Liberalism in the United States

Al Stevens wrote:

There's nothing new about same sex marriage. I got married 55 years ago. The sex has been the same ever since.

One can take that two ways.  If it is meant both ways, then you are specially endowed.

Al, I think you are on target.  "Traditions" do change and vary across the world and in this country and many are shaped differently depending on many factors. Again, all this problem over who marries whom is just not important in the big scheme of things except for its legal ramifications.  Why is one type of family entitled to more legal security than another?

What it's called like most labels is an emotional issue for those that find change difficult to manage.  In a lot of instances, I am one of those people.  In this matter, whatever those involved wish to call it works with me. 

I lived in S.Korea where men and women clung to each other in the crowds to keep from losing each other.  I lived in other countries where men dance together and kiss often with joy.  And other countries where all affection is held to be expressed in hidden home compounds and the people are draped with cloth that hides all human body language.

I remember my sweet stepmother being afraid to hold onto me for fear someone would think we were something other than relatives in a crowded airport.  How disgusting that we are in this country where we are so judgmental.  What we need is more love and more joy, not less.  That doesn't mean having sex in public (as I saw between a boy and girl at a public park with children in the playground) - but genuine affection - what's wrong with it?

I am so full of anger so much of the time for the complications life brings my way and takes away my power to control my own circumstances.  I can understand people of all types having their situations that take away their power too - the power to care and support those they love whoever they are.

I give dam this kind of liberalism which allowed to equals marriage between same sex, I know, and some else know that there are plenty of women who love with bigs dogs -  in Cuba- particularly is well known that the first fiancee of a country boy is often a cow.
The real spiritual liberation is not to pull down tabus or mock the human life- it's  far more, the real liberation is getting rid of bad habits like the oppression against some people, for example,  Romani gipsies or black people, stop call them  ruffians and negros, In such   progress  the legal marriage between the same sex is just as a stowaway  aboard.

Those who are very tied to their religious beliefs and dogma as the only way to live and the "right" way to live believe very strongly that government should legislate according to their dogma.  In this country, it is the dogma of what is written as the "Christian" religion as defined by men with multiple different interpretations of a Bible written by men for a time long passed and re-interpreted and sliced and diced to support whatever theory people wish to believe and support at the time they find their new religion.

Amazing as it might seem to "Christians," there is a large segment of the world's population with a fine set of morals and and clear understanding of life's challenges and solutions that will work for all humanity and not just a privileged few.   Even those with a religious moral compass, which I admire, have no right in politics to legislate religious dogma or promote their religious dogma.  They may personally profess any religion or non-religion they wish but they may not force their beliefs into the governance of my life.  When they say that is what they are going to do, then I do not want to be under their leadership.  When they propose legislation for the purpose of societal benefits to all peoples, then I listen.

My religion is no different except that my church accepts the fact the rest of the world is not wrong and one religion is not right and that as human beings we have a right to find our own understanding with our own spiritual beliefs and the primary spiritual law is love. We do not put forth a political platform or attempt to write legislation to deny women their own health choices for their own bodies nor does the rule of man as the  head of the household impact our beliefs in the rights of women in general to stand side by side with men in education, employment, the rearing of children and any other life experience. 

Therefore, I am not an atheist nor are many of the others who do not want legislation dominated by religious beliefs.  Many liberal oriented people are liberal not for what they seek but for what they do not wish to be subjected to.  Many are more spiritual and more compassionate and loving than those who cry that they are the true Christians, patriots and representatives of the one true God through Jesus Christ.  I admire their beliefs and envy their certainty but those of us who do not believe there is one true religion or that it should rule government of a diverse and spiritual population - we are not less the children of a loving origin, we are not less patriotic, and we love our nation and what it can stand for.

It is beyond me that people can believe they own the one true religion - that also changes over time by the way - should rule the world.  Such ego.  They are setting themselves up as the very God that decreed that they behave differently.

Most of the traditions of traditional religions were set for other than spiritual reasons.  The Catholic church dominated procreation to create new members of the church and more income for the church.  Their rules of celibacy were influenced by the early leaders in the church.  The English church broke from the Pope so they could have divorce rules of their own.  Luther attempted to change the Catholic church and accidentally founded a religious dogma.

Some churches consider Saturday the Sabbath.  When I was a child, the Baptists said no one could work on Sunday yet the minister was certainly working on Sunday.  Makeup and dancing were sins and so was going to the beach on Sunday instead of being prayerful. Most of what goes on in church dogma has its hypocritical side because it is made by men - with good intentions in some cases - but man made nevertheless.

And I should vote for a political party that is influenced by the money of religious organizations that write the legislation for abortion, marriage, adoption, and more based on their attempt to control the population and force it into their belief system?  I should say not.  I will vote against Republicans for their very ruse to look as though they are the party of Christ, the flag and whatever while they cater to those who use their religion to oppress those who need rights appropriate to the society in which we live today.

Most of the hate mail I received on Facebook and email because of political campaigns has been in the name of "Christians."  I gave up on a friend because I finally told him to stop sending me the lying filth that is an anathema to his claims as a Christian. 60% of what goes over the FOX network is lies and the conservative talk radio is downright hate-mongering.  Sure liberals have their untruths and half truths but they don't have a network of hate, prejudice, name-calling and filth creation such as the horrible stuff created regarding President Obama. 

And I am just perplexed that any woman today would vote for the party that consists of mostly old, white men trying to maintain control of the religious status quo and control over females in a world that will pass them by eventually.  However, we have always been suckers for the opinions of men. It's in our DNA to revere them as leaders and purveyors of wisdom.

LOL!  Al, the gay rights activists claim that they have been excluded from marriage, but that isn't true. Marriage was not set up to exclude anyone. It simply recognised that a couple living together for life (like swans) and producing a family could celebrate their union in a marriage ceremony. Same sex couples did not do this. Now that modern science can enable gay couples to set up a family, they want this arrangement to be recognised as the same as heterosexual couples. Which is reasonable and acceptable. It is a slightly different arrangement to traditional marriage deserving of a different ceremony.

Unlike the U.S. and U.K. which "invented" relativistic ethics, the rest of the world generally follows ethical precepts drawn from an ethical absolutist philosophy largely (or exclusively) drawn from its prevalent religious belief system. The problem with absolutist ethical systems is their inflexibility. The problem with ethical systems (and governments) that draw upon religious dogma as the the exclusive foundation of the law is that law cannot be changed, since it is "the will of God." That always leads to trouble for those who do not agree with man's interpretation of the will of God.  There is no worse form of government than a theocracy. The problem with relativistic ethics, or worse, nihilism,  such as ours in the modern era is that the most outrageous, dangerous and deranged acts can be justified since there are no absolute values about absolutely anything. Relativistic ethics makes it difficult to hold anyone accountable for anything. That is just the way criminals, degenerates (e.g., child molesters) and anarchists like it, of course. Some will bristle at my using the term "degenerates" even to describe pedophiles. Who am I to judge, after all? What was good enough for Plato and Aristotle . . . You get the point.

People who are Christian fanatics are DANGEROUS. People who are Nihilists are EQUALLY DANGEROUS. People who decry Christians for wanting the law to reflect the vital moral values that their religion dictates are no better than the few Christians (or Muslims, or Orthodox Jews) who would impose their value system on others wholesale. We can debate the point until the cows come home. Those who believe that the Constitution absolutely prohibits religious ideology from forming any part of our laws are simply wrong. The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion, and also prohibits the establishment of a specific religion by the federal government (and, through judicial decisions interpreting the 14th Amendment, also prohibits states from establishing a religion.) No Church of the U.S. and no Church of New York, either. Judeo Christian ethics permeate the foundation of most of our laws (especially criminal laws) and are the entire subject matter of a whole set of laws commonly referred to as "Blue Laws" that prohibit and criminalize activities such as consensual sodomy even between consenting heterosexual adults. (I find those laws offensive personally, and they are generally not enforced, but they are not Unconstitutional either simply because of their religious basis.) Atheists and Liberals generally--including religious ones--bristle at the thought that law makers might make laws based on their religious notions of right and wrong. Well tough cookies--they have since long before the establishment of our little experiment in democracy. In God we trust is in all of our currency along with other religious symbols. Congress opens sessions with a convocation. And the 10 commandments are emblazoned on courthouses throughout America AS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR LAW AND SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.   

We can have a reasonable debate about the wisdom of legislators drawing their ethical values from ANY religion, especially if they are fundamentalist in their views. But saying that someone should not be president because they are religious (or draw values from their religion) is just plain wrong.

I agree that a person saying they govern their behaviors by a religious doctrine should not preclude them from being in a leadership position.  If that were the case, there would be very few people but those sociopaths without conscience that would qualify for leadership, a sad commentary indeed. However, it is how a person will contribute leadership skills to glean the best from all information available to solve problems that is the best indicator of a positive candidate.  Unfortunately some fabulous leaders have had no moral turpitude whatsoever.

It is when potential leaders announce that their belief leads them to accept the special interest group's written legislation that puts those beliefs into laws that are specific to limit women's rights--that's when I bristle.  When they allow the special interest groups to write their legislation to be implemented to benefit the religious orientation across the nation that I bristle.

I agree that the inclusion of moral thought and principles for the good of the order and not to limit the beliefs of others is beneficial to people living together to form a society.  I agree that it is the fanaticism at either end of the spectrum that is most detrimental.  However, we do have one political party that does promote one religious ethic.  The other political party is made up of multiple diverse groups including some of the deeply religious with firm dogma and thus the furthest out, the "anarchists," don't have a chance to dominate as in the more homogenous party.

We all govern our behaviors by a set of moral guides and the trick is to find the common threads that provide for a quality life for the majority of citizens and provide a voice for those who feel their rights have not been included.  I have know intellectually oriented "agnostics" and "atheists" in my journeys through this life whose moral precepts would stand well against any person of religious dogma.  It does not take a strong religious faith to build a moral foundation for living well in society with compassion and grace.

It is common for the religious right to name any others who do not follow their beliefs as "atheist" or "anarchists."  My church, Unity, has been labeled a "cult" though it meets none of the criteria that define a cult.  The label is because we do not believe the Bible is a work that is to be lived literally but rather a collection of history and stories as guides to learn from along with other religious works written by those who were spiritually evolved.  As a result, I have learned to appreciate the Bible more than when I was taught that I was destined for hell unless I was saved.  However, I have Christian Reform Church friends and Jehovah Witness friends who are still trying to save me - and their prayers are welcomed.  After all, I don't really know the truth. I only know what I believe.

My "uncles" lived their entire lives as a couple, just like the swans.  Their love was monogamous and caring.  They had responsible occupations and were intellectual and charming people.  Heterosexual couples in the U.S. divorce at enormous rates and marry several times, with great shredding in the lives of their children.  I doubt that long-term marriages are the standard any more.  Everything is changing.  It may be the right and natural evolution of homo sapiens and we just find change difficult to accept.  I know I prefer the familiar when it's something that gives me security and comfort.

We see the gay lifestyle in "focus."  Many people with alternative lifestyles live in regular neighborhoods and work in the stores around us, the hospitals and more.  They entertain us and comfort us.  It's always those a bit outside their own mainstream that get our attention.

Same sex relationships are not being judged by those who wish to keep marriage the way it always was. In Scotland, golf clubs still allow all male bars. These areas of the golf club were set up specifically to exclude females. Men feel that language and behaviour would have to be tempered in female company. Women do not have exclusive bars; they are allowed into the mixed bars. The rights and wrongs of this are pretty apparent. Compared to this blatant sexism, marriage does not, and never did, exclude women or men from participating. Gay men and lesbians exclude themselves.

DK, I agree with you.

I guess I’m too old and set in my ways to accept too much change anymore.  Where does it stop?  They say being gay is not a matter of choice so we need to change the laws so they can marry and openly live their lifestyle.  They say pedophilia is not a matter of choice either…so should we change the laws and allow adults to marry children so they can legally pursue their lifestyle?   Schizophrenia is not a choice so I guess we need to change the laws and allow mass murder as long as it’s done by a schizophrenic?  Again, I ask where do we stop?
 
No matter what your religious beliefs are, if it is an organized religion, the rules are interpreted by MAN and changed by MAN.  The rules handed down by GOD were the Ten Commandments.  Who can marry who...Birth control…Eating meat on Friday…Eating pork…Holding a cow as sacred…Sexual life style, all rules made by man.  I couldn’t go along with that concept sixty years ago (when I left the seminary) and I can’t go along with it now.


Once again it's appears to be the LOUD minority trying to make the changes.   12 million vs 318.9 million.
 

JMHO! 

Don, good post.
This subject has caused me to do some deep thinking and I have come to the conclusion that my feelings are deep rooted.  I cannot change how people think, I can only try to control how I think and no matter how hard I try to see things from some other person's perspective concerning same sex unions, I fall short.
I feel repulsion when I see people of the same sex in an open display of affection (kissing on the mouth).  I doubt that I will ever be able to change that internal feeling and don't think it even necessary to try.
I can choose how I live my life.  I don't need to adapt/adjust/accept how others choose to live theirs nor do I feel the need to accept what my gut tells me is wrong.
 
With this declaration I have nothing more to add.

I think this has been a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion on timely issues that have different meanings for each of us. What I believe intellectually and how I respond emotionally are often different.  My responses are from my culture and the molding that goes with that.  My intellectual reasoning comes from information I have received as an adult.  These two things are often in conflict in many ways.

As Don says, there are many things for which society is not improved if they are legalized.  The care for mental disorders is abysmal and if we could learn more about the mind we might understand better those things that are good for society and those that are not.  Different parts of the world do value life in different ways, including the lives of the poor or children or women.  I like to think that that the people in a relatively intellectually free thinking U.S. are evolving in a direction that incorporates learning and growing intellectually and spiritually.

I recently left the board of trustees at my church because I felt I was voting yes on matters for which I really believed no was more appropriate - just to get along.  I couldn't continue in that vein.  Yet, I believe the members are well-intentioned and competent.  I was like a round peg in a square hole as I was interested in a long-term, sustainable approach to church management instead of putting out fires.

Often when we are dealing with one legal matter, we bring in the extremes in order to make our case.  Extremes are never the solution.  I look around my life and my community, my state and my nation and I ask:  are the citizens of the U.S. receiving the benefits of living in this free and open society?  Who are not?  Why?  How can we insure a quality life for the majority of the people?  What laws might help that along?  What policies are in place that are detrimental?  What are the biggest priorities?

I think maintaining my right to choose my lifestyle without harming other adults and for certain not harming children or animals is a priority.  That includes food, shelter, healthcare, education, family and meaningful employment.  I wish to keep the right to choose how I access those benefits so long as my access is not harmful to others.  I realize "harm" can be a matter of very emotional opinions.

I think women's rights and voters' rights are high on the priority scale since they affect everything else on the list.  Anyone that threatens those rights is not contributing to the harmony in society.  Freedom from discrimination and prejudice is quite high on the scale.  That means behaviors.  How a person thinks and doesn't act on it is their business.  Behaviors need to contribute to a society of harmony and quality life.

I believe the prison system in this country is a disgrace to human dignity and and a blight on our nation.  I believe that the prison system is closely tied to the justice system and the ownership of guns by private individuals. Those are issues that will continue to bring us down as a nation as we incarcerate people who could contribute to society and pay for their warehousing while they disintegrate.  Those of us with loved ones who have faced or been part of the prison system have seen the ravaged of prison on the human soul.  It is not rehabilitation.

Groups of impoverished and hopeless people living together in hopeless neighborhoods is a contributing blight on our nation.  I don't care how "rich" our poor people are, they are without hope for better futures for themselves and their children and the fertile ground for drugs, gangs, crime and further ravagement of the human soul.  Gated community and segregation by economic status contribute in a  major way to this travesty.  There are cures.  But the haves do not want to be soiled by those less financially secure, actually "food insecure" - the uptown word for hungry. Every developer in this nation can contribute to improving this condition by the integration of multiple levels of income housing in the communities they build with transportation hubs to employment centers.

Instead of putting our energy into these very real matters, we bandaid them and waste energy in the legislation of matters between adults that are none of our business.  We force our religious intentions on people who have different beliefs and the right to those different beliefs.  Then we have to fight back and waste more energy.  We manipulate voting districts and who can vote to retain the same people in political office that should be turning over to new people with new ideas and improvements on the old ones.

But still we move forward.  Because that's who we are as a species. We change.  That's who we are.  Just look at the television of the 1950's where the doctors and the actors are all dragging on cigarettes.  That has changed.  Look at the color and ethnicity of most of the shows and the ads.  That has changed. Tylenol has a very classy ad that talks about what type of family arrangement not making any difference - Tylenol is right for them all.  So, hope springs eternal.

Don Stephens wrote:

They say being gay is not a matter of choice so we need to change the laws so they can marry and openly live their lifestyle.  They say pedophilia is not a matter of choice either…so should we change the laws and allow adults to marry children so they can legally pursue their lifestyle?

Your analogy doesn't work, Don. One group comprises two consenting adults and no victims. The other includes an underage victim who isn't given and isn't prepared to make a choice.

Abe F. March wrote:

I don't need to adapt/adjust/accept how others choose to live theirs nor do I feel the need to accept what my gut tells me is wrong.

You don't need to accept it. Your point of how you were conditioned to believe a certain way is well understood. We all carry such biases. What is important is that despite such conditioning, one does not intentionally deprive others of their rights. There is a huge difference between prejudice and discrimination.

6/16

                                  Al...........


                                         Cheers.........................Joe........

Al Stevens wrote:

Don Stephens wrote:

They say being gay is not a matter of choice so we need to change the laws so they can marry and openly live their lifestyle.  They say pedophilia is not a matter of choice either…so should we change the laws and allow adults to marry children so they can legally pursue their lifestyle?

Your analogy doesn't work, Don. One group comprises two consenting adults and no victims. The other includes an underage victim who isn't given and isn't prepared to make a choice.

But who knows what the future holds? We lowered the age of consent to sixteen. Who's to say that by the end of the century that will not be lowered to fourteen? Where do you draw the line? Does the constitution say that fourteen is too young to marry? We are talking constitution here not what we think is a civil right and what is not. What the constitution allows is under threat if it can be interpreted to mean whatever a minority want at any particular time in history. Which is what Don said.

The end of the century is a long way off. We don't know how anything will be by then. Or if anyone will still be here.

This issue is about protecting children. Who the children are is what gets redefined whenever we lower age limits: drinking, combat, voting, holding office, consensual intercourse, criminal liability, legal agreements, property ownership, etc.

The pivoting factor is voting age. When it lowers, and as the citizens of that age group come to outnumber the old folks, all the other age limitations will lower accordingly.

And that is one of at least two fundamental flaws of pure democracy. The largest demographic is not always in the best position to make changes when self-interest factors into the equation.