Politics

[Grahambo]

You are an unlikeable person, the sort of guy who makes me loathe religion.

But then look at my post about love and feel better again!

 

[kmoose]

Because civil unions are an insult. It's exactly that separate but equal you're writing about in your first paragraph. They're winning that fight as 37/50 states have agreed with them.

How are civil unions an insult? The gay activists used the argument that they just wanted the same rights as married people. It is their contention that the only way to ensure that is to allow gay people to marry. I am for them having the rights. I am just against them turning the institution of marriage upside down just so that they can feel better about themselves. Civil unions whose benefits are directly tied to the benefits of married couples (meaning as marriage rights/benefits change, immediately so do the rights and benefits awarded those in civil unions) would give gays those benefits that they say are their concern, and would also preserve the "sanctity of marriage" that fundamentalists seek. It's my opinion that the reason that gay activists won't accept this scenario is that their concern was never rights and benefits, but the forced embracing of the lifestyle by straight people.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

How are civil unions an insult? The gay activists used the argument that they just wanted the same rights as married people. It is their contention that the only way to ensure that is to allow gay people to marry. I am for them having the rights. I am just against them turning the institution of marriage upside down just so that they can feel better about themselves. Civil unions whose benefits are directly tied to the benefits of married couples (meaning as marriage rights/benefits change, immediately so do the rights and benefits awarded those in civil unions) would give gays those benefits that they say are their concern, and would also preserve the "sanctity of marriage" that fundamentalists seek. It's my opinion that the reason that gay activists won't accept this scenario is that their concern was never rights and benefits, but the forced embracing of the lifestyle by straight people.

Which part of the institution do you mean? Isn't marriage traditionally a property exchange? Is that still how we view things?

Why is the government into preserving the "sanctity" of anything?

I'd actually be in favor of the government ONLY doing civil unions. Churches can do "marriage" if they want.

I'm still having trouble seeing your point that gay people are somehow asking for special rights. To me, they're asking for the same rights. Nothing more, but (finally, and more forcefully) nothing less.

 

[Buster Bluth]

How are civil unions an insult? The gay activists used the argument that they just wanted the same rights as married people. It is their contention that the only way to ensure that is to allow gay people to marry. I am for them having the rights. I am just against them turning the institution of marriage upside down just so that they can feel better about themselves. Civil unions whose benefits are directly tied to the benefits of married couples (meaning as marriage rights/benefits change, immediately so do the rights and benefits awarded those in civil unions) would give gays those benefits that they say are their concern, and would also preserve the "sanctity of marriage" that fundamentalists seek. It's my opinion that the reason that gay activists won't accept this scenario is that their concern was never rights and benefits, but the forced embracing of the lifestyle by straight people.

Yeah, also they don't want to be second-class citizens?

Listen, I'm all for the civil union route actually. I think the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Everyone gets a civil union from the government, and the couples can get a secular/religious marriage ceremony if they want.

I guess I just don't understand how a Methodist could give a shit out Hindus getting married, or why Sunnis should care about what two Catholics gets married. If you're against gay marriage, great, but take it up with your religion, not the state.

 

[ryno 24]

Yeah, also they don't want to be second-class citizens?

Listen, I'm all for the civil union route actually. I think the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Everyone gets a civil union from the government, and the couples can get a secular/religious marriage ceremony if they want.

I guess I just don't understand how a Methodist could give a shit out Hindus getting married, or why Sunnis should care about what two Catholics gets married. If you're against gay marriage, great, but take it up with your religion, not the state.

I agree with this sentiment completely. I am very conservative both socially and fiscally, but the government should get out of the marriage business (this will never happen because if they do it will be seen as offensive by both the right and left. Right because they believe in marriage and will say that it is tearing apart the fabric of the country and left because they believe that this would have been done just so that they do not get to be married legally.)
The reason for marriage originally was to have an institution that could both procreate and raise children in a safe and nurturing environment. The State ( government) decided to formalize and legalize this concept to create a sound family structure for the good of society. From there, it turned into a useful benefit for tax and other purposes in both our country and abroad.
There has been a dichotomy of these two reasons both through gay marriage and contraceptives. Through contraceptives people are not always available to have children or continue there family. Also there are many divorces or people who do not want to have children. Finally, gay marriages cannot procreate children. Because of these reasons very few or none of the original reasons for state marriage are being fulfilled. Because of this marriage is very much something that is faith based. Civil unions would fulfill the necessity of understanding that two people are together and the benefits of these things would be granted to the individuals.
So if two people want to get married by their church and the church allows then good for them but it should not legally be called marriage.

 

[NDgradstudent]

You are an unlikeable person, the sort of guy who makes me loathe religion.

I don't reply to ad hominem attacks. I suppose you are just taking the advice of that protestor in Indy with a sign saying "sodomize intolerance," i.e. don't argue, just shriek and wail in an attempt to silence your opponent.

I am trying to raise questions and make predictions about what I and many others regard as a likely development in biotechnology and fetal therapy. If you are too disturbed by these possibilities to even discuss them, don't reply.

So true or false, 37/50 allow gay marriage?

I never denied that same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states, but your claim was that "37/50 states have agreed with them [same-sex marriage supporters]." These are not the same thing. It is like saying the fact that abortion is legal 50 states proves that the whole country "agrees with" abortion supporters.

Homosexuality is not a disease to be cured. Your observation is offensive as hell!

Surely you realize that lots of true statements are "offensive"? Many in utero therapies for traits that are not diseases (sex, eye color, hair color, etc.) are currently legal and increasingly common. Do you regard in utero selection for these traits as immoral? Should such selection be outlawed, in your view?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't reply to ad hominem attacks. I suppose you are just taking the advice of that protestor in Indy with a sign saying "sodomize intolerance," i.e. don't argue, just shriek and wail in an attempt to silence your opponent.

I am trying to raise questions and make predictions about what I and many others regard as a likely development in biotechnology and fetal therapy. If you are too disturbed by these possibilities to even discuss them, don't reply.

You want to bring up ad hominem attacks while you theorize about the elimination of gays via genetic engineering? Holy hell..

I never denied that same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states, but your claim was that "37/50 states have agreed with them [same-sex marriage supporters]." These are not the same thing. It is like saying the fact that abortion is legal 50 states proves that the whole country "agrees with" abortion supporters.

The broader argument was that gays were winning the battle. Even using your points, when one considers that in ten years the number of states voting to allow gay marriage has jumped from 1 to 18, the trend is obvious. Your ignorant opinions are going the way of the Dodo.

I'm of the opinion that the courts' ruling are rather irrelevant in the long run, as more and more people are beginning to think that offering gays equality (instead of your heinous pseudo-genocide suggestion) is the right thing to do. It would only be a (short) matter of time before people overturned all of the 2000s state constitutional amendments themselves anyway.

 

[NDgradstudent]

You want to bring up ad hominem attacks while you theorize about the elimination of gays via genetic engineering? Holy hell..

So do you think that genetic therapy to select for sex, eye color, hair color, etc., in utero, is immoral? Should it be illegal?

The broader argument was that gays were winning the battle. Even using your points, when one considers that in ten years the number of states voting to allow gay marriage has jumped from 1 to 18, the trend is obvious. Your ignorant opinions are going the way of the Dodo.

Actually, the evidence is that lots of things are going the way of the Dodo. For example, monogamy: polyamory is now increasingly popular, thanks in part to same-sex marriage (see for discussion Young Adults' Attitudes Toward Polygamous Marriage). No doubt this is part of the "right side of history"? Or is it the wrong side of history? Or the neutral side?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Actually, the evidence is that lots of things are going the way of the Dodo. For example, monogamy: polyamory is now increasingly popular, thanks in part to same-sex marriage (see for discussion Young Adults' Attitudes Toward Polygamous Marriage). No doubt this is part of the "right side of history"? Or is it the wrong side of history? Or the neutral side?

When you consider what marriage used to be, literally anything is "the right side of history."

A marriage used to be an exchange of property between two legal actors: the groom and the father of the bride.

The wife had no legal rights. In the eyes of the law, being a married woman was a "disability" on the same level of being insane, in prison, or in a coma. You could not enforce your legal rights- your husband had to bring suit on your behalf.

Almost every state had rape statutes that started with "Except in the case of marriage" or something to that effect, granting the husband the legal right to have sex with his "property" even if she forcibly resisted.

So yes, I would count polygamy as being on the "right side of history" when you compare it with what marriage used to be.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Your ignorant opinions...

Could you dial back the insults and name-calling when you disagree with someone else's opinion, please? This is a common complaint about those on the Left: instead of civil debate or discussion about topics or opinions they disagree with, or tolerance for others' views, they just resort to insults and personal attacks towards those whose opinions differ from their own. It doesn't contribute to the discussion and it sure isn't likely to sway anyone to change their opinion.

 

[pkt77242]

Could you dial back the insults and name-calling when you disagree with someone else's opinion, please? This is a common complaint about those on the Left: instead of civil debate or discussion about topics or opinions they disagree with, or tolerance for others' views, they just resort to insults and personal attacks towards those whose opinions differ from their own. It doesn't contribute to the discussion and it sure isn't likely to sway anyone to change their opinion.

I have to admit I laughed. To pretend that only one side does that is one of the most laughable things that I have heard.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I have to admit I laughed. To pretend that only one side does that is one of the most laughable things that I have heard.

Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of it, but it's almost the default response of the Left. Regardless of who's doing it, it's counterproductive. You won't ever change anyone's mind about anything by insulting them, calling them an idiot for believing what they believe, or trashing their character for holding certain views.

 

[IrishinSyria]

side-note on polygamy. It seems to me like the societal prohibition on polygamy (specifically, polygyny) gives lie to the claim that reproduction is the ultimate justification for marriage.

If marriage were only about reproduction, one would expect that we'd have a harem-like system, where men married in proportion to their ability to provide for women and children. Since in our society, wealth = ability to provide, we'd see rich men with harems and poor men struggling to find a mate (or even entering into polyandrous relationships with other poor men). From a reproductive standpoint, this system would produce the best results: the most productive male genes would get passed on at a much higher rate, women would benefit from being able to share in the labor of raising children, etc... There's a reason that this is the system that arrises most often in nature and is a pretty frequent feature of ancient societies. When resources are scare, polygamy is a logical survival mechanism.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of it, but it's almost the default response of the Left. Regardless of who's doing it, it's counterproductive. You won't ever change anyone's mind about anything by insulting them, calling them an idiot for believing what they believe, or trashing their character for holding certain views.

You realize that making a broad generalization like this is just as offensive and divisive as Buster's original comment, right?

 

[Bishop2b5]

You realize that making a broad generalization like this is just as offensive and divisive as Buster's original comment, right?

I'm sure it is to you. My intolerance for someone else's intolerance and pointing out their bad behavior is infinitely worse than their intolerance or bad behavior. That's how it works, right? About now is where you should start screaming that I'm an ignorant racist with the IQ of a lobotomized chimp, intent on doing something awful since I don't agree with you.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm sure it is to you. My intolerance for someone else's intolerance and pointing out their bad behavior is infinitely worse than their intolerance or bad behavior. That's how it works, right? About now is where you should start screaming that I'm an ignorant racist with the IQ of a lobotomized chimp, intent on doing something awful since I don't agree with you.

You didn't just tell him not to insult, you went ahead an took a swipe at all liberals which is ironic considering what you were upset with BB about.

So to recap, this is good and helpful

Could you dial back the insults and name-calling when you disagree with someone else's opinion, please? It doesn't contribute to the discussion and it sure isn't likely to sway anyone to change their opinion.

But when you add this

This is a common complaint about those on the Left: instead of civil debate or discussion about topics or opinions they disagree with, or tolerance for others' views, they just resort to insults and personal attacks towards those whose opinions differ from their own.

You just did the exact same thing that Buster did that upset you. If it is so bad that you felt the need to call BB out on it, why would you then go and do something just as bad (if not worse)?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm sure it is to you. My intolerance (1) for someone else's intolerance (2) and pointing out their bad behavior is infinitely worse than their intolerance or bad behavior. That's how it works, right? About now is where you should start screaming that I'm an ignorant racist with the IQ of a lobotomized chimp, intent on doing something awful since I don't agree with you.

To be fair, it was technically your intolerance(1) of someone else's intolerance (2) of someone else's intolerance (3) that I would have been talking about, had I been talking about your specific reply to Buster. But I wasn't, I was talking about your leap from asking Buster not to call people ignorant to saying that this is what The Left always does. Not only does Buster hardly fall into the traditional "Left" box, but the vast majority of left-leaning posters on this site (IrishJayHawk*, pkt*, GoIrish*, [hopefully] myself, etc..) almost never resort to name-calling and try to respond to disagreements substantively. In fact, Buster is a little bit more bombastic, but he almost never solely relies on personal attacks. And the posts he was responding to were pretty offensive, though I'll give NDgradstudent the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't mean to imply that homosexuality was a defect that should be stamped out in the next 20 years, just that as science advances people might start making that choice.

And before I forget, this is why all conservatives are dumb stupid idiot faces you ignorant, homophobic racist! Did I do it right?


*I apologize if I'm wrong about your political leanings...

 

[NDgradstudent]

And the posts he was responding to were pretty offensive, though I'll give NDgradstudent the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't mean to imply that homosexuality was a defect that should be stamped out in the next 20 years, just that as science advances people might start making that choice.

What does "offensive" even mean here? There was no argument put forth that anything I said was false. So I assume it just means "a claim I disagree with." Disagreeing with a claim does not justify cheap ad hominem attacks.

I'll just lay out my views (both predictive and ethical) clearly:

(1) Within 20 years there will either be (a) some sort of drug to prevent homosexuality in a developing fetus; (b) a test for homosexuality in a developing fetus; or (c) both a drug and a test.

(2) It is morally permissible from a Catholic point of view to take the drug that prevents homosexuality in a developing fetus.

The reason it is morally permissible is that the Church regards homosexuality as a disorder, and believes that fetal therapy is permissible if it remedies disorders, diseases, etc. It does not mean gay people are "less human," have less "dignity," etc. But it does mean that it is not forbidden to prevent homosexuality in utero should the means to do so be developed. This is not a consensus view among Catholic bioethicists, nor would I expect it to be. The Church believes gene therapy can be used ethically under certain conditions, but has no formal position on the hypothetical drug I have mentioned. The point is that this drug is likely to be developed in the relatively near future, whether we like it or not. So the proper response is worth thinking about. Incidentally, it is not obvious how secular liberals would respond to it, either. You can find arguments for and against from various perspectives.

 

[IrishinSyria]

What does "offensive" even mean here? There was no argument put forth that anything I said was false. So I assume it just means "a claim I disagree with." Disagreeing with a claim does not justify cheap ad hominem attacks.

I'll just lay out my views (both predictive and ethical) clearly:

(1) Within 20 years there will either be (a) some sort of drug to prevent homosexuality in a developing fetus; (b) a test for homosexuality in a developing fetus; or (c) both a drug and a test.

(2) It is morally permissible from a Catholic point of view to take the drug that prevents homosexuality in a developing fetus.

The reason it is morally permissible is that the Church regards homosexuality as a disorder, and believes that fetal therapy is permissible if it remedies disorders, diseases, etc. It does not mean gay people are "less human," have less "dignity," etc. But it does mean that it is not forbidden to prevent homosexuality in utero should the means to do so be developed. This is not a consensus view among Catholic bioethicists, nor would I expect it to be. The Church believes gene therapy can be used ethically under certain conditions, but has no formal position on the hypothetical drug I have mentioned. The point is that this drug is likely to be developed in the relatively near future, whether we like it or not. So the proper response is worth thinking about. Incidentally, it is not obvious how secular liberals would respond to it, either. You can find arguments for and against from various perspectives.

Right, and this is basically the "benefit of the doubt" version. But you also said things like

"In 20 years there will probably be an in utero treatment to prevent homosexuality, "gender identity disorder," etc., so most of this will be moot. It should be obvious that even the most "liberal" and "tolerant" parents will use it."

strongly implying that everyone agrees with a) the Catholic belief that homosexuality is a "disorder" and that b) it "obviously" should be "treated" if possible.

For people who don't see homosexuality as a disorder but as a trait no different than eye or skin color, this comes across as *really* offensive. I can promise you that even if I could, I would never test my unborn children for gayness and I would never try to "fix" it if it were present. What seems obvious to you, honestly, seems repulsive to me.

 

[pkt77242]

I would argue that the LGBT Community started this fight... With their hyperbolic "separate but equal is NOT equal" campaign, designed to conjure up white guilt about how poorly the Black Community was treated in the US. As if these comparisons had some kind of merit.



Cry me a river. There aren't any special laws for white Irish/German mutts. The LGBT community has the same protections that I have.



Again, I think you are wrong. I think that the LGBT Community was the one who started punching first, labelling everyone who didn't jump for joy in celebration of them as a homophobe, and refusing to accept compromises like civil unions.



You fight to gain equal rights by standing up to bigotry, WHERE IT EXISTS. Not all Christians are bigoted, any more than all homosexuals are fantasizing about you in the shower.

Separate but equal doesn't work. We have already been down that road in this country.

Actually there is laws protecting Irish/German mutts. It is called the Civil Rights Act. So, yes there is. Also passing a law that made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity and sexual orientation would also protect heterosexuals, not just homosexuals.

Lastly, you have quite the revisionist history. The LGBT community was the target of discrimination and poor treatment long before they ever dreamed of pushing for same-sex marriage or any other rights. The push for rights came after the discrimination.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

When you consider what marriage used to be, literally anything is "the right side of history."

A marriage used to be an exchange of property between two legal actors: the groom and the father of the bride.

The wife had no legal rights. In the eyes of the law, being a married woman was a "disability" on the same level of being insane, in prison, or in a coma. You could not enforce your legal rights- your husband had to bring suit on your behalf.

Almost every state had rape statutes that started with "Except in the case of marriage" or something to that effect, granting the husband the legal right to have sex with his "property" even if she forcibly resisted.

So yes, I would count polygamy as being on the "right side of history" when you compare it with what marriage used to be.

Fair enough. Using this logic, I'll continue:

Given the history of bigotry in the world, where Hitler put Jewish people in a furnace and dumped their bodies in mass graves, and where their has routinely been genocide for certain groups, it would appear the Indiana law (in it's original form) was on the right side of history as well, no?

side-note on polygamy. It seems to me like the societal prohibition on polygamy (specifically, polygyny) gives lie to the claim that reproduction is the ultimate justification for marriage.

If marriage were only about reproduction, one would expect that we'd have a harem-like system, where men married in proportion to their ability to provide for women and children. Since in our society, wealth = ability to provide, we'd see rich men with harems and poor men struggling to find a mate (or even entering into polyandrous relationships with other poor men). From a reproductive standpoint, this system would produce the best results: the most productive male genes would get passed on at a much higher rate, women would benefit from being able to share in the labor of raising children, etc... There's a reason that this is the system that arrises most often in nature and is a pretty frequent feature of ancient societies. When resources are scare, polygamy is a logical survival mechanism.

Many laws have been put in place to keep resources balanced, that includes the number of sexual partners. Human history has been a continuum of refinement where we take calculated moves and then monitor the results. But, since these are "secular" laws and not bound to any moral code, I see no reason for polygamy to be outlawed. It isn't difficult to imagine this going before legislature in our lifetime if enough people clamor for it.

If marriage/unions are only about "love", the fleeting neurochemical reaction to physical attraction, then certainly most could claim they love a number of people whom they'd like to share their lives with.

Right, and this is basically the "benefit of the doubt" version. But you also said things like

"In 20 years there will probably be an in utero treatment to prevent homosexuality, "gender identity disorder," etc., so most of this will be moot. It should be obvious that even the most "liberal" and "tolerant" parents will use it."

strongly implying that everyone agrees with a) the Catholic belief that homosexuality is a "disorder" and that b) it "obviously" should be "treated" if possible.

For people who don't see homosexuality as a disorder but as a trait no different than eye or skin color, this comes across as *really* offensive. I can promise you that even if I could, I would never test my unborn children for gayness and I would never try to "fix" it if it were present. What seems obvious to you, honestly, seems repulsive to me.

If reproduction is the 'sine qua non' of our biological framework, what would one call the attraction/urge to to mate in a fashion that gives no chance for reproduction? What do we call things in biology that reduce reproductive fitness?

If throughout history we had allowed homosexual marriage/unions do you think we'd see any more gay people? If so, how? Would we have a few persistent genetic profiles that allowed bisexuality but not outright homosexuality?

Do we think in systems and order only to a point?

I've had this nascent 'prima facie' thought for some time and never knew how to put it out there for engagement, and hopefully not incite rage or incur derision.

 

[connor_in]

Political silliness for the day:

Mitt Romney's bracket crushes Obama's - Nick Gass - POLITICO

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Political silliness for the day:

Mitt Romney's bracket crushes Obama's - Nick Gass - POLITICO

heh. His bracket is certainly crushing mine. Maybe I've been wrong about him all along...

 

[EddytoNow]

What does "offensive" even mean here? There was no argument put forth that anything I said was false. So I assume it just means "a claim I disagree with." Disagreeing with a claim does not justify cheap ad hominem attacks.

I'll just lay out my views (both predictive and ethical) clearly:

(1) Within 20 years there will either be (a) some sort of drug to prevent homosexuality in a developing fetus; (b) a test for homosexuality in a developing fetus; or (c) both a drug and a test.

(2) It is morally permissible from a Catholic point of view to take the drug that prevents homosexuality in a developing fetus.

The reason it is morally permissible is that the Church regards homosexuality as a disorder, and believes that fetal therapy is permissible if it remedies disorders, diseases, etc. It does not mean gay people are "less human," have less "dignity," etc. But it does mean that it is not forbidden to prevent homosexuality in utero should the means to do so be developed. This is not a consensus view among Catholic bioethicists, nor would I expect it to be. The Church believes gene therapy can be used ethically under certain conditions, but has no formal position on the hypothetical drug I have mentioned. The point is that this drug is likely to be developed in the relatively near future, whether we like it or not. So the proper response is worth thinking about. Incidentally, it is not obvious how secular liberals would respond to it, either. You can find arguments for and against from various perspectives.

This sounds a whole lot like selectively breeding future generations to fit someone's ideal of the master race. Isn't that what Adolph Hitler had in mind? Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin was considered the ideal. It seems like you are suggesting that we control reproduction/breeding, so that lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transvestites are eventually eliminated from the population or at least greatly reduced in number. In other words, let's eliminate the LGBT community entirely by developing a drug that prevents one from becoming LGBT. Am I the only one that sees something morally wrong with that?

 

[kmoose]

That's just laughably false. You can't be fired because of your ethnicity. In many states (including Indiana), gay people can be fired because they are gay.

snopes.com: Fired for Being Gay

In 20 years, our children are going to be horrified to learn what LGBTQ people had to deal with.

What's laughable is you calling my statement that LGBT people have the same protections as me laughable, and then using a link that supports my statement.

From the link:

...employees who work on an at-will basis may be terminated without cause...

No one in an "at-will" state is going to say that they fired anyone because they are gay, or because they don't like the Irish. They simply don't give a reason. They don't need cause, after all. So a gay person has the same protection as I do, which is basically; none.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This sounds a whole lot like selectively breeding future generations to fit someone's ideal of the master race. Isn't that what Adolph Hitler had in mind? Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin was considered the ideal. It seems like you are suggesting that we control reproduction/breeding, so that lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transvestites are eventually eliminated from the population or at least greatly reduced in number. In other words, let's eliminate the LGBT community entirely by developing a drug that prevents one from becoming LGBT. Am I the only one that sees something morally wrong with that?

with each passing year, the technology available along with scientific curiosity is pushing closer to the day where you can design your own baby. In time, if there is some sort of genetic fingerprint that causes specific traits, that trait could be eliminated via science. (Not arguing for or against this, but that it isn't as far fetched as some may have thought).

'Designer Babies:' Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits - WSJ

One potential approach, unrelated to 23andMe's patent, is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. It typically entails testing a three-day-old embryo, consisting of about six cells, to see if it carries a particular genetic disease. Only embryos free of that disease are implanted in the mother's womb, to ensure the disease isn't passed on.

However, some U.S. clinics have been using PGD not just to root out unwanted diseases, but also to allow customers to choose the gender of their child. That, some argue, is a step toward designer babies.

In principle, PGD could also be used to weed out—or specifically choose—physical traits such as eye or hair color, which are governed by relatively few genes. It will be much harder to select for other traits, such as height, athleticism or intelligence, because they are governed by multiple genetic factors as well as environmental effects.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

1. Almost nothing in the parade of horribles the article enumerated bothered me. I'm 100% ok with a freedom of religion that allows individuals untrammeled freedom to practice their religion, but does not allow them to impose their beliefs on others outside of very narrow contexts[/B] (see: the civil-rights section in the Texas RFRA).

That's basically Free Exercise without the Establishment Clause, which (as you've properly identified below) is very Jeffersonian. But it's not how this country has approached Freedom of Religion historically.

2. One of the reasons I'm ok with the parade of horribles is that I don't think Madison is the last word on the role of religion in America.

Madison may not be the last word, but as the drafter of the First Amendment, his word is far more important when it comes to "original intent" than Jefferson's. Also, as you're surely aware, Jefferson was an ardent francophile and supporter of the French Revolution, which culminated in the Reign of Terror-- mass execution of Catholics and others who opposed the Revolution. So when you identify yourself as "Jeffersonian" on the topic of religious freedom, that's not going to ease the fears of your opponents. Quite the contrary, since a French-style Laicite-- which you seem to be arguing for implicitly-- is basically the worst case scenario for religious Americans.

In other words, I believe that the law of the nation does and should trump the law of God (Render unto Caeser...).

Madison would not have disagreed. Where you diverge from him is on: (1) the value of religious pluralism as a bulwark against a tyrannous majority; and (2) the gravely illiberal nature of any government which forces its citizens to participate in religious rituals against their will.

And I believe the ultimate law of the nation is that "all men are created equal."

Right. And in what source is that sentiment grounded?

I (and I think Jefferson) disagree with the bolded. At the very least, I do not believe that an effective society can be designed with the caveat that all of its rules are subordinate to the religious edicts of its people, especially when We The People are such an incredibly diverse group.

Our society operated quite effectively for nearly a quarter of a millennium without forcing people to participate in religious rituals that violate their consciences. But that's suddenly unworkable?

I mean, shouldn't it be against the religion of every Christian to pay taxes in a state that has the death penalty? Or even in a nation that routinely uses lethal force in environments that don't quite meet the requirements of Christian Just War theory?

No. That's precisely how the Pharisees hoped to trap Jesus when he rebuffed them with "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

3. I simply disagree with the assertion that liberalism is a "religion."

This is the nub of our disagreement. We're all doing theology; there's no prescinding from metaphysics.

For one, the moral authority of liberalism is not found in the Bible or divine revelation, but in the founding documents of our country (which, admittedly, were heavily influenced by Christian tradition).

This a specious argument. Any moral authority posited by our founding documents comes from the ideas codified therein. And those ideas have a clear lineage.

Again, "all men are created equal" is- I believe- the foundational principle of our country.

You like that clause, but apparently not the following one, which explicitly grounds that equality in the Christian belief that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

To me, this means that the rights of the individual must trump the rights of a group.

That's certainly the interpretation favored by most American judges as they've followed the logical outworking of the Reformation over the last several decades. But that was never the original intent. The Bill of Rights was designed to constrain the power of the Federal government; not to enshrine a concept of radical individualism into our founding documents. The Bill of Rights wasn't even partially incorporated against the states until 1925.

Certainly, it hardly makes sense to say that there must be a barrier between religion and State but that a belief in the State is effectively a religion. Yet that seems to be the argument advanced in Levin's piece.

No. Levin's piece clarified that Progressives are not threatening Free Exercise, but the Establishment Clause when they insist that all Christian, Jewish and Muslim proprietors should be forced to serve gay weddings regardless of sincerely held religious convictions to the contrary.

A reluctance founded in religion to cater a gay wedding may not be harmful, but one doesn't need to look too hard to find examples of religious beliefs that are obviously harmful.

This is a strawman. No RFRA law has ever successfully protected discrimination by a proprietor against a minority.

It was against school rules at Bob Jones University for students to go on interracial dates. A student who went to BJU and then went on to, say, open up a restaurant, would have a very strong argument that it was against his religious beliefs to serve customers when one was black and the other was white. Mormons used to clearly treat blacks as inferior. Should Mormons in Salt Lake City have been free to turn away black customers based on their beliefs?

In both of the examples you gave, the proprietors should have a day in court to argue for an exemption. Based on current RFRA jurisprudence, neither would have a prayer of winning.

I disagree that religion is being chased out of the public square. American Christians are not persecuted by any stretch of the imagination. We are completely free to worship, to proselytize, to observe our sacraments.

But Catholics are apparently not free to run hospitals, orphanages, and other such institutions, because Progressives like yourself have decided that those are all part of the "public square", and for Catholics to run such institutions according to their 2,000-years-old doctrine is unacceptable when such conflicts with the state religion of secular liberalism. This is partly why the protections for Free Exercise aren't enough, and why the Establishment Clause is so crucial.

Our churches have tax exempt status.

But for how much longer? Bob Jones University lost its 501(c)(3) status because it prohibited interracial dating. Gay rights activists are openly discussing similar attacks on Catholics institutions for their "hateful" stance toward the LGBT community.

The state makes no attempt to control what we say or what we believe.

Brendan Eich was forced to step down as the CEO of Mozilla because he made a single donation to California's Proposition 8 years earlier. And Sebelius has attempted to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortifacients through the HHS mandate. Gay rights has become a modern-day Selma for the current crop of Progressives, which is clear from the totalitarian rhetoric they direct toward their opponents (plenty of which can be found in this thread). The writing is on the wall, and dissenters from the Progressive gospel of absolute sexual autonomy are not going to be shown any quarter.

However, I also believe that the "public square" in America is broadening. Our country accepts more people of more diverse backgrounds and beliefs today than it has in the past. I think that if religious people are leaving the public square it is because they can't accept the general broadening of the square, not because they are being forced out.

That's an effective way to frame your opponents outside of polite discourse. Catholic institutions who object to government regulations forcing them to either violate their ancient doctrines or to simply close their doors are just bigoted.

I will be the first to say that no business should have the right to discriminate against someone because of their religious beliefs.

Individuals and the businesses they run should be allowed to refuse participation in religious rituals that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

Everyone is welcome into the square, but only to the extent they are willing to tolerate everyone else in the public square.

See above for how that impacts Catholic institutions in practice. Sounds like you're A-OK with forcing them to close their doors.

 

[IrishLax]

This sounds a whole lot like selectively breeding future generations to fit someone's ideal of the master race. Isn't that what Adolph Hitler had in mind? Blond hair, blue eyes, white skin was considered the ideal. It seems like you are suggesting that we control reproduction/breeding, so that lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transvestites are eventually eliminated from the population or at least greatly reduced in number. In other words, let's eliminate the LGBT community entirely by developing a drug that prevents one from becoming LGBT. Am I the only one that sees something morally wrong with that?

Dude, eugenics does not equate to "Hitler" in-and-of-itself... come on...

 

[pkt77242]

What's laughable is you calling my statement that LGBT people have the same protections as me laughable, and then using a link that supports my statement.

From the link:



No one in an "at-will" state is going to say that they fired anyone because they are gay, or because they don't like the Irish. They simply don't give a reason. They don't need cause, after all. So a gay person has the same protection as I do, which is basically; none.

Actually in an at-will state, you can not be fired for being Irish. The CRA still applies in at-will employment states. If a person was fired for being Irish they could sue the owner and would likely win in court (if they can prove it). The same is generally not true for gay people (except in states and municipalities that have them as a protected class).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If you've got a couple minutes, take this Political Typology Quiz from Pew. Gives you a pretty accurate idea how the national pollsters would pigeon-hole your beliefs (regardless of how inaccurate that might be). They pegged me as belonging to the "Faith and Family Left". Never thought of myself like that before, but it makes sense for an American Catholic.