|
On August 06 2010 02:09 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:06 Shrewmy wrote:
Anyone who cites the Bible in opposition to gay marriage should also have no problem with the following -
Stoning your children to death if they disobey you consistently.
Cutting off a woman's hand if she touches a man's genitals (That isn't her husbands)
Justification for slavery.
Giving up daughters to be raped.
It doesn't matter if it's in the Old Testament, Jesus also stated that all the laws of the old book still stand.
I find it insulting that Christians claim moral superiority whilst backing a book that for almost half of the book deals with incest, ethnic cleansing, slavery, rape, murder, war and a God that gets a kick out of genocide.
That's not even the worst of it, I find it even more insulting when they simply cherry pick verses from both the Old and New testaments, and simply ignore the more morally questionable passages, as if they're any less relevant messages inspired from God.
Marriage can be sanctioned by the state, it is a legal issue.
Keep your backwards bronze age zombie mythology out of what people can or cannot do. Yes, anyone that says they get their morals from the bible, stay the hell away from them, they'd be completely nuts.
I quite often have to deal with creationists, and I'm studying a Medical Science degree with these people.
Rational thought takes a while to sink through for some people. Just like it is with idra and original build orders.
|
Also, the part of the bible that most explicitly condemns gay sodomy, leviticus, is old testament. So if you want to disagree with the old testaments archaic (to say the least) moral code of conduct, then you also must disregard the sodomy ban.
|
I can't for the life of me figure out why any homosexuals would want to get married in a christian institution. I don't think I'd ever want to associate myself with my oppressors like that.
|
On August 06 2010 02:45 hifriend wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why any homosexuals would want to get married in a christian institution. I don't think I'd ever want to associate myself with my oppressors like that.
Where did this christian institution BS came from ? Islamic people get married, atheistic communists got married, marriage doesnt belong to no one.
|
Someday we will push through a law that states: any person who cannot separate their personal moral beliefs from defending the Constitution and the rights of every American shall be considered unfit to hold public office. Until that day, though...
Half my family is Mormon, and they all contributed to Prop 8. I don't talk to that half of the family anymore. Trust me, the people arguing for Prop 8 here on TL are tame in comparison to some of Prop 8's supporters. A bigot is still a bigot though. Ignore them and they lose their power.
|
On August 06 2010 03:03 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:45 hifriend wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why any homosexuals would want to get married in a christian institution. I don't think I'd ever want to associate myself with my oppressors like that. Where did this christian institution BS came from ? Islamic people get married, atheistic communists got married, marriage doesnt belong to no one.
I didn't say anything about that did I? I was specifically talking about the christian church and I don't know much about this particular legislation. So my point stands.
|
On August 06 2010 02:45 Sight wrote:
Also, the part of the bible that most explicitly condemns gay sodomy, leviticus, is old testament. So if you want to disagree with the old testaments archaic (to say the least) moral code of conduct, then you also must disregard the sodomy ban.
You can, but similar bans appear in the new testament.
|
On August 06 2010 03:12 pokeyAA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:45 Sight wrote:
Also, the part of the bible that most explicitly condemns gay sodomy, leviticus, is old testament. So if you want to disagree with the old testaments archaic (to say the least) moral code of conduct, then you also must disregard the sodomy ban. You can, but similar bans appear in the new testament.
Yeah, but pretty sure they don't offer as strict punishments. Just like "Hey, if you want to be a great Christian don't be gay."
|
So this is going straight to the SCOTUS, and Kennedy is the key vote. He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, but he also wrote the Boy Scouts decision. At least it's competitive *bites nails nervously*
|
On August 06 2010 03:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 03:12 pokeyAA wrote:On August 06 2010 02:45 Sight wrote:
Also, the part of the bible that most explicitly condemns gay sodomy, leviticus, is old testament. So if you want to disagree with the old testaments archaic (to say the least) moral code of conduct, then you also must disregard the sodomy ban. You can, but similar bans appear in the new testament. Yeah, but pretty sure they don't offer as strict punishments. Just like "Hey, if you want to be a great Christian don't be gay."
The bans are still pretty explicit. The issue is, most gays and lesbians are not Christian, thus don't give a crap what the Bible says, and thus shouldn't have the Bible determine any aspect of their lives.
|
On August 06 2010 03:51 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 03:45 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 03:12 pokeyAA wrote:On August 06 2010 02:45 Sight wrote:
Also, the part of the bible that most explicitly condemns gay sodomy, leviticus, is old testament. So if you want to disagree with the old testaments archaic (to say the least) moral code of conduct, then you also must disregard the sodomy ban. You can, but similar bans appear in the new testament. Yeah, but pretty sure they don't offer as strict punishments. Just like "Hey, if you want to be a great Christian don't be gay." The bans are still pretty explicit. The issue is, most gays and lesbians are not Christian, thus don't give a crap what the Bible says, and thus shouldn't have the Bible determine any aspect of their lives.
Of the few references against homosexuality in the bible, few explicitly are against it. the most straightforward of which is Leviticus, which is batshit crazy in so many other departments it alone should raise questions as to why anyone derives morals from the bible in the first place. No reference in the bible explains why homosexuality is immoral.
Can anyone explain why marriage is a religious institution? For those unfamiliar with American law, a marriage held in a church means precisely nothing. To legally be considered married, a couple must go to the local seat of government and obtain a marriage license. The religious pomp and circumstance that surrounds a wedding ceremony is irrelevant to the legal issue of marriage. Nobody is forcing churches to marry gays (although those that refuse to should be called out as bigots).
Marriage also predates religion as a concept. Traditionally, marriage is primarily about the ownership of a woman. While this seems backwards by today’s standards, the property aspect of marriage cannot be ignored. Marriage brings benefits for things such as taxations or insurance, to denying any couple of these rights would qualify as discrimination.
|
On August 06 2010 02:45 hifriend wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why any homosexuals would want to get married in a christian institution. I don't think I'd ever want to associate myself with my oppressors like that.
it's more of the legal stuff that comes along with it. Civil unions are only similar in that the state recognizes two people as being an official couple....
civil unions have different tax stuff, no visiting rights to spouses in the hospital and a ton of things.
You can get married in city hall—the issue isn't about being married in a church.
|
On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences.
I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making.
According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others".
But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright.
Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true.
California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage.
EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage.
|
On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage.
This is just straight up wrong. Not even close to right.
The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy, nor does it prevent them from obtaining certain legal benefits available to almost everyone else in the state. Preventing gay marriage does exactly that. Your comparison is ridiculous, and your logic is terrible.
Plus, there's far more than just a moral objection to things like illegal drugs and prostitution: we have lots of evidence to show that allowing such things in our society leads to higher crime rates, murders, and the like. Crime/murder would obviously infringe on the rights of the average person to lead a full, happy life, so we ban things that lead to crime/murder. The only thing allowing gay marriage does to society is allow gays to marry. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that letting gays and lesbians marry would create more crime, and it does not affect anyone other than gays and lesbians. Thus, it does not infringe on your abilities to lead a full, happy life, and there is no reason to disallow it under law.
If you have a moral objection to it, whatever. But at least man up and say that. Don't try to hide it behind flimsy "legal" reasoning.
|
On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage.
And we should legalize em all, what do you care ? and even if you do, why you and a bunch of other people being against something makes it wrong ?
Lets ban alcohol, gambling, tobacco, and cosmetic surgery because they are frivolous, wrong, and go against the values we believe in!
|
On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person
Sounds good to me 
|
On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy
...cause people do meth or other substances with the goal to be unhappy.
Also, "their right to be happy"? Seriously? Providing that "right" could get expensive for the government since if we are unhappy, then our rights are being violated.
The stupidest, most annoying thing I ever read or hear is when people start to confuse "something that I want" with "my right". Right to health care (actually they go further to say cheap health care), right to short lines, right to free education, etc. Now we have the "right to be happy".
Because of this type of stupidity the meaning of a real "right" is lost since everything we can think of that is nice we try to make into a right.
|
On August 06 2010 06:08 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy ...cause people do meth or other substances with the goal to be unhappy. Also, "their right to be happy"? Seriously? Providing that "right" could get expensive for the government since if we are unhappy, then our rights are being violated. The stupidest, most annoying thing I ever read or hear is when people start to confuse "something that I want" with "my right". Right to health care (actually they go further to say cheap health care), right to short lines, right to free education, etc. Now we have the "right to be happy". Because of this type of stupidity the meaning of a real "right" is lost since everything we can think of that is nice we try to make into a right.
My life is directly threatened by gangs and thieves who exist because of the illegality of drugs.
|
On August 06 2010 06:08 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 05:16 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. The major flaw in your logic is that not letting people do meth does not infringe on their personal rights to be happy ...cause people do meth or other substances with the goal to be unhappy. Also, "their right to be happy"? Seriously? Providing that "right" could get expensive for the government since if we are unhappy, then our rights are being violated. The stupidest, most annoying thing I ever read or hear is when people start to confuse "something that I want" with "my right". Right to health care (actually they go further to say cheap health care), right to short lines, right to free education, etc. Now we have the "right to be happy". Because of this type of stupidity the meaning of a real "right" is lost since everything we can think of that is nice we try to make into a right.
Cute way to cherrypick only one part of my quote. Makes you look real professional and believable there.
Come back when you can convincingly argue my entire post, and not just one line of it. Until then, you have not earned my respect nor my willingness to debate this with you.
|
On August 06 2010 05:42 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 04:49 Savio wrote:On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I hear a lot of that kind of talk when people are defending things like abortion and gay marriage. But the truth is that society makes laws based on what we think is right in addition to any other motivation for law-making. According to your logic, we would also have to legalize prostitution, gambling, drugs (lsd, crack, meth, and all the hard ones..not just pot), remove all restrictions to abortion (including partial birth abortion), legalize polygamy, and pretty much any other law you can think of that does not involve 1 person doing "something" to another unwilling person. Because for any of these listed cases you could also say "I'm against that, but I would never force my will upon others". But the fact is that that is never going to happen. Societies have the ability to make laws regarding what is "right" and what they believe would keep their society upright. Many people think that gay marriage is wrong just like others believe prostitution and drug dealing are wrong. They have as much right to try to protect their communities and states from legitimizing (making legal and acceptable) something that is morally wrong. I know of no society liberal enough that this is not true. California voters have the right to say that even though meth may not affect them directly, the state should still prohibit it because it is wrong. California voters have the same right regarding gay marriage. EDIT: also note that nobody is talking at all about inhibiting homosexual "behavior". Gay people can still have as much sex as they want and live together. What is being debated is whether or not California will legitimize (and subsidize) homosexual unions in the same way it legitimizes and subsidizes heterosexual marriage. And we should legalize em all, what do you care ? and even if you do, why you and a bunch of other people being against something makes it wrong ?
Actually as I wrote my post I thought about the fact that there is definitely a small group of people who really do support legalizing anything that doesn't involve 1 person non-consensually doing something to another individual. But the fact is that that group is not significant enough to affect the country (or any country in the history of the world for that matter).
But every society that has existed has made rules or laws at least in part based on what they see as right. I don't think that is likely to change. So we are left with the state we are always in where groups form and pick and choose and debate what is right and wrong and laws flux with societal change.
Its definitely possible that gay marriage will be legalized across the board someday but it will be due to deep societal change. But the fact that society is shifting right now does not mean that 1 side should completely stop advocating and let 100% of the advocating be done by the other side.
So..let both sides advocate and argue, then let the voters decide it. They did...at least for now. But now the goal is to supplant the decision of 7 million voters with a judge's ruling. Doing that really solves the problem forever doesn't it? Just look at how that ended all the conflict around abortion...
Its a hard and terrible thing to try to cram controversial things down voters' throats through judges' rulings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
