
But it is. Human biology is developed in a certain way for a specific purpose. The fact that humans are able to choose something else doesn't change the underlying developed biological purpose.
The fact that a certain type of animal may exhibit other behavior doesn't prove that the underlying biological purpose is any different; the only thing that it shows is that that specific animal exhibits unnatural behavior that is opposed to its natural biological processes. It doesn't prove anything about the overall population and their developed biological purpose. In the same way, if a specific animal is born lame, it doesn't change the original biological purpose of the species but rather shows that that particular animal developed in an unnatural way.
For the sake of argument, let's say that a specific animal developed without a desire to eat. This doesn't prove that the entire species doesn't have a natural developed function and requirement to eat. An animal might develop with a damaged brain so that it has no biological mechanism that tells it to stop eating, but this follows along the same lines as everything else.
"Our biology designed us to have sex for pleasure, so why would it be biologically deviant to do so?"
Pleasure serves a couple of purposes. One is to balance the pain associated with birth so that humans wouldn't be motivated to simply not have children; there are other similar biological balances as well. The second is as a bonding mechanism between a couple. Notice all of the biological mechanisms associated with the human orgasm, including the release of chemicals that calm and also strengthen the bonds between two individuals (an effect that is damaged by having multiple partners). It's all linked for the purpose of reproduction and the protection and solid development of the offspring.
(Paraphrase) "Humans developed pleasure for the sake of pleasuring themselves." ... It doesn't work that way. Besides, pleasure for the sake of pleasure would not make a very logical biological development. "Pleasure for the sake of pleasure" is too dangerous to be a logical biological development, to say the least.
"Often the outcome of having sex is having children, but isn’t always the case. What about females are infertile, like myself?"
This follows along the same lines as the argument that a single animal exhibiting an unnatural development proves that the overall biology of the species couldn't have been developed with the specific purpose that that single animal lacks. This isn't logical. You could choose to remain a virgin, but that choice is up to you.
"As well, it is contrary to the general direction of human society to only participate in activities which are the supposed biological intention."
First, a trend doesn't dictate what is or isn't against biological nature, especially since humans have the choice to oppose their nature. Humans have the ability to make bad choices, and large groups of humans have the ability to make bad choices as a group. As well, the fact that a large group of people do a certain thing has nothing to do with a certain thing being right. I hope that you don't base your conceptions of "right" and "wrong" on what the largest group of people in the closest proximity to you is doing.
"In that case, why even have medical technology? Our bodies aren’t biologically meant to fight cancer, so let’s all just succumb to it anyway. It’s the same logic that you are using."
Cancer isn't a natural biological facet of human beings. Cancer very obviously doesn't fit into the same category as "arm" or "leg". Therefore it isn't the same logic that I was using. I was simply stating that certain actions are opposed to the natural biologically developed function of humans. Another natural function of humans is self-preservation. This is why medical technology has developed. People also use medical technology to oppose natural biological function, but you weren't asking about that issue.
"I argue that people would have, and DO know of and appreciate those guiding principles that are found in religion that are beneficial for society, regardless of religion."
Ah, this is very similar to what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue (that all humans are born with a basic knowledge of such principles). This is why the Church is so adament on informing ones conscience, so that one is fully aware of such things. The sad truth is that so many act in a manner that darkens their ability to be aware of such things. This problem is made very obvious in our society. This is one reason why religion is so important; it speaks of the standard that we fall away from so often, a standard that many are happy to fall below. This is a concept known as the false summit; people don't know better, and so they don't strive for better but rather stay with what they see and find beautiful in their current situations.
"...but just because he was friendly that doesn’t make him divine."
This statement is very pejorative in nature, and I doubt that anyone believes Jesus was divine "because he was friendly." Do you wish to discuss logically and charitably or continue with the straw man attacks?
"I wouldn’t ever claim to know the nature of the Universe."
"I’d also never say there absolutely is no God, because it can’t be proven and it would be naive to think it could."
I don't mean this as an insult to other atheists, but I'm glad that you are able to think about this in an intelligent way. So many do what they hate religious people for doing (or what they think religious people are doing) and simply assume they know that there is no God and that the universe started a certain way (or simply ignore the issue altogether and dismiss it).
"...until science can continue its quest for knowledge and perchance explain it one day."
The unfortunate thing about science is that it deals with physical reality. It can't explain that point at which something would have had to come from nothing, which is (and must be) the real beginning of the universe. Science is very enlightening apart from that.
"If you can explain to me what it is I’m missing from my life that I need that religion can offer me, I’ll listen."
This is the difficult part. This is also why it's so important for Catholics to lead by example. If a Catholic acts just like everyone else, what is there about Catholicism that anyone needs and doesn't already have? After all, Catholics claim to have so much more. This is unfortunate, but there will always be people who make bad choices, regardless of what they call themselves.
Another problem is that anyone is capable of taking whatever evidence they want and not believing it. What many people really want is for God to come specifically to them out of a cloud and tell them that He exists, and not even that would prove anything if a person isn't open to it. Such people are normally either shunned by society or locked up. :) I can speak of miracles and associated scientific research, but no matter how conclusive the evidence might be, the result is, "science will prove that it's really nothing in time, no matter what it might look like now."
So you see, such a burden of proof is impossible heavy. There are many things that work for individuals, but the first step is always the leap of faith: prayer. Even if a person doesn't necessarily believe in any kind of God-figure, showing that one is open (truly open, not challenging, waiting for God to make them believe when the choice is up to them) to and seeking the truth has to be the first step. Otherwise a person is probably not truly open, and any evidence is no evidence. It doesn't have to be long; it can be simple. It might sound silly, and it might feel silly, but for one to simply shake ones head and walk away only proves the point.
"I don’t believe a foetus to be a person at any point that a rational physician would perform an abortion..."
What is it that they lack that you would require in order to consider them worthy of such respect or consideration, especially since I doubt that you believe in the concept of a soul?
"We never can and never will be 100% right ever on everything, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as 100% right."
This is exactly why we would need an ultimate authority. No person will ever be 100% right in and of themselves. Besides, how do you know that you are 100% right on anything, or even 50%? Following that, if being 100% right were impossible, how could one even claim that they were 50% right, or anywhere close to it? As you say, in that situation it becomes based on what "I believe", and in essence the authority becomes one's own self. In this situation life remains based on uncertainty and one's own foundations are always much less than solid. But there is something better than that.
"Firstly, opinion editorials do not appropriate citations make."
Of course not; they merely serve as examples of what has happened or could happen. The second link posted does in at least one instance list the specific case, and the article from Wikipedia that you posted provides at least one more court case associated with events outlined in the article that I posted. Other events listed can easily be found by a basic search. Similar things are constantly in the news in the states. The third link is for a news source; the fact that you grouped it with editorials shows me that you really didn't read through the links before judging and dismissing them.
You must also recognize that the fact that a source disagrees with you doesn't mean that the source is biased. It also doesn't make it crap. I saw no bias, but rather posts about certain events that have happened. It seems instead that such a label was used simply because it disagrees with you.
"Your job now is to explain to me how they got charged when their speech did not incite hatred or advocate genocide."
You are also welcome to look up the specific examples and prove that they did, in fact, incite hatred and violence. I am not going to investigate the courts and tribunals in Canada or other countries in order to retrieve documents outlining the exact proceedings of every case mentioned. My point (and this is why I posted less authoritive sources) was to illustrate the potential for abuse; you can choose to pursue such an in-depth investigation yourself, or you can choose to ignore the issue in order to stick to what you want to believe. It's up to you.
"It’s about INCITING HATRED and ADVOCATING GENOCIDE."
This is incorrect, which you would have gathered had you read what I wrote closely. The last paragraph of my previous post and the short post before that should prove helpful in this area. A law is simply a bunch of words and is no better than the one interpreting it. The issue (as can be seen from my previous posts) was never about the specific wording of the laws; it was about the potential for wrongful prosecution due to liberal interpretations by people who are concerned less with preventing violence and more about forcing silence.
Post a Comment