Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, you've made me legitimately curious here. If you have an argument beyond "church and state separation is good" on why my approach to public policy is a problem, go ahead and explain it. Not saying it will change my mind, but I'm curious enough to hear you out.

I'm happy to do that, but first, can you tell me whether or not you still endorse your secular argument here?  You just called it "closer to infallible" (?!) than other arguments...it certainly sounds less ridiculous than those arguments, but do you actually still believe it's logically sound?  If so, dude, how?

I do not feel it is logically sound, I just feel that there isn't a better secular argument to use instead.

[Alcon]

I don't know, you could try not being disingenuous instead?  It's one thing to present a sound argument based on a premise you don't share with the person who's listening.  It's another to present an argument that you know is just plain logically unsound.

I'll write up an explanation of my concerns about your religious rationale as soon as I can.  Sorry if there's some delay on that.

[Torie]

Assuming you were an atheist Wulfric, and did not believe the Bible had any divine inspiration, would you still hold the position that you do on SSM? I ask, because you sort of admit that your secular arguments are weak. Plus, there is no data whatsoever, no is it reasonable to believe, that SSM will have any impact on fertility rates (which is the predicate to then even reaching the argument as to whether in the US higher or lower or the same fertility rates are good or bad). Nor is there any data, that SSM will reduce the marriage rates of heterosexual couples, to the extent that you argue that point at all, but it is the main secular argument opponents of SSM push. At least that is my impression.

[SteveRogers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, you've made me legitimately curious here. If you have an argument beyond "church and state separation is good" on why my approach to public policy is a problem, go ahead and explain it. Not saying it will change my mind, but I'm curious enough to hear you out.

I'm happy to do that, but first, can you tell me whether or not you still endorse your secular argument here?  You just called it "closer to infallible" (?!) than other arguments...it certainly sounds less ridiculous than those arguments, but do you actually still believe it's logically sound?  If so, dude, how?

I do not feel it is logically sound, I just feel that there isn't a better secular argument to use instead.

So will you at least concede that your earlier statement that gays haven not faced a history of discrimination in this country is absurd?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, you've made me legitimately curious here. If you have an argument beyond "church and state separation is good" on why my approach to public policy is a problem, go ahead and explain it. Not saying it will change my mind, but I'm curious enough to hear you out.

I'm happy to do that, but first, can you tell me whether or not you still endorse your secular argument here?  You just called it "closer to infallible" (?!) than other arguments...it certainly sounds less ridiculous than those arguments, but do you actually still believe it's logically sound?  If so, dude, how?

I do not feel it is logically sound, I just feel that there isn't a better secular argument to use instead.

So will you at least concede that your earlier statement that gays haven not faced a history of discrimination in this country is absurd?

I forgot about sodomy laws when I was typing that, so yes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

At some point I get tired of the raw hostility surrounding my beliefs on this on this site and have other things to do so I'm sorry I haven't adequately addressed all your points before. I recognize you think I am some sort of a bigot because I've been a consistent defender of freedom of conscience and religion on myriad issues as they relate to a wide variety of spiritual and humanistic traditions. That's fine if it makes you feel important or whatever.  So, can we dispense with the argumenta ad hominem?

It is rather important to me, because your "opinion" and defense of the provisions of and motive behind laws like Indiana's RFRA kinda, y'know, disrespects my existence? As well as the existence and rights of millions of people?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that was actually what the Indiana RFRA law was, no one would have a problem with it. But the Indiana RFRA law contained two passages that specifically went beyond what the federal law and 19 other state laws contained, by extending corporate personhood to pretty much all business entities and extending the "religious freedom" defense to civil suits, in addition to three of the backers present at the signing ceremony openly bragging that it will allow discrimination against LGBT people. If Pence signed a regular RFRA law, literally no one would care, and this whole debate would not have happened.

Why do you consistently refuse to address this point I and many others have made repeatedly? You're not "too busy", you just don't want to address it. You have all this time to write walls of text of flowerly language and endless truisms, surely you can reply to the questions I have asked you repeatedly about your positions.

I addressed it in the rest of that paragraph. Must be just coincidence you didn't read or quote it along with the rest of my post.

[Alcon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

I'm not aware of any scripture inconsistencies in my platform. But if I were to go against scripture on anything, it would be because I believe that denying a certain benefit to society is awfully inhumane. Denying SS couples some of the rights of marriage is not something I feel is "awfully inhumane".

[Alcon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

I'm not aware of any scripture inconsistencies in my platform. But if I were to go against scripture on anything, it would be because I believe that denying a certain benefit to society is awfully inhumane. Denying SS couples some of the rights of marriage is not something I feel is "awfully inhumane".

I appreciate the response, but you haven't really answered my question very clearly.  You're saying that you believe that government policy should be formed based on your interpretation of Christian scripture unless the results are "awfully inhumane"?

If so, why would it matter to you if the results are "awfully inhumane"?  That's a serious question.  Why are you willing to do (from a secular analysis) net-harm from your beliefs, but not anything so net-harmful it's "awfully inhumane"?  Your belief about religious truth is what it is; I do not understand why any level of harm would trump that for you.  After all, you claim you're not at all bothered by the idea of theologizing public policy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wulfric clearly needs to move to a different part of Minnesota and become a hipster Christian instead.

[Alcon]

Wulfric clearly needs to move to a different part of Minnesota and become a hipster Christian instead.

go away, dad is trying to have his grown-up business conversation

()

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Actually, Wulfric, let me start by posing you the question.  Do you believe there are any situations where it is inappropriate to enforce your conceptualization of "good" and "bad" -- versus a secular conceptualization -- when making public policy?  If so, why is it inappropriate there, but appropriate when it comes to your position on same-sex marriage?

This isn't a trap.  I'd just like to hear your logic first.

I'm not aware of any scripture inconsistencies in my platform. But if I were to go against scripture on anything, it would be because I believe that denying a certain benefit to society is awfully inhumane. Denying SS couples some of the rights of marriage is not something I feel is "awfully inhumane".

I appreciate the response, but you haven't really answered my question very clearly.  You're saying that you believe that government policy should be formed based on your interpretation of Christian scripture unless the results are "awfully inhumane"?

If so, why would it matter to you if the results are "awfully inhumane"?  That's a serious question.  Why are you willing to do (from a secular analysis) net-harm from your beliefs, but not anything so net-harmful it's "awfully inhumane"?  Your belief about religious truth is what it is; I do not understand why any level of harm would trump that for you.  After all, you claim you're not at all bothered by the idea of theologizing public policy.

Because I have a conscience as well, and I simply cannot bring myself to follow a commandment that I vehemently disagree with. Sure, maybe the perfect christian would be willing to enact every level of harm on society. But it's not something I can in good conscience bring myself to do.

[Alcon]

Because I have a conscience as well, and I simply cannot bring myself to follow a commandment that I vehemently disagree with. Sure, maybe the perfect christian would be willing to enact every level of harm on society. But it's not something I can in good conscience bring myself to do.

So you consider your inability to gravely harm others in accordance of your religious beliefs to be a personal moral failure?  That inability is not something you think is right, since you're fine with harming people less severely.  In fact, you think it would be right to harm them (even gravely) through public policy, if that was consistent with scripture.  It's just that, if the harm was grave enough, you'd be unable to support it, because it would be too emotionally upsetting for you -- not because you think it's wrong to theologize public policy, or wrong to harm people (even gravely) if it's compatible with scripture, but because it would be emotionally upsetting for you if the harm was great enough.  Correct?

If that's the case, it's at least consistent, and I'll move on to explaining why I'd encourage you to reconsider your support of theologizing public policy.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Because I have a conscience as well, and I simply cannot bring myself to follow a commandment that I vehemently disagree with. Sure, maybe the perfect christian would be willing to enact every level of harm on society. But it's not something I can in good conscience bring myself to do.

So you consider your inability to gravely harm others in accordance of your religious beliefs to be a personal moral failure?  It's essentially not something you think is right, since you're fine with harming them less severely.  In fact, you think it would be right to harm them through public policy, if that was consistent with scripture.  It's just that, if the harm was grave enough, you'd be unable to support it, because it would be too emotionally upsetting for you -- not because you think it's wrong to theologize public policy, or wrong to harm people (even gravely) if it's compatible with scripture, but because it would be emotionally upsetting for you if the harm was great enough.  Correct?

Yes

[Alcon]

All right, I think you can understand why that's a pretty terrifying position already -- but to show why, let me poke around a little more.

From the perspective of propriety of state activity, do you have no problem with Islamist states that enforce extreme religious views?  You wouldn't have any problem with a state, say, enforcing female genital mutilation to encourage purity (besides that your personal religious views don't demand that)?

You think that's a totally acceptable role for the state, though, if 50%+1 of voters in that state say it is, and that they have no moral obligation to consider a secular harm test before enforcing their will through public policy?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

All right, I think you can understand why that's a pretty terrifying position already -- but to show why, let me poke around a little more.

From the perspective of propriety of state activity, do you have no problem with Islamist states that enforce extreme religious views?  You wouldn't have any problem with a state, say, enforcing female genital mutilation to encourage purity (besides that your personal religious views don't demand that)?

You think that's a totally acceptable role for the state, though, if 50%+1 of voters in that state say it is, and that they have no moral obligation to consider a secular harm test before enforcing their will through public policy?

I don't endorse the Islamic state ideology. As far as I'm concerned, their religion, and the Islam religion in general, is an utter falsehood that no one should follow. Genital mutilation is wrong for obvious reasons, and if scripture commanded it, it would be a commandment that I could not in good conscience follow.

[SteveRogers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I impose it on public policy because not doing so would make me an accomplice to sin, which also isn't tolerated by god. The only way I'd change this is if one could prove to me through scripture that god has given up on imposing man-woman marriage. I know there are christians who personally support gay marriage (not just endorse it to separate church and state, but endorse it because they truly support it), but their argument, as I understand it, is simply "Well, that was a long time ago, and surely god doesn't endorse 'unreasonable political positions'". That's not an argument that's (to my knowledge, correct if wrong) supported by the bible, it's just a rationalization.

At the end of the day, I know that this issue admittedly doesn't have much impact on the overall welfare of the country, so I typically don't vote based on it. That's how I can support politicians such as Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-01) and Mark Kirk (R, IL) in good conscience - because I look beyond their liberal positions on gay marriage and abortion and see that, on the whole, they are good politicians. But I don't see myself ever supporting the gay marriage/abortion aspects of their platform.

Wulfric, how do you make the jump from holding sincere, unshakable religious beliefs to believing that the government must impose those beliefs on everyone? How does allowing others to make the free choice of whether or not to sin make you an "accomplice to sin"? I cannot see the logic in that, and I'm skeptical that there's much in the way of scriptural basis. Does your belief system really require a 1:1 correspondence between morality and legality without any role for free choice? Would you support legislation to outlaw sloth and gluttony? To outlaw lying? Criminal penalties for dishonoring your father? More to the point, do you support sodomy laws? Isn't the point of defining in the Bible what isn't and isn't sin to allow each person to make an informed choice about whether or not to sin and then reap their punishment or reward in the afterlife? Under your belief system, does God really need help from the laws of man to enforce his rules?

[Torie]

In other news, this interpretation of the SCOTUS oral argument on SSM, is that at least six justices are not buying the procreation distinction as any kind of persuasive argument at all.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

At some point I get tired of the raw hostility surrounding my beliefs on this on this site and have other things to do so I'm sorry I haven't adequately addressed all your points before. I recognize you think I am some sort of a bigot because I've been a consistent defender of freedom of conscience and religion on myriad issues as they relate to a wide variety of spiritual and humanistic traditions. That's fine if it makes you feel important or whatever.  So, can we dispense with the argumenta ad hominem?

It is rather important to me, because your "opinion" and defense of the provisions of and motive behind laws like Indiana's RFRA kinda, y'know, disrespects my existence? As well as the existence and rights of millions of people?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that was actually what the Indiana RFRA law was, no one would have a problem with it. But the Indiana RFRA law contained two passages that specifically went beyond what the federal law and 19 other state laws contained, by extending corporate personhood to pretty much all business entities and extending the "religious freedom" defense to civil suits, in addition to three of the backers present at the signing ceremony openly bragging that it will allow discrimination against LGBT people. If Pence signed a regular RFRA law, literally no one would care, and this whole debate would not have happened.

Why do you consistently refuse to address this point I and many others have made repeatedly? You're not "too busy", you just don't want to address it. You have all this time to write walls of text of flowerly language and endless truisms, surely you can reply to the questions I have asked you repeatedly about your positions.

I addressed it in the rest of that paragraph. Must be just coincidence you didn't read or quote it along with the rest of my post.

No, you haven't. You didn't give much of an answer to my questions, other than a rehashing of what has already been said. And again, you just cut out the rest of the post and don't address it, like you have in multiple threads.

[Alcon]

All right, I think you can understand why that's a pretty terrifying position already -- but to show why, let me poke around a little more.

From the perspective of propriety of state activity, do you have no problem with Islamist states that enforce extreme religious views?  You wouldn't have any problem with a state, say, enforcing female genital mutilation to encourage purity (besides that your personal religious views don't demand that)?

You think that's a totally acceptable role for the state, though, if 50%+1 of voters in that state say it is, and that they have no moral obligation to consider a secular harm test before enforcing their will through public policy?

I don't endorse the Islamic state ideology. As far as I'm concerned, their religion, and the Islam religion in general, is an utter falsehood that no one should follow. Genital mutilation is wrong for obvious reasons, and if scripture commanded it, it would be a commandment that I could not in good conscience follow.

You didn't really answer my question.

Do you think the people who have those religious beliefs don't sincerely hold them?  Do you think they don't care about harm, and are just bad people who don't care about doing the wrong thing, unlike you?  That's obviously not the case, dude.  Your argument basically comes down to "oh, of course I wouldn't do that!  I'm a good person, so even if I believed that was true and moral, I'd feel too uncomfortable to do it!"  Either you think that vast swaths of the world somehow just don't care about their neighbors or daughters, and don't care about being good people, or you know damn well that those people think they're doing the right thing for their religion, just like you do.

So, with that in mind, do you think it's appropriate for them to be crafting public policy based entirely on their personal religious ideology, or do you think they have some obligation to do use a secular harm test when applying personal views to political ideology?  

If so, when?  You just stated that you think it's a personal failure that you're unwilling to implement your religious views, even in cases where they cause grave harm.  Either you genuinely don't think there's any moral limit on theologizing public policy, which is a scary extreme political belief, or you do, and you just don't want to concede it, maybe because it makes your position on same-sex marriage look problematic?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Their religion is an utter falsehood, so no. If they were to become Christians, then yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

[Alcon]

So, basically, you think it's totally acceptable to enforce any of your religious beliefs through public policy, and the only thing stopping you is a vague sense of guilt?  And you think there is nothing wrong with theologizing public opinion, and no moral reason to limit it -- you just disagree with some theologies?  And you have no qualms with this argument?

Just nailing this down before I explain why I think it's a problem.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So, basically, you think it's totally acceptable to enforce any of your religious beliefs through public policy, and the only thing stopping you is a vague sense of guilt?  And you think there is nothing wrong with theologizing public opinion, and no moral reason to limit it -- you just disagree with some theologies?  And you have no qualms with this argument?

Well, it's not something I'm fully comfortable with, but that's just the devil trying to dissuade me from following god. God expects me to get past the temptation to give into the devil and considers the times that I don't as moral failures on my part. Forgivable through Christ's sacrifice, sure. But, they're still moral failures.

[Alcon]

So, basically, you think it's totally acceptable to enforce any of your religious beliefs through public policy, and the only thing stopping you is a vague sense of guilt?  And you think there is nothing wrong with theologizing public opinion, and no moral reason to limit it -- you just disagree with some theologies?  And you have no qualms with this argument?

Well, it's not something I'm fully comfortable with, but that's just the devil trying to dissuade me from following god. God expects me to get past the temptation to give into the devil and considers the times that I don't as moral failures on my part. Forgivable through Christ's sacrifice, sure. But, they're still moral failures.

I'm trying to get at what situations you think it's inappropriate to theologize public policy, and as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) your answer appears to be "it's totally fine unless I disagree with the theology"...

Why do you oppose mandating Christianity and every aspect of Christian morality?  Or do you?

Sorry for fixating on this, but you're a lot more extreme on this issue than I assumed.

[7,052,770]

Why does the insufferable anti-gay crowd pretend their bigotry applies to ALL of Christianity?


No amount of hatred and vitriol will ever make this anything other than a Christian wedding.