Tuesday, October 20, 2009

SSM Debate now in WA

The same sex marriage (SSM) debate is now coming to Washington state. It is both a difficult and touchy subject. In an effort to make sure I am well informed on the issue and the Church's position, I collected some information and links on the subject. Here are some selections that stood out to me from a few of the church publications on SSM and same sex attraction (SSA):

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

We ask that you do all you can to … assure that marriage … is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. [1]

David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [2]

Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [3]

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [4]

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [5]

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

[1] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).

[2] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.

[3] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.

[4] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.

[5] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.

My Thoughts as I read through these:

If we see homosexuality as a sin you can't forget the mantra, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Can’t regulate our religion, but we can defend a moral society. This subject is difficult b/c it doesn’t directly infringe upon our rights, but can through potential societal harm of 1) promoting raising children w/o male and female parents rather than making the best of situations when it arises, 2) lower moral compass for society.

It isn’t healthy or democratic for one camp or another to try and ridicule the other into silence.

On the other hand, I feel for those who have SSA, I believe that for some SSA is from a genetic predisposition, not a self induced mental condition. One of the saddest things in my life was seeing the pain that a SSA person went through trying to deal with their SSA and religious society’s general na├»ve view of it.

Would it have been better for the church to sit quietly on the side and avoid being the "poster child" for anti prop 8 issues? At the same time, when were we a church that didn’t stand up for morality?

The church leadership obviously feels that w/o marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, society will continue to erode at a faster pace and potentially the church will lose some of its religious freedoms in the name of equality. The Church canon, including the BOM state that we should not impose our beliefs on others. At the same time we should help strengthen the moral backbone of society as a responsibility to our God and future generations.

This post isn't meant to be an end all for information on the church's stance or how you should feel about the subject. It is mainly to explore some of the statements given and some of my thoughts on the subject. To me the question is not whether or not the Church should change its position on SSA. The question should be, where is the line between imposing our religion on others and helping keep the moral fabric of society strong. Allowing SSMs to have many equal rights, but not all seems to be what the church is stating. Where that line is though can be difficult to draw...

Further links to church publication on this topic http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8


69 comments:

Loyd said...

I'm assuming that because you are making "an effort to make sure [you are] well informed on the issue" that you are also going to research arguments for SSM and post links to them as well?

A couple thoughts as well that go along with the general topic of your post:

1. For most 'moral' stances of the Church, the Church does not get involved in politically. For example, the Church has been very silent on abortion politically and in says that "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." The same goes with many other moral issues the Church takes stances on. In fact, concerning alcohol, the Church in Utah said that it supported liquor laws that allowed for more free agency.

2. The Church doesn't exactly have a perfect track record when it concerns it's views and the rights of others. My friend pointed out a letter to me today written by Elder Delbert Stapley to George Romney asking him to back away from his civil rights stances, claiming that they went against the teachings and position of the Church and the Leaders. In hindsight, I think we can both agree that Stapley's views concerning civil rights were wrong, immorally, and no inspired. Do you believe that in a few decades we might feel the same way about the Church's response to SSM?

Loyd said...

whoops. My last sentence meant to ask if you believed there was any possibility that we might look back in a few decades...

Carson Calderwood said...

First off, I don't have to abide by the Fairness Doctrine ;-) , second we get inundated with that side of the discussion from the media. When was the last time you heard the media talk about the LDS position in a detailed and accurate way?

The church doesn't get politically involved on the abortion issue, but it has a very strong and well delineated stance. As you well know, more liberal than most Mormons are aware of or admit. They don't feel a need to get involved politically, because if the country chooses to allow abortions, it won't infringe on their ability to practice their religion. Potentially not so with this issue of SSM, so that is not a good comparison.

Although I am the first to admit that the church's position is not 100% consistent on every issue and Stapley was wrong, your example of his statement is flawed because he was 1) not the prophet and 2) the church did not put forth an official position saying what he said.

I know that there are some that in a few decades the church will soften and even reverse its stance on this issue. I do not think that will be the case. If someone makes the oft used comparison to civil rights, and does it honestly, I think they will see the mistake in that argument. When it comes to civil rights, the Church started out with Joseph Smith giving blacks the priesthood. Later issues came about that changed this to the negative which I do not fully understand. Eventually this was overturned. When in the history of the modern or ancient church do we have documentation of ok'ing the practice of homosexuality? If you can show that it was ok at one time, then reversed, I'll consider the possibility that it might be returned some day. Without such an example, I don't see the comparison or the eventual change.

Loyd said...

"Potentially not so with this issue of SSM, so that is not a good comparison."

Perhaps this is why you need to educate yourself more with the non-LDS perspective. The idea that SSM will somehow infringe upon our religious beliefs and practices is simply nonsense.

Loyd said...

Furthermore, the only statement issued by the Prophet was the June 19th statement which is a far cry from the fallacious statements made by other leaders, the Prop 8 movement, and Elder Oaks recently.

Carson Calderwood said...

I'm not going to go over the argument of how SSM actually could infringe upon religious freedoms because I know that you understand it. I understand the counter argument as well and how they supposedly will not have the feared negative effect, but we have a differing opinion on the matter.

I feel that there are evidences out there already to show how it is starting to happen on a small scale. I don't care if some California law professors said that it won't or other evidences that you may cite. Fact is that it doesn't matter what anyone says now, it could easily happen and many would like to see it happen. So why open the door? Anyone who thinks that the judicially overactive won't try to do that in the future is naive or overly confident in the mutual respect of the opposition.

Loyd said...

Carson, I actually don't understand the argument about how SSM could actually infringe upon our rights. Perhaps that should be your next blog post. I've heard rants about it, but I have yet to see an argument about how our religious rights could be infringed upon while still upholding the first amendment. White supremacist churches are still allowed to exist and preach what they may.

Loyd said...

Also, let me add that the official church position about numerous other moral stances has changed over time. These include abortion, the morality of SSA, birth-control, interracial marriage (including Asian-white like my parents), and the virtue of women who have been raped.

Brigham Young and several Church Prophets taught that blacks would not get the priesthood until the millenium. This is argued in Mormonism and the Negro which Stapley claims is congruent with the Church's position.

Carson Calderwood said...

I surprised you brought up those changing stances examples after I said, "Although I am the first to admit that the church's position is not 100% consistent on every issue." Nevertheless, name one stance that has changed on something equal to or more entrenched than the church's stance on SSA...

Why do you consider the end to Catholic adoptions and the potential of requiring all entities that perform marriage to perform SSM's as rants?

Cody said...

Loyd, either you are trying to bait Carson into an argument or you are truly blind as to what is happening in our country to religions who oppose SSM. Maybe you should educate yourself on what Carson said is the rarely discussed religious perspective in the media. Here are plenty of examples for you that I borrow from the Family Research Council:

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle-that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman-was at stake.

The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption-a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly-get out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her-a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway-even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony-and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.

So, Loyd. Are you convinced yet that there is a legitimate argument? Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist-because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”

Cody said...

Oh, and before you try and pounce on the New Jersey example, the church as a whole didn't lose the tax exempt status, just that particular property. But the point is still there.

Loyd said...

Carson, the Catholic adoption agency could have opted out of the requirement if they would have decided to change their constitution to explicitly define their organization as a religious organization. While supported and sponsored by the Catholic church, the organization itself was explicitly a lay organization. In fact, when put up to vote, most of the lay board members voted to allow gay couples to adopt children. It was at that point that four Catholic bishops decided to pull the organization completely instead of restructuring their constitution. To put it simply, while the Catholic adoption agency was sponsored by the Catholic Church, the organization was, by it's own definition, non-religious in nature. Their being required to allow gay couples to adopt was not an infringement upon their religious practices because they were not a religious organization. If they wanted to define themselves within their own constitution as being a religious organization, they could have avoided the whole mess.

And yes, I consider the claim that all entities that perform marriages to be required to perform SSM to be a vacuous rant.

Loyd said...

Cody, I'm guessing that since you researched this, you are aware that the pavilion was legally considered to be partially public property and that public money and tax-exemptions were being given to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association because of it's public nature. Because it was public property, it had to go by public non-discrimination laws--just as any other public park or area would have to abide by. If it were private property owned by a religious organization, there would have been no problem.

With the doctor and the lesbian couple, I'm sure you are also aware that the doctor had already spent several months working with the woman and administering fertility treatment to her and stopped stopped just before he was going to artificially inseminate her when he found out her and her partner were lesbians. I am sure you are also aware that he had no written or foreknown policy against helping gay couples before he abruptly stopped his work with them after they had spent months and thousands of dollars on their procedure.

Cody said...

Loyd, yes I did research it, and yes I was aware of those circumstances surrounding the case. That doesn't change my point, or Carson's either. First of all, you fail to address all of the other examples I listed, but rather you ignore them and try to nit pick two examples and twist it to seem like religious liberties are not at risk. Second of all, you fail to admit as Carson said earlier regarding SSM impinging on the rights of religions that oppose it, that "Anyone who thinks that the judicially overactive won't try to do that in the future is naive or overly confident in the mutual respect of the opposition." The fact of the situation that Carson and I are trying to articulate is that the door has been opened by way of these lawsuits and the SSM advocates are not going to stop. Who's to say that BYU won't completely lose the ability to particpate in NCAA sanctioned sports if the Church doesn't change it's stance? Who's to say the Church won't have to give up their tax exempt status for not allowing SSM in the temples? Or that the government won't recognize marriages performed in temples? Or any number of other possibilities like the ones I listed. Call them silly if you will, but several years ago no one would have thought it possible that a religious university would be able to be sued by not allowing a same sex couple into married housing.

Don't bother trying to bring other critiques for these cases because I am not going to argue back and forth over the unimportant, minor details of these cases when you refuse to admit what I said in my last paragraph, "Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist-because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”" Because you won't address that issue, I am not going to respond back and forth until you start being honest and upfront with this discussion. I am not going to waste my time with you side stepping the major point at hand and trying to undermine the Church for the sake of opposing it.

Oh, and I completely disagree with your statement, "If it were private property owned by a religious organization, there would have been no problem." You mean like Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake City? The plaza that is PRIVATELY owned by the church yet still has been subjected to the full wrath of all the ultra-liberal organizations like the ACLU? Remarkably the Church was supported by the highest Supreme Court in this case, but that didn't stop the anti-religion groups from giving it their all and wasting way too much of the Church's time and money.

One interesting side note about this whole topic is that I have worked and associated with several homesexuals and all of them are completely fine with the Church's stance on welcoming Civil Unions for same sex partners but keeping the definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman. In fact, all of them didn't care about the Prop 8 situation as long as they are allowed civil unions.

Cody, out.

Loyd said...

Cody, with the counselor, the business had every right to terminate her if they felt her religious beliefs proved an unnecessary hardship for the company. Imagine that you had an assistant who said she could not help any black patients because of her white supremacist religious beliefs. You would have every right to fire her if you believed that it would cause a hardship on your practice (let's pretend there was a sufficient number of black people in Utah for this to have meaning).

With Albert Einstein college, the school had not moral code/policy based on religious principles that prohibited openly gay or lesbian students from attending the school or living in the housing (as does BYU). The lesbian couple was told they could not live in the family housing because they were not married. Because NY does not have SSM, the courts ruled that housing held for married couples should be made available as well for gay and lesbian couples who could not be legally married. If the school had an explicit anti-gay policy (like BYU), than there would have been no issue.

The Elane photography case is a little more interesting and problematic, and perhaps could have been avoided if handled differently. There are instances of using 'religious reasons' for refusing services that I think both of us would find offensive and wrong. I assume that you would agree that for you to refuse to work on someone's teeth because you religiously disapprove of their homosexuality would be wrong and offensive. Or I assume that you would find a restaurant that refuses to cater to blacks based on the owner's religious preferences to be wrong as well. On the same grounds, if Elane Photography told the lesbian couple that she refused to photograph them simply because she did not approve of their homosexuality, then by the same reasoning we would consider that immoral. Had she instead of refused on the grounds that photographing the lesbian couple went against her artistic desires as a Christian and against her desire for her Christian faith to be reflected in her artistic work, then she would seem to have had more traction on being protected by her freedom of speech. However, by most accounts (from both conservative and liberal reporting) this was not the case, but rather she claimed she wanted to deny services because of their homosexual relationship.

With the online adoption service in California, the business itself was not an adoption agency, but was merely a service for potential adopters to place their profiles online for various agencies. The business itself made no religious claims or religious policies concerning homosexuals and made no provisions for excluding homosexual couples on religious grounds. Rather, they merely refused on the argument that "children have a much greater chance of thriving in their lives, rather than just surviving, if they are raised in a stable and traditional two-parent family environment." While this claim is debatable, there was no violation or infringement on religious freedom going on here.

Carson Calderwood said...

I like discussion, but not contention so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then that stating this issue could impinge on religious freedoms is a "vacuous rant." That is the typical road taken by those who push this issue so hard...those who oppose them are stupid and should shut up.

In addition to what Cody stated, the MO of that camp is incrementalism.

Loyd said...

Cody, I broke down my response to difference comments because the computer I was on was about to die and I didn't want type up too long of a post and lost it all (which happened midway through my second comment).

ALL of the examples you gave of supposed clashes between gay-rights and religious freedom were fallacious. All of them had to do with public, open, or non-religious organizations... none of which were religiously based or had policies based on religious beliefs. As such, they are all fallacious examples. You are smart Cody. You know it.

Before you go attacking the ACLU, you should remember that the ACLU and the Church have partnered in several instances and the ACLU helped fight for the Church's rights. The ACLU's involvement with the Main Street Plaza dealt with whether or not the city was privileging one religion (and thus implicitly offering sponsorship) by selling important public property to a religious organization. In the end, the Courts upheld the Church's position. You can cry all you want about the legal system costing lots of money, but I guarantee you that you are benefitting from cases that have cost a lot of money and caused complaints from the losing end.

Loyd said...

Carson, when I said that the argument that all entities that perform marriage will have to perform SSM was a 'vacuous rant,' I was not saying that those who oppose SSM are stupid and should shut up. Please don't put words in my mouth. I was merely stating that that particular argument is often shouted without any supportive argument. Hence, it is a vacuous rant. If you could point me out to an actual argument that uses argumentation and substance instead of merely stating the conclusion, then I'm all open to it. All of the examples you and Cody gave do not bear into the question because none of them dealt directly with religious organizations being forced to change their private practices that were based on religious beliefs.

Carson Calderwood said...

I feel like I have given logical arguments. You said that you have yet to see one as such after I gave mine, and that all are vacuous rants. I didn't put words in your mouth, I said that goes down the same road aka they are in the same vein.

I've given you multiple arguments of religious freedoms being impinged. I never gave restrictive parameters limiting it to religious organizations only, but have focused on religious freedoms. In WA for example, a pharmacist can be sued for not giving the morning after abortion pill based on religious grounds instead of being able to pass that transaction on to the other pharmacist working. I would say that this person's religious freedoms have been impinged. The goals posts should not be moved.

Loyd said...

Carson,

"I never gave restrictive parameters limiting it to religious organizations only, but have focused on religious freedoms."

But that is one of the big points that has to be recognized. A group or business cannot claim that they're religious rights are being violated when they aren't a religious organization nor are they providing any religious service nor is their business explicitly tied to religious beliefs.

Your pharmacy example is wrong. First, it's not an abortion pill (Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus - which is the medical definition of a pregnancy. Can't abort when you are not pregnant). Second, the law says nothing (as far as I am aware) about one person having another pharmacist at the same pharmacy doing the transaction, but was about the stocking of and selling of Plan B at each pharmacy. The ruling was that Plan B must be made available at each pharmacy. For a while, a temporary clause was made that a pharmacy had to either stock Plan B or refer a customer to another pharmacy where it could be attained, however that was recently ended (and I'm assuming that is where your confusion lies from). Theoretically, a pharmacy could get around this by being a "Christian Pharmacist" (whatever that would look like), but I doubt anyone is going to be willing to make that type of business decision.

Carson Calderwood said...

This may be the big difference between your paradigm and mine. You are more like the Statist in that you don't give as much importance to the individual as I do. I do not have to be a part of a religious organization to have my religious rights infringed infringed upon. Why doesn't the individual matter?

BTW, semantics on the Plan B pill. I am fully aware of the pill's pharmacological effect. The point is that Pharmacist A does have their religious rights infringed upon. In WA state they can not pass the transaction on to another pharmacist. They must carry it out themselves.

Loyd said...

Carson,

a few notes:

1. First of all, our discussion and the reason you were pointing out supposed examples was centered around your claim that any entity that performs marriages would have to perform SSM. That is why religious organizations are pertinent to this discussion. Even if certain individuals religious freedoms were being infringed upon (and they are not), it would not be evidence for this larger claim.

2. I am just as concerned about individual religious rights as I am about organizational religious rights.

3. For a brief time WA allowed a pharmacy (not pharmacist) to refer to another pharmacy (not pharmacist) if they chose to to stock or sell Plan B. This was later rescinded. There is no law that a pharmacist in a pharmacy could not pass on the transaction of Plan B to another pharmacist working in the same pharmacy.

4. Just to make things clear on where you stand, could you please answer the following questions.

a. Do you feel that a dentist should be able to refuse service to a homosexual because he religiously believed homosexuality was a so sinful that no homosexual should get dental services?

b. Do you feel that a dentist should be able to refuse service to a black because he religiously believed helping blacks was a so sinful that no black person should get dental services?

c. Do you feel that an emergency room technician should be able to refuse service to a dying homosexual because he religiously believed helping homosexuals was so sinful that no homosexuals should get emergency medical services?

I know you may think these are totally unrelated, but I need to know where you stand on these.

Carson Calderwood said...

1-This topic does not center around "any entity that performs marriages would have to perform SSM." This topic was me listing the various statements given by the Church to help people know what its position is, and a few questions of mine left hanging on how to dial in the Church's position even more. My evaluation of the church was exploratory, yours was critical.

3-you are incorrect or not up to date on this issue...see here http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/09/nation/na-pill-ruling9.

4-I'm sure you know me well enough to at least assume that I have no issues associating with anyone that is LGB or T. I hope you are asking question b solely in an attempt to base your future argument on the answers, otherwise that would be hurtful to me that you would even have to ask that question.

Even if I did have a problem with those examples, it is a fallacy to compare them to the plan B example. The pharmacist doesn't have a problem with their lifestyle, he has a problem with the performance of their job, ie giving a pill that they feels makes him an accomplice in an abortion. If someone asked me to give them crowns that looked like fangs and could inject Gamma-hydroxybutyrate when they bite into flesh, I would have to reject that request (whether on ethical or religious grounds it is more or less the same). That is an equal comparison. The pharmacist isn't refusing to give someone antibiotics because they are gay. That is absurd and if someone wants to do that they deserve correction of some sort.

Loyd said...

1. By 'this discussion' I meant the dialogue beginning with you saying "the potential of requiring all entities that perform marriage to perform SSM's as rants?" which resulted in you and Cody trying to show examples whereby religious freedoms were being infringed upon to show that there was a "potential of requiring all entities that perform marriage to perform SSM's".

3. Go to the link you just sent me. There is NO claim that a pharmacist in a pharmacy could not pass on the transaction of Plan B to another pharmacist working in the same pharmacy. Rather, it confirms exactly what I said.

"That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where they could get it."

Note. For a while a pharmacist could refer customers to another pharmacy and not be penalized. That was later ruled out. There was nothing about two pharmacists working in the same pharmacy handling transactions. The law was simply that "required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the contraceptive."

You are simply wrong here Carson.

4. My examples are not absurd. Believe it or not, at various time (and I'm sure still today) people have believed that they were religious obligated to not provide any beneficial services to black people. So I am asking you again, should those persons be obligated to perform services that go against their religious beliefs?

Dr Calderwood said...

Loyd, your argument for the Albert Einstein college is very weak. You are first saying that they lost the law suit because they didn't have a moral code, then you are saying it was because the state doesn't allow SSM so therefore they should be allowed to live in married housing. I have to call you out on this one. Even if they did have a moral code, they would still be subject to the same lawsuit because of the interpretation of the judge. Remember, they are not a public university, so your argument about it being public doesn't apply. You decried all of our examples saying that they weren't religious based, but I disagree whole heartedly in several of them, even if you don't acknowledge it. By being a private university, the Yeshiva school should not be subject to the same state laws and should be allowed to admit whomever they want. And, this lawsuit was clearly a case where the state wanted to impose their will on the school and push the envelope more with the SSM issue. If there is no state law recognizing same sex marriage then the state should not have recognized this lesbian couple as a "married couple" eligible for married housing, because THEY CANNOT LEGALY BE A MARRIED COUPLE. I don't see why that is so hard for you to understand. This is not a case of enforcing the law from the judicial branch, but rather creating the law. I could point this out with the other rebuttals you provided, but I think in the end it boils down to you and I having to agree to disagree because it is completley dependent on the interpretation of a judge.

As for it being a fallacious argument, you can't just disregard my argument simply because you have a different opinion or don't agree.
I hate having to go back and focus on the tangents of these topics because you keep moving the goal posts. For example, my argument about the Church and the ACLU was not to focus on the ACLU but rather the church and their privately owned property, yet you feel the need to focus on the ACLU and divert the attention from the point at hand. You clearly said with regards to the pavilion that "If it were private property owned by a religious organization, there would have been no problem". I pointed out that this is clearly untrue. The Church had to keep appealing their case until it went before the Supreme Court. It apparently was a problem for some of the judges of the lower courts or the case never would have had to go before the highest court. Yet, you want to focus on the ACLU as if they are the victim in that scenario. Admit that you are wrong on that and that even when private property is at stake, lawsuits can still be made against the religious institution. The gay couple that got arrested earlier this year at the same plaza was threatening a lawsuit against the church for being mistreated until the security footage was released which vindicated the church. This problem is not going to go away any time soon because proponents of SSM know that if they keep pushing that envelope they will get what they want eventually. And as we can see, both parties cannot have their way, so one is going to have to concede, and as we are seeing with the court decisions, it will clearly be the religions that have to concede.

Dr Calderwood said...

By the way, your examples towards dentistry don't apply to this argument. You are reaching for rhetoric sake. We aren't saying that as dentists we should be allowed to refuse treatment to GL and T individuals. So for you to compare it to the civil rights movement is completely off base. In the medical industry we will provide service to everyone regardless of age, gender, race, religion or any other factor.(except in the case of abortion where the doctor does not want to be a part of what he considers murder or in the fetility case where the doctor disagrees with the baby being raised by lesbians, in which case he correctly referred them to another doctor). We are saying that institutions who refuse to acknowledge or perform SSM are being attacked and forced to change their stance or lose tax exempt status or be open to lawsuits. Also, I'd like to add that you very well know what my response and Carson's will be to those 3 questions.
Also, after having lived in Baltimore for 4 years I have had more interaction with blacks than you have, or probably will ever have unless you remain in Southern California long after your degree, so I can speak with more experience after having worked with them, treated them, and lived around them. For that reason I don't appreciate your condescending tone saying, "let's pretend there was a sufficient number of black people in Utah for this to have meaning". Let me remind you that I was the minority in Baltimore, and blacks were the majority. This argument does not have the parallels to the civil rights movement that you are trying to claim.
Let's try to focus on the main points at hand and not get distracted by the tangents. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid or wrong.

Carson Calderwood said...

You are reading it wrong, the opening paragraph should be enough to let you know what the article states..."Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday."

You talk of "temporary injunction" and you have that backwards. The temp injunction "prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where they could get it."

They "lifted the injunction" now requiring what I and the first paragraph of the article state. As it says further down, "The 9th Circuit ruling, however, means that the requirement that pharmacies stock and dispense Plan B takes immediate effect."

You are simply wrong here [Loyd]. On two things. 1-what the current law is, 2-the fact that those pharmacists did indeed have their personal religious rights infringed upon.

You examples are absurd for two reasons:
1-applying them to me, by someone who knows me.
2-giving the pill by the pharmacist has nothing to do with the person's life sytle, and everything to do with what that treatment does. The pharmacist wouldn't do it for their own mother. All your examples have nothing to do with the action and only focus on the person receiving the action, two separate notions and therefore fallacious. What people have thought or done in the past is not the question and pulling that in to your argument is beside the point. Those persons are not "perform[ing] services that go against their religious beliefs." There is absolutely no corrolary here, an emergency room technician does not have anything against his religion concerning saving lives!

To be honest, although I usually don't agree with your stance on issues, I respect your thought process and logical arguments. I'm really surprised you don't see the incongruousness of those examples.

Dr Calderwood said...

By the way, when it says Dr. Calderwood, that means Cody. I was signed in under a different account, sorry.

Loyd said...

Cody,

the ruling on the Alber Einstein housing was ruled because their rules implied a discriminatory policy based on sexual preference, not based on religious ideology. If Albert Einstein wanted to, they could have rewritten their school policies stating that openly gay and co-habitating homosexuals could not go to their schools nor live in their housing based on established moral religious principles of the community supporting the private school. They did not do this. The ruling had nothing to do with an infringment of religious rights. If they had a policy based on religious moral beliefs, there would have been a different result. The supposed infringement of religious freedoms is simply a chimera.

I only brought up the ACLU's occasional partnership with the Church to counter your implied ad hominem against the ACLU.

Loyd said...

Carson,

I finally found one article that makes the claim you do, so I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

On my other point, I realize that the examples are very different from what the previous examples. The point of them is to determine what it is exactly you mean when you say that religious freedoms of individuals are being infringed upon.

So once again will you please answer these so that I can get a better idea about what you mean:

a. Do you feel that a dentist should be able to refuse service to a homosexual because he religiously believed homosexuality was a so sinful that no homosexual should get dental services?

b. Do you feel that a dentist should be able to refuse service to a black because he religiously believed helping blacks was a so sinful that no black person should get dental services?

c. Do you feel that an emergency room technician should be able to refuse service to a dying homosexual because he religiously believed helping homosexuals was so sinful that no homosexuals should get emergency medical services?

Should these individuals be forced to go against their religious beliefs?

Loyd said...

Cody, my comment about blacks in Utah was just a joke about the scarcity of blacks in Utah. Sheesh. Chill out a bit.

Carson Calderwood said...

Uhh...No, No and No.

Dr Calderwood said...

Loyd, this is where you and I disagree greatly. You said, "their rules implied a discriminatory policy based on sexual preference, not based on religious ideology." Doesn't a religion saying that they won't allow same sex couples in their PRIVATE married housing imply a discriminatory policy even if it were written in some sort of honor code? They are one and the same, not separate. Their religious belief is that SS couples should not be allowed to live together on campus housing. They weren't preventing them from attending the school, just from living in married housing. The judge should have honored that. You said, "If they had a policy based on religious moral beliefs, there would have been a different result." That's totally wrong. You say that their decision was discriminatory. Are you implying that if they only would have written out the "discriminatory" policy that the judge would have ruled in their favor? I have an extremely hard time believing that.
As for me chilling out, why is it appropriate for you to joke around in a serious discussion, and when I call you out on it for being inappropriate you tell me to chill out?
Your tone has been very condescending during this discussion. I will admit that I have been disrespectful myself and for that I apologize. But, you have accused Carson and I of providing "vacuous" rants. Vacuous = lacking intelligence, stupid. Again, just because we disagree or have a different opinion does not mean we are stupid. You make an inappropriate comment about blacks, I call you out on it, and then you tell me to chill out. Try being a bit more respectful when discussing topics with those you disagree with.

Cody said...

Furthermore Loyd, it's not an accurate comparison for you to use an obscure letter by Elder Stapley (one individual) showing that the church changed their stance with respect to civil rights. Concerning the topic of SSM, there have been many of the general authorities who have boldy, and in unison, spoken out on this matter recently. This is not some opinion driven matter that one apostle has expressed his feelings on, like evolution, or civil rights, or a number of other historically gray areas concerning church doctrine. This is a very black and white topic for the church. Like Carson said before, never before has the church varied on their stance regarding SSM. Not only have several of the quorum of twelve apostles clearly and directly spoken out against SSM, but the church itself took a very concise stance last fall regarding this issue. The last time that I can remember that the church has directly told the members how to vote was back in the 1920's regarding prohibition. I get really frustrated when critics of the church cling to obscure, singular quotes or incidences yet completely disregard a long, consistent history.

Loyd said...

Cody, stop finding offense where absolutely none was meant.

This is what I originally said:

"Cody, with the counselor, the business had every right to terminate her if they felt her religious beliefs proved an unnecessary hardship for the company. Imagine that you had an assistant who said she could not help any black patients because of her white supremacist religious beliefs. You would have every right to fire her if you believed that it would cause a hardship on your practice (let's pretend there was a sufficient number of black people in Utah for this to have meaning)."

Let's try to be adults and look at what I am saying. You have a practice in Utah, right? In Utah (as I am sure you are aware), there is a low percentage of black people. I'm guessing that this is quite the same in Park City where your practice is. Because of the low # of black people in Utah, a dental practice in Utah would probably not be negatively affected financially if it were unable to provide services to potential black patients because of the hypothetical white supremacist dental assistant. Thus the dental practice would have no strictly financial reason to fire the racist. On the other hand, if there were a larger percentage of black people in Utah, a dentist in Utah would probably find a racist dental assistant to be too much of a hardship on the company and would have every right to fire her for merely business reasons. This would be because the practice would either lose patients who they were unable to help because of the assistant, or would have to hire an additional assistant to help the patients she refused to help. Hence my reason for saying "let's pretend there was a sufficient number of black people in Utah for this to have meaning." If Utah had more black people, then a racist assistant prove a financial hardship. IF. IF. Hence, the 'let's pretend.

There is no racism going on here in my example. There is no inappropriate joke. There is nothing offensive. There is just the fact that a racist employee in Utah does not carry the immediate financial risk as she might in other places - such as Baltimore.

Now before you start crying and saying that this is unrelated, remember what this example was analogous to. A company back east fired one of their counselors because she refused to counsel gay patients with their relationships. With the # of gay persons now seeking relationship therapy and counseling now (and there are many), a company such as this employing someone who refuses to work with potential patients will prove an unnecessary financial hardship on the company and has every right to fire her.

Can you understand Cody?

Sheesh. Grow up. Chill.

I'm done with you.

Loyd said...

Sorry one more response that needs to be made.

"The last time that I can remember that the church has directly told the members how to vote was back in the 1920's regarding prohibition."

The last time the Church told members how to vote this strongly was in its successful bid to squash the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

Loyd said...

Carson,

when you say 'no.' Do you mean that they shouldn't be obligated to violate their religious convictions, or that it is not a violation of their religious convictions?

Cody said...

Loyd, what was offensive and inappropriate about your hypothetical black comment was that you were talking down to me as if you have more experience working with black people than me. As I pointed out, I worked with, for and treated many, many black people while in Maryland. Also, while I was working in Colorado as a dentist I worked with and treated many black people. You speak to me as if I have no paradigm from which to understand this situation. So, I responded by telling you that you were wrong, and that you need to stop speaking down to me. Quit addressing me like I am stupid. I understand the scenario at hand.
With regards to the counselor being fired due to hardships for her employers, that's bull. According to that theory, then employers should be allowed to fire pregnant women, or employees that leave for jury duty, or handi-capped people, or military reserves who are called to war, etc. etc. because of difficulty or hardships for the company. The law is supposed to also protect employees Loyd.

Carson Calderwood said...

It would not be a violation of my religious convictions

Loyd said...

Cody, you really need to chill. There was no talking down to you. There was no claiming that you didn't understand what it meant to work with black people. There was only the simple pointing out that in Utah there isn't a sufficient # of black people to make a racist assistant a direct financial hardship on a company. Thus in order for my example of a Utah dental practice to have "meaning" one must imagine or "pretend" that there were more black people in Utah.

Seriously, chill out.

Perhaps it is my fault that you find me so evil and offensive that you are seeing offense where there was none meant. If that is the case, I apologize.

Loyd said...

According to that theory, then employers should be allowed to fire pregnant women, or employees that leave for jury duty, or handi-capped people, or military reserves who are called to war, etc. etc. because of difficulty or hardships for the company. The law is supposed to also protect employees Loyd.

Actually no. A company can fire a pregnant woman if they decide that she is no longer capable of performing the services she was hired for. Many companies choose to offer maternity leaves and such because they want to make their employees happy, but most aren't legally obligated to. Jury duty and military leave are usually protected by law but that is because the state has determined that because they are serving the state at the state's request, they will enact laws to protect those serving the state.

A more analogous example would be a company refusing to hire someone who refuses to work on Sundays because of religious convictions or firing someone whose new religious convictions prevent them from working on Sundays. Or serving alcohol. Or any other business decision that the worker may religiously object to.

If a restaurant which serves alcohol is hiring a server, they can refuse to hire an applicant who refuses to sell alcohol because of religious convictions. Similarly, if a restaurant which did not serve alcohol previously decides that they want to serving drinks, they can tell the religious objector that it is their business decision and that if the server can't do it then s/he will have to find a new job.

Loyd said...

Carson,

I'm not asking if it is a violation of your religious convictions, I'm asking if it is a violation of their religious convictions.

Carson Calderwood said...

I've already said this in so many words, but to be more direct....according to the Hippocratic oath, there is no sin so large that someone doesn't deserve treatment. As I said earlier, that is assuming the treatment in question is not against their religion.

Loyd said...

Actually, I need you to be more direct: If providing a service itself is in violation to one's religious beliefs, should they be obligated to provide that service?

For example, a waiter believes she religiously cannot serve a sandwhich to a black/muslim/homosexual because according to her religious believes providing any kind of positive service to a black/muslim/homosexual is religiously immoral.

Loyd said...

...or in other words, what if any treatment is against their religious convictions?

Carson Calderwood said...

I don't really want to get into a discussion of where the line is between what normal society sees as being an ok religious belief and what is seen as not ok.

Obviously, a religious belief to pray is ok. On the other end of the spectrum, to kill someone is not ok. Trying to get down to the very line in between those two would be very complicated, not enjoyable to me and of no real benefit to me.

If you want to do an exercise like that, figure out where the line is between the church standing up for its view of morality and not imposing its religion. I think that would be futile though because I'm more of a "follow the prophet like a sheep" guy and you are more of a "kick against the pricks" guy so we would eventually disagree anyway.

Loyd said...

I don't care to draw any specific lines either, but rather want to point out the rule by which those lines are drawn. Our religious rights (and any other rights) only exist as far as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, and when two rights seem to be in conflict with each other, we almost always place the rights of safety and equality above all others.

For example, while you may have the right of freedom of speech, you do not have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, as that would infringe upon the rights of those around you. Similarly, you don't have the right to exercise your speech by spraying graffiti on private property, as that would infringe upon the property rights of others. You don't have the right to deny service to others based on racial discrimination because that would infringe upon the equality rights of others.

In the same manner, we don't have certain religious rights that infringe upon the rights of others. We don't have the religious right to kidnap someone or kill them for religious religious reasons. Preventing that would not be an infringement upon their rights, as those rights simply do not exist.

Carson Calderwood said...

I agree 100% with that. How do you apply it to the pharmacist or church's position?

Loyd said...

I don't know what 'church's position' you are referring to, but in the pharmacist position, the rights of equal access to pharmaceutical medication outweighs the supposed right of a non-religious-for-profit business to withhold legal medication for religious reasons.

Loyd said...

Imagine for a moment that you went to a pharmacy to get some pain medication for a broken a torn ligament you received by falling during a church basketball game. After handing your subscription to the pharmacist, she hands the prescription back to you and says that she won't help you get the medicine because she has strong religious beliefs that pain-reducing drugs are immoral and that aiding you in acquiring that medication would be a violation of her religious beliefs. Because of her religious beliefs, she either does not even stock the medication or tells you that you must return in several hours so that another pharmacist can help you in the transaction.

You are in a lot of pain.

Loyd said...

To drive the point home, imagine that it is late Saturday afternoon. You live in a small secluded town with two pharmacies that both happen to be employed/owned by religious people who refuse to sell pain-reducing medications. If they don't sell it to you, you will have to wait until Monday to get any aid (which you will have to drive an hour to get to).

Carson Calderwood said...

I refer to the Church's position on allowing SSM couples equal rights without calling the union a Marriage.

Do you think that all for profit medical clinics should be required to perform abortions?

I do not agree with your example. I think that boils down to the philosophy of why we have federal rights, state rights, county rights, city rights, and neighborhood rights.

To make that point laser beam focused, imagine that there were a religion that thought all sicknesses was a result of sin and the only cure was faith and prayer. These people lived in a tight community, think along the lines of Mennonites and how they are a fairly closed society, but integrated in with the modern world. Additionally, you chose to live within that city as the only person not of their faith. While living there, you get appendicitis, and the only way to save your life would be to get it removed. I woman living there is a convert who just so happened to be a surgeon before her conversion. She now has a for profit business of helping people pray and have enough faith to "cure themselves." Would you expect her to cut into you to save your life?

I say no because:
1-there is no constitutional right to medicine
2-it is her right to pursue her religion as long as it doesn't actively infringe upon your rights
3-you chose to live there. It is your RESPONSIBILITY (a word whose use ratio compared to "right" as in my right, is grossly under represented) to be in a community that represents yourself.

Loyd said...

Do you think that all for profit medical clinics should be required to perform abortions?

No. It would be utterly ridiculous to expect every medical clinic to pay for the equipment and a physician trained to perform them. There isn't the need for immediate access to regular abortions like there is for plan B. Most states require abortions to be performed in state-run or state authorized facilities, and thus already have that policy in place for those facilities.

Actually, your point is far less analogous to the one I provided. In my example, it involves the selling of a prescription drug (just like the Plan B). The selling of an additional drug in the pharmacy involves no significant increase of labor, services, or costs. On the other hand, your appendix surgery would involve all three. In my example, the pharmacist is making the decision of which customers will be able to get which drug. The law simply requires that the pharmacist is not able to discriminate against customer and guarantee equal access to prescription medication. In your example, the converted physician is not choosing who gets what medical care, but has already decided that she does not provide any medical care.

Your example is simply disanalagous and unrelated to the issue at hand.

Just to answer your question. No, she shouldn't be required to perform it. She doesn't professionally practice medicine anymore. She is not running a medical business. She is not discriminating on who gets what medical treatment. She does not have the facilities to perform that type of surgery. It has nothing to do with your three reasons.

Back to my actually related and analogous example, should this pharmacist be required to sell you the pain medication?

Carson Calderwood said...

My hypothetical may not be perfectly analogous, but saying its "unrelated to the issue at hand" is a little strong.

Forget my example though just to makes things more simple. I forgot to state it, but my answer to my example was intended to also be an answer to yours...

I say no because:
1-there is no constitutional right to medicine
2-it is her right to pursue her religion as long as it doesn't actively infringe upon your rights
3-you chose to live there. It is your RESPONSIBILITY (a word whose use ratio compared to "right" as in 'my right', is grossly under represented) to be in a community that represents yourself.

Loyd said...

1-I guess we disagree because I believe that we have equal rights to access of medication and that someone who is in the state-licensed business of distributing pharmaceuticals should not discriminate or withhold medication based on religious beliefs.
2- Based on my view of #1, there is an active infringing on rights.
3- This is just nonsense. By your rational, white communities should be able to discriminate against blacks, and blacks would just have the RESPONSIBILITY to not move into white communities.

Carson Calderwood said...

1-ok
2-ok
3-No, that is where common rational comes in. You can't carry it to that extreme. Because I'm not a lawyer, I don't want to try to nail down where exactly that line is as I stated earlier, but that is obviously too far and anyone who thinks otherwise is a liability.

Loyd said...

But that is your very rationale. The reductio ad absurdem shows that your rationale is fallacious.

Carson Calderwood said...

Please point out how my logic is self contradictory...

Loyd said...

It self contradicts by providing the rationale for the valid discrimination of others.

You are trying to say that your argument both allows for the discrimination which is both allowable and unallowable at the same time. It's a proof by contradiction.

Carson Calderwood said...

Its not an all or nothing situation.

Are you saying that you absolutely do no discriminating in your life?

Loyd said...

Of course I do, but usually it's wrong. I have tend to discriminate against fat people. Doesn't make it right.

My point is that you cannot base your argument on a particular rationale of discrimination when that very rationale leads to a discrimination that you would be totally against.

Carson Calderwood said...

I am not basing my argument on a particular rationale of discrimination when that very rationale leads to a discrimination that I would be totally against.

There are basically four definitions of discrimination's base word discriminate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate. The one I am referring to means distinguish, differentiate. I'm not referring to choosing a person over another. I chose to live where I do because the general philosophy of those in the area matches mine. That way I know the schools will be run how I want, the city will be run how I like, etc. There is absolutely no problem with that. Can it be taken too far, of course. I keep giving that disclaimer. Just because something can go too far, doesn't mean we throw the entire thing out.

I also keep referring to the way this country was set up with federal, state, county, etc levels of government. That is how the founding father's intended it to be. We are all different, we should be able to be heterogeneously combined and co-exist peacefully. One way to allow that to happen is to allow different areas to have different nuances. This further helps the country out in that certain areas can be testing grounds for political/social ideas. If it works, we can then apply it to the larger area.

Therefore, back to the big picture here. The pharmacist has individual religious rights, the person seeking the medication doesn't have medical rights, does have the responsibility to choose an area where if they desire that med, they can get it.

Loyd said...

I am not basing my argument on a particular rationale of discrimination

Yes you did. To defend a persons religious decision to discriminate against against another you said, quote:"you chose to live there. It is your RESPONSIBILITY (a word whose use ratio compared to "right" as in my right, is grossly under represented) to be in a community that represents yourself." That was your rationale (R).

By your rationale, if R is true, then "Blacks choose where to live. Is is their RESPONSIBILITY to be in a community that represents black people." By your own logic, the responsibility of ensuring that black people can have access to their desired services is upon black people who should move into a particular area and not on those providing the services.

Arguments of reductio ad absurdem are largely based on the logical principal of modus tollens (P -> Q. ~Q -> ~P).

If your rational (R) is true, then the rational for discriminating against blacks (B) is true, but I'm sure you agree that B is not true. Therefore R is false.

R -> B
~B
therefore, ~R

the person seeking the medication doesn't have medical rights

I guess it hinges on this. You say they do not, I and apparently the leaders and judges of Washington say they do.

Carson Calderwood said...

I was going to say this earlier, but decided against it...why do you have to throw the race issue into this? I have stated multiple times that you can take this too far, that is an example of too far.

Loyd, I don't want to keep repeating myself. We disagree on fundamental principles. You and the judges may be in agreement, but I and the majority of America are in agreement. That is the side I am proud to be on. You know I am not a line towing conservative. I'm a anti-assult weapon, green, limited abortion (not anti-abortion), pro WA Senate Bill 5688, moral conservative.

As you look back on things you know I usually try to bow out of long, convoluted discussions such as this because it either crosses the line of contentious or looks too much like it for my tastes. When it started I told my brother I was going to keep posting every time you posted to see how many times you would post. That is why I have continued this long. It is becoming too tangential and redundant so I give up and bow out anyway.

Loyd said...

Sweet. I won.

I was merely using racism to point out the flaw in your rationale.

Anonymous said...

Carson,
great post, this is a very interesting topic and I enjoyed your concise writing. I've read your blog, enjoy it, and have commented anonymously in the past, but not for quite a while. But I must say, the comments section makes me feel like I'm in an insane asylum with plato, glaucon and korihor - on repeat play. Too bad socrates isn't around, because the rhetoric is intersting, it just needs a moderator.

Carson Calderwood said...

Thanks...I've been waiting for reincarnated Freud to jump in as well.

Loyd said...

One more thing... For someone who has repeatedly appealed to INCREMENTALISM, shouldn't you be worried about laws and announcements such as this. This is, afterall, one step closer to all your children being forced into gay marriages.

Carson Calderwood said...

"This is, afterall, one step closer to all your children being forced into gay marriages."

I hope you "said" that tongue in cheek.