Debating: Imposing beliefs on others - abortion, same-sex marriage, blood transfusions

Catholic80 · #1 Aug 1, '12, 9:46 pm

Abortion and same-sex marriage are two debates that I frequent amongst friends and acquaintances. However, one scenario I have recently come up against stems from the common argument, "You can't impose your beliefs on other people." I usually argue back that many things that we believe to be immoral are outlawed (such as murder, theft, arson, pedophilia, etc.) and it is an obligation that we stand up for morals. But then, some give the scenario of a "moral belief" that most of us don't agree with. For instance....

The scenario is thus:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral. Trying to outlaw same-sex marriage is no different than a Jehovah's Witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions.

I have yet to come up with a good response to this. Obviously things like murder and theft need to be outlawed, and most of us agree. But the acceptance of same-sex marriage seems to be so wide-spread, it's hard to argue why this is truly immoral and should be outlawed versus simply being a belief no different than blood transfusions.

How do we, as a society, agree that something is truly against the good of humanity and must be outlawed (such as murder) versus something that they believe to be a "personal moral belief?" And does anyone have a good argument for why same-sex marriage is different than the issue of blood transfusions when it comes to moral obligation?

Skwrl · #2 Aug 1, '12, 10:05 pm

Oh wow. I'm gonna lurk on this one. o_o

Bill Martin · #3 Aug 1, '12, 10:21 pm

I am of the firm belief that unless it directly harms somebody else, such as murder, theft, etc., it should not be illegal.

I don't want to impose my beliefs on someone else. That does not mean I want other people to do immoral things. It does not mean I condone immorality. It does not mean that I will not have a problem with people doing evil. I just don't like the idea of compulsory participation in a religion or its practices. In addition to there being too many differing opinions about what moral is, and the immense problems with giving the government the power to decide that definition, I think that faith is something that should be freely chosen and freely lived out.

My argument for this resides in the fact that in order for good to be freely chosen, we must have the ability to choose evil. Consider why God would put a tree in the Garden of Eden and then tell Adam and Eve they couldn't eat of its fruit. It seems like an odd thing to do. Why impose any rule in the first place? Well, if they were to freely choose to follow God, they would have to have some way of not following him. If he had not given them any commands, then their obeying him is not freely chosen because there are no other options. As far as a real world example, think of pornography and the pushes to ban it. Our choice not to purchase porn is meaningless if it isn't for sale anyway. If we are going to choose good freely, there must be some way of choosing evil that we choose against.

If you want your choice to eat steak at a buffet to be done out of free will, there has to be something else on the menu that you didn't pick.

InJesusItrust · #4 Aug 1, '12, 10:50 pm

People are always imposing morals on other people. Take for instance the secular virtue of tolerance. If you are not tolerant people call you a bigot and want to close down your business, even if you don't discriminate in your work place. In some places in Europe denying the Holocaust is a crime or calling gay marriage an abomination is hate speech. Autonomy and freedom is an illusion that is mostly influenced by the way kids are educated. They scream "freedom, freedom" but they don't give freedom to those they disagree with.

As long as man imposes morals, let them be good morals.

april32010 · #5 Aug 1, '12, 11:04 pm

don't mind me,just watching.oughta be good.

vera dicere · #6 Aug 1, '12, 11:21 pm

When does belief stop being belief and become fact or requirement?

Same sex marriage cannot exist in some private bed room, it does not exist in a vaccumn, it will have long lasting negative effects on society, it will effect the children that are adopted by them, or who through other previous relationships exist t be effected by the couple. The social acceptance of gay marriage will be taught to children in schools [it is already], effecting their mental and moral development.

It will also effect society as a whole, if a same sex couple has the same rights as a married hetrosexual couple, then all the tax breaks a hetrosexual couple would get being married will now be given to a couple who's sexual acts will always be sterile. Why should the tax payer be funding Bruce and Bob's new table set? The tax breaks and assistance were created for the hetrosexual couple because they provide a vital resource for society - children.

Society is built on the family, the family is built on the married couple. The married couple must be one man and one woman because that is the only way a procreative act can be carried out. Bruce and Bob can't have a baby naturally. Only Steven and Jane can.

I could go on, but generally same sex marriage would be damaging to society, that is why it must be opposed. In the same way incest, polygyomy and a 50 year old marrying a 10 year old must be opposed. Who are we to tell that 50 year old and that 10 year old they can't be together? Isn't that forcing our beleifs on them? IF a 10 year old can consent to an abortion without her parents knowing, why can't she consent to a relationship with a 50 year old man? Who are we to judge her mental ability in this regard?

Refusing blood transfusions will only exist in a very small circle, if a father refuses and he dies he leaves a family without a husband and father, but society will continue on, and those unrelated to him will not be overtly affected. He is capable of refusing treatment. However, parents refusing a blood transfusion for their child, will affect someone other then them in a life threatening way. The father refusing transfusion dies, then it is just him who dies, he has made the decision based on his an adult ability to know the facts and he can be educated by medical staff, but a child cannot, and they are the ones who suffer when their parents make the decision. IN these cases, the medical staff likely take the parents to court and gain medical custody of the child, enabling them to save the child's life with a blood transfusion.

Abortion kills another human being. Same sex marriage will confuse children, put stress on the social structure and tax funding, it will cause further break down in society, refusing a blood transfusion only effects the person refusing and their friends and family - but generally those friends and family will agree with that refusal.

Beliefs must be opposed if they are damaging to society and spit in the face of social and scientific fact. Gay marriage is damaging to society. Hitler's "beleif" that jews weren't persons were damaging to society. Refusing transfusions won't affect society.

Zimm3r · #7 Aug 1, '12, 11:30 pm

On abortion (please note I will call each side what they wish, you may disagree with them but show respect for them and their deeply held beliefs)
This one is easy as both sides deal with rights. Pro choice people are fighting for the rights of women and their right to choose. Pro life people are fighting for the rights of a baby and their right to life. Now it comes down to who is right and that is the right the law has to protect as it deals with rights.

On gay marriage
Those who wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman legally make me mad

. At that point they are enshrining religious beliefs into law, what they miss is marriage in a legal sense IS NOT THE SAME as marriage in the religious sense and so their reasoning that then marriage will be abused it isn't the same thing. We are talking Granny Smith apples and Macintosh apples. Different things. However defining marriage as between a man and a woman is explicit and SHOULD NOT be allowed to then reason that marriage for gay couples should be allowed you must establish a probative value to the state. So those who want to disallow gay marriage, ok unless a good enough probative value has been established (it can't be denied on religious grounds because of the above) and those who want to define marriage are over stepping their legal ideas and trying to force their morals on others (like is a Muslims group banned alcohol, we saw how well that went).

On blood transfusions
Same as gay marriage different specifics.

So in summary

Society is there to protect morals, the law is their to protect rights.

As for any counter examples people bring, a) who says I agree with that law and b) I probably don't.

For example nazi groups should be afforded free speech, you should be able to shout fire in a building (however if you get trampled by an angry crowd you brought it on yourself), holocaust deniers should be allowed to speak their minds, pro life groups should be afforded their first amendment rights, same goes for pro choice people.
Basically I will protect your right to say it then tell you why your wrong and why you are an ***.

JM3 · #8 Aug 1, '12, 11:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic80

Abortion and same-sex marriage are two debates that I frequent amongst friends and acquaintances. However, one scenario I have recently come up against stems from the common argument, "You can't impose your beliefs on other people." I usually argue back that many things that we believe to be immoral are outlawed (such as murder, theft, arson, pedophilia, etc.) and it is an obligation that we stand up for morals. But then, some give the scenario of a "moral belief" that most of us don't agree with. For instance....

The scenario is thus:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral. Trying to outlaw same-sex marriage is no different than a Jehovah's Witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions.

I have yet to come up with a good response to this. Obviously things like murder and theft need to be outlawed, and most of us agree. But the acceptance of same-sex marriage seems to be so wide-spread, it's hard to argue why this is truly immoral and should be outlawed versus simply being a belief no different than blood transfusions."
How do we, as a society, agree that something is truly against the good of humanity and must be outlawed (such as murder) versus something that they believe to be a "personal moral belief?" And does anyone have a good argument for why same-sex marriage is different than the issue of blood transfusions when it comes to moral obligation?

The bolded part first.

This has been twisted around very cleverly. "Trying to outlaw same-sex marriage", but same sex marriage has not always been the law. We are not trying to outlaw it. We are trying to keep it from being law. The correct comparison should be, "Trying to make same sex marriage law is like a Jehovah's Witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions." One small sector of the public is trying to force its beliefs on the whole public.Which, of course, won't make any sense to them. The truth rarely does.

Second part.

Attacking on a moral stance does not work on those who have no morals. You must attack the root cause and that would be ecomonics.

Iron Donkey · #9 Aug 1, '12, 11:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic80

The scenario is thus:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral. Trying to outlaw same-sex marriage is no different than a Jehovah's Witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions.

I have yet to come up with a good response to this. Obviously things like murder and theft need to be outlawed, and most of us agree. But the acceptance of same-sex marriage seems to be so wide-spread, it's hard to argue why this is truly immoral and should be outlawed versus simply being a belief no different than blood transfusions.

How do we, as a society, agree that something is truly against the good of humanity and must be outlawed (such as murder) versus something that they believe to be a "personal moral belief?" And does anyone have a good argument for why same-sex marriage is different than the issue of blood transfusions when it comes to moral obligation?

The first thing that comes to mind is that we aren't trying to "outlaw" same sex marriage. Really. This is easy to see: We do not say that it should be illegal for two men or two women to stand in front of a pastor of some flavor, or a group of family, or what have you, and make vows at each other. We don't think it should be done, but we don't think it should be illegal.

What we are saying is that same sex marriage should not be "lawed," as it were. We don't want the government to get involved and start saying that two men or two women who think they're married actually are and so that, as a consequence, everyone is legally obligated to treat them as though they are married regardless of our own beliefs on the matter. This is actually a real problem, as can be seen from the various problems that Catholic adoption agencies etc. have had with various levels of government.

That is, it's not a matter of removing a ban on same sex marriage, so much as of creating government recognition of such a thing entirely. This is almost exactly the opposite of trying to ban blood transfusions, say. In a world where blood transfusions are illegal, it would be illegal to get one. A person who followed their beliefs and got a blood transfusion would be breaking the law. In a world where same sex marriage has not been recognized by the government, people of the same sex who want to pretend they're married can still do so - the government just doesn't try to force everyone else to go along with it. Two people of the same sex who follow their beliefs and claim to be married (so long as they don't lie about the marriage being government licensed) are not breaking the law.

Seira · #10 Aug 2, '12, 4:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by vera dicere

Refusing transfusions won't affect society.

Yes, but outlawing them (which is what the OP said, "Trying to outlaw same-sex marriage is no different than a Jehovah's Witness trying to outlaw blood transfusions.") would affect society in that a lot of people would die because they couldn't get the transfusion they needed.

JM3 out of anybody understood the irony of the statement being posed to the OP. However, in the states where it is indeed legal then the other side would be trying to outlaw gay marriage.

Lost_Sheep · #11 Aug 2, '12, 7:42 am

Instead of trying to "outlaw" Same sex marriage, instead concentrate on legally defining marriage as a unity of one man and one woman. The same sex marriage "problem" would take care of itself.

Bill Martin · #12 Aug 2, '12, 8:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by InJesusItrust

People are always imposing morals on other people. Take for instance the secular virtue of tolerance. If you are not tolerant people call you a bigot and want to close down your business, even if you don't discriminate in your work place. In some places in Europe denying the Holocaust is a crime or calling gay marriage an abomination is hate speech. Autonomy and freedom is an illusion that is mostly influenced by the way kids are educated. They scream "freedom, freedom" but they don't give freedom to those they disagree with.

As long as man imposes morals, let them be good morals.

There is a difference between people wanting to push morals through society and morals that are enforced by law. We Catholics should be trying to push morals through our actions in society, raising of our kids, and through evangelization. I think it is wrong to codify them.

Bill Martin · #13 Aug 2, '12, 8:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost_Sheep

Instead of trying to "outlaw" Same sex marriage, instead concentrate on legally defining marriage as a unity of one man and one woman. The same sex marriage "problem" would take care of itself.

If it is legally defined one way, it can be legally re-defined the other way and then that definition imposed upon the Church. I think a better solution is to get the government out of marriage completely and just recognize contracts for legal purposes. That way the Church can still be free to define marriage the way it wants without being forced to recognize the legal definition of it. If gays want to make a contract between each other and call it "marriage" then they can. They can call it whatever they want but the Church doesn't have to recognize it because the term for their contract has no legal backing.

**fix** · #14 Aug 2, '12, 10:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Martin

If it is legally defined one way, it can be legally re-defined the other way and then that definition imposed upon the Church. I think a better solution is to get the government out of marriage completely and just recognize contracts for legal purposes. That way the Church can still be free to define marriage the way it wants without being forced to recognize the legal definition of it. If gays want to make a contract between each other and call it "marriage" then they can. They can call it whatever they want but the Church doesn't have to recognize it because the term for their contract has no legal backing.

The Church is not just interested in Catholics. She is interested
in all people. The state has a duty to protect marriage.

Bill Martin · #15 Aug 2, '12, 10:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

The Church is not just interested in Catholics. She is interested
in all people. The state has a duty to protect marriage.

And what happens when the definition of marriage the state is defending is changed to include homosexuality? Then the state's defense of marriage includes forcing private religious institutions to accept the state definition, leading to an overruling of religious liberty.