The Fundamentalist Christian Agenda

[Maren]

Which were both huge controversies where advocates worked to change not only the laws, but the minds of the people. It seems to me the gay rights movement focuses too much on changing the laws and too little on changing minds.

Umm... seems to me that several states only got rid of slavery after a war when they were forced to end slavery -- not because their hearts and minds were changed. It was similar with interracial marriage, it ended up being forced by the Supreme Court on some states.

As for gays changing people's minds, that is happening, too. Studies show that there is a trend, that people are becoming more accepting of gay marriage. For example, the first proposition to outlaw gay marriage in California got over 61% of the vote in California in 2000, whereas Prop. 8 only received 52% of the vote. Based on the way public opinion has changed, it is thought that when it comes up for vote again in 2010 that, based on the trend in public opinion, that keeping a ban on gay marriage will only get 50% of the vote.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Traditional Marriage, is of a benefit to the nation at large and not simply to a select few seeking tax loopholes. If approached/engaged with sobriety, it produces healthy families and a new generation of good citizens.

Homosexual "marriage" would only serve to further erode the institution by reducing it to a free for all and an anything goes affair.

But wouldn't allowing gay marriage promote family values in the gay community? I mean, if you think about it now Christians tend to preach the necessity of having children within the confines of a marriage. Right now that is not possible for LGBT couples. Wouldn't it promote the idea of family values if gay marriage was legalized? And how is allowing gay marriage at all creating a free for all or anything goes affair? The majority of families today are NOT traditional families in any sense.

And according to your first paragraph, how would a family of gay individuals not produce healthy families and good citizens? At least, that's seems to be what you are implying.

 

[MaxP]

Umm... seems to me that several states only got rid of slavery after a war when they were forced to end slavery -- not because their hearts and minds were changed. It was similar with interracial marriage, it ended up being forced by the Supreme Court on some states.

Southerners couldn't get rid of slavery peaceably, their economy was too entwined with it. As were too many rich and powerful people. And the North was pretty convinced of the evils of slavery. And the interracial marriage issue was part of a much larger civil rights movement that did convince many people.

As for gays changing people's minds, that is happening, too. Studies show that there is a trend, that people are becoming more accepting of gay marriage. For example, the first proposition to outlaw gay marriage in California got over 61% of the vote in California in 2000, whereas Prop. 8 only received 52% of the vote. Based on the way public opinion has changed, it is thought that when it comes up for vote again in 2010 that, based on the trend in public opinion, that keeping a ban on gay marriage will only get 50% of the vote.

The public is very fickle. I would be wary of attempts to predict public opinion.

 

[levi501]

The public is very fickle. I would be wary of attempts to predict public opinion.

lol, yah rock yourself back and forth and keep telling yourself that.
This country has a trend of moving towards equality however slowly.
As the older bigoted generations die off time is not on the side of those in favor of discrimination.

 

[Zebra1552]

Well I obviously can't go back and remove the generalization, so why are even making these statements? I would understand if I had made them a second time, but I didn't.

And it is perfectly acceptable to inform adolescents that homosexuality is okay. How is it promoting lies? If it is in fact something a child deals with for a brief period of time, they will deal with it for a brief period of time and move on when they are an adult. If you believe it is a stage for some, it will most likely be just that...a stage...and as they grow older they'll find their true self.

I don't understand how teaching kids to be tolerant of others is a bad thing.

Except that it's not teaching tolerance of others- it's promoting the acceptance of a behavior that the Bible labels as sin. Phase or no, those going through it that hear the message that it's perfectly okay aren't going to see it as a phase- certainly not when the message is that it's okay because it's part of who you are.

 

[lawtonfogle]

All anyone need do is to allow the open mature discussion of anything anywhere (the primary concern being in places of "public" education), and then "religious" people would not feel slighted. If one can discuss evolution, one should be able to discuss creationism. If one can discuss gay pride, one should be able to discuss prolife issues and the concerns regarding fornication and the spiritual/physical implications/ramifications.
Then there would be no controlled agenda ----- just logic, reason, and open investigation. People cannot make clear and meaningful choices applying one set of opinions and bias hearsay without considering open and above board display of cause and affect.

I agree all of them need to be allowed to be discussed, but there are a few catches. In set up debates, some people do not want to talk about certain sides, and one shouldn't force it on them. I should not force a pro-life rally to hear about pro-choice opinions, and I should not force a journal on evolution to publish anything about creationism. The big issue comes in what should be taught at school. Evolution is science, creationism is not. Thus evolution should be taught. Doubts which creationist cast on evolution which are fair (saying it violates the second law of termo. is just stupid though) should be taught. The 'fact' that these prove creationism should not (plus that is bad logic anyways).

And morals should be left out of the teaching, only the law should be taught. Abortion is a legal option, so it should be taught as one. They should not claim it is immoral, and they should not claim it is moral. They should only claim it is legal, and this is only in the sex ed class (if there should be a sex ed class to begin with is another issue entirely, start a new thread if you want to discuss this one).

You should not teach morals at all in school, because simply put, we will have a war over whose should be taught. Only to follow the law. Of course, in an ethics class, or philosophy one, this should be put on hold, but any morals discussed should be discussed, not preached.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Abortion should be illegal because it ends human life- there are laws that make it a double homicide if one kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies. It is inconsistent to not make abortion illegal too, not to mention that the basis for abortion being legal was a judiciary decision and not a legislative one- the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Not just because it 'goes against God'. And the research for the effects of homosexual parents have on kids is incomplete- more research should be done before a decision is made.





Good thing I'm a moderate, then. Why did you create this thread? Just to rip on right-wing folk?

As to abortion, even if we defined the unborn as alive, even if we agree upon it being killing, it is not murder anymore than justified self defense is. The issue here is bodily integrity, which is a higher right than right to life. See the kidney argument for why.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Traditional Marriage, is of a benefit to the nation at large and not simply to a select few seeking tax loopholes. If approached/engaged with sobriety, it produces healthy families and a new generation of good citizens.

Homosexual "marriage" would only serve to further erode the institution by reducing it to a free for all and an anything goes affair.

No, your wrong.

 

[Zebra1552]

As to abortion, even if we defined the unborn as alive, even if we agree upon it being killing, it is not murder anymore than justified self defense is. The issue here is bodily integrity, which is a higher right than right to life. See the kidney argument for why.

Your self defense argument fails because it equates two things that are not analogous.
And since when do most abortions happen because the body is at risk? Where are your statistics?

 

[gwenmead]

For the OP - are you thinking of Christian fundamentalists? Or the Religious Right as a political movement?

Because I'm not convinced they're quite the same thing. Fundamentalists as a group or as individuals may or may not have any "agenda" to do anything, and show a wide variety of approaches to law, politics, application of their beliefs to public ideas of morality, and so on.

The Religious Right, though, is a whole 'nuther ballgame...

 

[Maren]

Southerners couldn't get rid of slavery peaceably, their economy was too entwined with it. As were too many rich and powerful people. And the North was pretty convinced of the evils of slavery.

Actually, all evidence is that the South still believed in slavery, they weren't convinced it was wrong. The Baptists are a great example, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed because they had beliefs that slavery was allowed by God -- which the northern Baptists rejected.

The Kansas-Nebraska act is another example, where in 1854 Southerners were still pushing to allow slavery in the territories -- even territories north of the Mason-Dixon line. The South was not convinced of the evils of slavery, they were forced to discontinue it. True, most in the North did believe slavery was wrong but that wasn't the claim.

Rather, he is pointing to convincing Florida and Utah to allowing gay marriage as his example -- two states that have strong (and possibly the strongest) anti-gay sentiment. As such, the claim would have to be supported that the majority in the South would have voted against slavery -- instead they fought a war rather than to willingly give up the practice.

And the interracial marriage issue was part of a much larger civil rights movement that did convince many people.

Sure they had, however most Southern states were nowhere near allowing it (just like his claims about Florida and Utah again).

The public is very fickle. I would be wary of attempts to predict public opinion.

Depends on what you mean by "predict public opinion". If you're referring to California in 2010 being almost equally split on gay marriage, I'll agree; over the short term (a few years) it is hard to accurately project trends.

OTOH, there is strong evidence that over time the US is becoming increasingly in favor of gay rights. Beyond the fact that you can see the trend reflected in polls over the last 20 years, the more important fact is that the younger the person, the more likely they are to support gay rights.

 

[Joachim]

Equal rights issues should not be different state to state. What would happen if PA (the state I live in now) legally recognized same sex marriages so my girlfriend and I got married here. That completely limits my ability to move anywhere else in this country if I want to remain married to my wife. What if something happens when we travel out of state and one of us is severely injured and ends up in the hospital? Our rights as a spouse go POOF.

Just because the majority of the population is against it, does not mean it should remain that way. The majority of the population should not determine one's civil rights. The majority of the population also agreed with slavery at one point in time and also agreed that women shouldn't vote.

And civil unions are not enough because they create a separate, but equal state. If the state governments issued civil unions for all hetero and homo couples wanting to be bound by that legal contract, then I would be okay with it. If religious groups want ownership of the word marriage, I say let them have it, but then marriages as recognized by the state regardless of they are opposite or same sex should be known as civil unions. Even if civil unions were legal country wide, the religious right would still campaign against that because they believe it would lead to gay marriage, which is exactly what is happening in Washington state right now.

You seem to be under the impression that America is a country and not an empire.....we are an empire. It just hasn't been officially formalized. As an empire, it is therefore best to let people to their own devices so that people can choose the laws they want to live under while remaining in the empire.

 

[Joachim]

Abortion should be illegal because it ends human life- there are laws that make it a double homicide if one kills a pregnant woman and the baby dies. It is inconsistent to not make abortion illegal too, not to mention that the basis for abortion being legal was a judiciary decision and not a legislative one- the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Not just because it 'goes against God'. And the research for the effects of homosexual parents have on kids is incomplete- more research should be done before a decision is made.

Should the federal government be allowed to make that decision?

 

[Zebra1552]

Should the federal government be allowed to make that decision?

Um... which part? Abortion or gay marriage?

 

[R3quiem]

You seem to be under the impression that America is a country and not an empire.....we are an empire. It just hasn't been officially formalized. As an empire, it is therefore best to let people to their own devices so that people can choose the laws they want to live under while remaining in the empire.

Who is our emperor?

 

[MaxP]

Actually, all evidence is that the South still believed in slavery, they weren't convinced it was wrong. The Baptists are a great example, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed because they had beliefs that slavery was allowed by God -- which the northern Baptists rejected.


The Kansas-Nebraska act is another example, where in 1854 Southerners were still pushing to allow slavery in the territories -- even territories north of the Mason-Dixon line. The South was not convinced of the evils of slavery, they were forced to discontinue it. True, most in the North did believe slavery was wrong but that wasn't the claim.

Of course many southerners did believe slavery was right, because so many rich and powerful people had their fortunes based on slavery, they pushed back hard at the abolitionists. People want to believe something they see daily(and strive to one day possess, for the most of them) is right, and the powerful plantation owners managed to keep them comfortable in that belief. In the North, slavery was very uncommon so it was much easier for the average man to condemn, considering owning slaves was not so intrinsically tied with the idea of success there.

Rather, he is pointing to convincing Florida and Utah to allowing gay marriage as his example -- two states that have strong (and possibly the strongest) anti-gay sentiment. As such, the claim would have to be supported that the majority in the South would have voted against slavery -- instead they fought a war rather than to willingly give up the practice.

Sure they had, however most Southern states were nowhere near allowing it (just like his claims about Florida and Utah again).

The gay rights and slaves rights situation is very different. No one is making money off of gays not being married. No one's life and fortune is based on it. No one considers unmarried gays to be an intrinsic part of the society on its highest rung. No one strives to keep gays so they can be successful. Southern society is not entwined with banning gay marriage. Also, because of the strong left over anti-black sentiment in the South, because of the Civil War, they rallied hard against legislation that would see blacks as equal to whites. But what long standing sentiment against gays that there is is not based on a visceral, personal hatred due to the stories by parents and grandparents, but more often than not based on religious belief, which, believe it or not, is not often driven by hatred these days, for the most part.

Depends on what you mean by "predict public opinion". If you're referring to California in 2010 being almost equally split on gay marriage, I'll agree; over the short term (a few years) it is hard to accurately project trends.

OTOH, there is strong evidence that over time the US is becoming increasingly in favor of gay rights. Beyond the fact that you can see the trend reflected in polls over the last 20 years, the more important fact is that the younger the person, the more likely they are to support gay rights.

Of course, on only needs to look on a college campus to see the evidence of what you say. But any public opinion predictions are by nature inaccurate, because public opinion changes with events, and there are far too many subtle and even invisible factors to accurately predict.

 

[Maren]

Of course many southerners did believe slavery was right, because so many rich and powerful people had their fortunes based on slavery, they pushed back hard at the abolitionists. People want to believe something they see daily(and strive to one day possess, for the most of them) is right, and the powerful plantation owners managed to keep them comfortable in that belief. In the North, slavery was very uncommon so it was much easier for the average man to condemn, considering owning slaves was not so intrinsically tied with the idea of success there.


The gay rights and slaves rights situation is very different. No one is making money off of gays not being married. No one's life and fortune is based on it. No one considers unmarried gays to be an intrinsic part of the society on its highest rung. No one strives to keep gays so they can be successful. Southern society is not entwined with banning gay marriage. Also, because of the strong left over anti-black sentiment in the South, because of the Civil War, they rallied hard against legislation that would see blacks as equal to whites. But what long standing sentiment against gays that there is is not based on a visceral, personal hatred due to the stories by parents and grandparents, but more often than not based on religious belief, which, believe it or not, is not often driven by hatred these days, for the most part.

I wasn't trying to compare gays and Blacks, so it seems like you are trying to build a straw man. The point was that the changes did not occur solely through public opinion as the person originally claimed.

Of course, on only needs to look on a college campus to see the evidence of what you say. But any public opinion predictions are by nature inaccurate, because public opinion changes with events, and there are far too many subtle and even invisible factors to accurately predict.

Yes, predictions of public opinion do tend to be inaccurate. However, trends in public opinion will often remain consistent. While particular events may cause public opinion to change, typically they only temporarily affect public opinion. For example, some polls show there was backlash from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage that strengthened the opposition against gay marriage; in fact, many give that decision credit for many of the marriage amendments which have been passed. However, while there were signs it temporarily altered public opinion from polls that were done, the numbers today are such as if that backlash never occurred.

 

[MaxP]

I wasn't trying to compare gays and Blacks, so it seems like you are trying to build a straw man. The point was that the changes did not occur solely through public opinion as the person originally claimed.

I was actually not trying to construct your argument, simply making sure the issues remain separate. But for the most part they did. Change in public opinion in one place effected other places.

Yes, predictions of public opinion do tend to be inaccurate. However, trends in public opinion will often remain consistent. While particular events may cause public opinion to change, typically they only temporarily affect public opinion. For example, some polls show there was backlash from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage that strengthened the opposition against gay marriage; in fact, many give that decision credit for many of the marriage amendments which have been passed. However, while there were signs it temporarily altered public opinion from polls that were done, the numbers today are such as if that backlash never occurred.

True, only intermediate term predictions can be accurate though. Maybe 10-50 years general trends can be predicted. Beyond that, anything can happen.

 

[Maren]

I was actually not trying to construct your argument, simply making sure the issues remain separate. But for the most part they did. Change in public opinion in one place effected other places.




True, only intermediate term predictions can be accurate though. Maybe 10-50 years general trends can be predicted. Beyond that, anything can happen.

So basically it sounds like we agree.

 

[MaxP]

So basically it sounds like we agree.

But I like arguing!