And here we thought we'd lost the war

[GFR7]

All I did was note that it was an outlier among the larger body of polls, and therefore it's likely not as reflective of reality as the others. That's basic statistics 101.

I still think it was sound in its methodology and conclusions. :AMR1:

 

[shagster01]

Um, I think you're missing his point. He means we did not in any sense lose the culture wars. And he backs it up with evidence.

So it's a moral victory, but not a real one.

 

[GFR7]

So it's a moral victory, but not a real one.

Morality is not empirically real? :think:

 

[shagster01]

Morality is not empirically real? :think:

A moral victory as in a pick-me-up.

 

[TrakeM]

Morality is not empirically real? :think:

Empirical means to be verifiable through observations or experience rather than logic or reasoning. One cannot really observe the concept of morality. One can observe an action but some may call that action moral while others may call it immoral.

For an instance, someone might visit someone to convince them that shiva is god. The person who is being visited might murder the visitor for saying that shiva is god rather than yahweh in accordance with deuteronomy chapter 13. That string of events is observable. However, some would say the murder was moral and some would say it is immoral. You can observe that deuteronomy chapter 13 commands the murder, but you can't observe that the murder was moral. You can observe that a book about shiva commands talking to people about shiva but you can't observe that talking about shiva is moral.

 

[GFR7]

A moral victory as in a pick-me-up.

No, no, no.

 

[GFR7]

Empirical means to be verifiable through observations or experience rather than logic or reasoning. One cannot really observe the concept of morality. One can observe an action but some may call that action moral while others may call it immoral.

For an instance, someone might visit someone to convince them that shiva is god. The person who is being visited might murder the visitor for saying that shiva is god rather than yahweh in accordance with deuteronomy chapter 13. That string of events is observable. However, some would say the murder was moral and some would say it is immoral. You can observe that deuteronomy chapter 13 commands the murder, but you can't observe that the murder was moral. You can observe that a book about shiva commands talking to people about shiva but you can't observe that talking about shiva is moral.

No, I am using the term in the Kantian sense.

 

[Town Heretic]

No. I just think in time it will be far less accepted than they expected it to be.

Sociologically speaking that's not how it tends to go.

Abortion was made legal in all states - many, many people still find it immoral. They don't accept it as normal.

When people are confronted with the reality of a humanity being denied the essentially decent ones have trouble reconciling a studied indifference to it. It happened with slavery and it's happening with abortion.

It isn't, however, a very good parallel for gay marriage, which began as an opposition to denying the right of the denied group.

Liberals have won a series of victories on social issues. Most Americans aren’t thrilled about it.

Rather, most aren't as happy about other related issues and it colors the original one.

Here's the thing. If gay advocacy groups and the like leave pastors and churches alone then by next year those numbers will be back up. If the fringe hits a consistent and militant course of action the general opinion may decline further. But in either event the practical outcome will be...nothing much.

 

[GFR7]

Sociologically speaking that's not how it tends to go.


When people are confronted with the reality of a humanity being denied the essentially decent ones have trouble reconciling a studied indifference to it. It happened with slavery and it's happening with abortion.

It isn't, however, a very good parallel for gay marriage, which began as an opposition to denying the right of the denied group.


Rather, most aren't as happy about other related issues and it colors the original one.

Here's the thing. If gay advocacy groups and the like leave pastors and churches alone then by next year those numbers will be back up. If the fringe hits a consistent and militant course of action the general opinion may decline further. But in either event the practical outcome will be...nothing much.

I guess so. Although it is and will always be open to debate if gays had any need of marriage.

I don't know if in the second case , though, that the practical outcome would still be nothing much. It depends on how the trajectory of other political and social crises go.........We're in a fourth turning, if you view history as I do a la Howe and Strauss. And things tend to become turbulent within fourth turnings.

 

[Town Heretic]

I guess so. Although it is and will always be open to debate if gays had any need of marriage.

In the sense that if anyone objects it can be called that. I mean, you could make the same statement about blacks voting. Because there are people who don't think they should and would debate it.

I don't know if in the second case , though, that the practical outcome would still be nothing much.

Hard to see how it could amount to anything. There's a hole in federal law and many states are already writing in laws to protect religious institutions from being harassed or altered by militant advocacy.

 

[GFR7]

In the sense that if anyone objects it can be called that. I mean, you could make the same statement about blacks voting. Because there are people who don't think they should and would debate it.

Not the same thing at all. You know better than this, so I'll assume you're trying to annoy me.

Hard to see how it could amount to anything. There's a hole in federal law and many states are already writing in laws to protect religious institutions from being harassed or altered by militant advocacy.

Not hard for me, as I envision radical changes due to economic collapse, global war, etc.

 

[Town Heretic]

Not the same thing at all.

Yes, it is. You simply don't like the association. I find the notion that it's debatable to be the sort of generalization that doesn't have particular merit until it becomes particular. You said you thought it was debatable whether or not gays needed marriage. That was on par with a racist (even Faulkner's gentle sort) wondering if the negro needed the vote. You stand in privilege, outside of the group as you consider whether or not they need the same rights you possess.

You know better than this, so I'll assume you're trying to annoy me.

No, only enlighten you on a point you don't appear to have considered regarding your methodology.

Not hard for me, as I envision radical changes due to economic collapse, global war, etc.

I didn't say you lacked the imagination. I meant to infer that I didn't think yours was a reasonable estimation or anticipation.

 

[Lexington'96]

As the global culture continues to expand, human rights and liberty and justice for all will take precedence over the narrow, parochial values of the 19th century.

The 19th century was largely peaceful and saw the abolition of slavery, more freedom for the common people in the western world, and rising standards of living. The last 100 years have been characterized by two world wars, countless bloody revolutions, genocide, and nuclear weapons.

Today's fundamentalist cultures such as Islam and Christianity still cling to ancient dogmas and theologies that are neither compelling or persuading in a global world.

Lol! Christianity is on the rise in Africa and Asia.

Unless these two religions change their theology they will shrink and continue to disappear.

No, the Church of England and the others that are changing their theology are shrinking and will disappear.

According to data from BARMA, the Christian polling company, the fastest growing demographic in our faith is "the un-churched."

The West =/= the world.

 

[jgarden]

Recognition of "gay" marriage by the state was never an issue that Christians should have opposed.

The Church is still free to neither recognize nor conduct these unions - secular unions are just that, secular!