Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

You can't ban religions, because they're just beliefs that people have about the world (atheism included, although if that bugs you, you can just lump them all under "beliefs about the world" or something). You can ban organized religions/beliefs, though, and that will just drive them underground.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Indeed, which is why I wonder what the heck people are trying to do pushing for gay marriage...shoving it down the throats of people who don't want it, and thus changing the course of traditional marriage, all just so they can feel good about "having defeated those bigots".

So, it's o.k. for non-gay people to decide whether or not gay couples may be married to one another. How is this not them shoving their christian-based hatred and bigotry down the throats of the people who don't want to be discriminated against? And what, pray tell, is so wrong about changing the course of tradition? So, change is bad? Does societal tradition not naturally evolve and change and grow as time progresses?

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, may be amended as time goes by, to allow for change, evolution and growth that occurs naturally within the country. Yet by your rationale, Hector, it would be best to leave the Constitution alone, to keep it like it was from the beginning. Slavery stays legal, women are disallowed the vote, there's no term limits on the presidency, etcetera - don't buck the system, don't, as you say, "change the course of tradition just so they can feel good about having defeated those bigots." What bigotry? Slaves should be grateful for what they have, a woman should know her place, and the president can stay in power as long as it suits him, ta hell with what the people want. Right?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So, it's o.k. for non-gay people to decide whether or not gay couples may be married to one another. How is this not them shoving their christian-based hatred and bigotry down the throats of the people who don't want to be discriminated against? And what, pray tell, is so wrong about changing the course of tradition? So, change is bad? Does societal tradition not naturally evolve and change and grow as time progresses?

That's what I'm saying, how exactly is one side shoving but the other not? It's not as clear-cut as gay marriage advocates say, and our side isn't as reasonless as portrayed.
Societal evolution blah blah blah, Lotesse. I keep hearing this "societies change! lket it happen!"...you aren't SUPPOSED to let it happen without a fight, especially if you don't believe in it. Change is not bad, but change does not automatically mean progress either, unless it's the compostation stage that we all are longing to progress to....

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, may be amended as time goes by, to allow for change, evolution and growth that occurs naturally within the country. Yet by your rationale, Hector, it would be best to leave the Constitution alone, to keep it like it was from the beginning.

In some ways, yes. I don't know about "my rationale" dictating that slavery should still be legal, etc...

Slavery stays legal, women are disallowed the vote, there's no term limits on the presidency, etcetera

If I remember correctly, Republicans were pushing for term limits because they were sick of FDR
And don't slapdash me with all these wild ideas that are supposedly part of my rationale....

- don't buck the system, don't, as you say, "change the course of tradition just so they can feel good about having defeated those bigots." What bigotry?

Let's see...gays think that their enemy, Christians, are not bigots? Of course they think that. IRex called it that himself, just earlier.

And I do think it is for nothing. People keep comparing it to slavery, but exactly where is the denial of rights? Gays have rights, but marriage is not a personal bedroom thing: it comes with an economic consequence, and also with a big influence on society. Heck, if it's just the marriage benefits from getting married, I do believe that civil unions are available.

I suppose I can't be too upset if gay marriage is legalized. We'll just have to make something else up to symbolize the sanctity of union between man and woman...and then the gays will want that too I suppose....

Slaves should be grateful for what they have, a woman should know her place, and the president can stay in power as long as it suits him, ta hell with what the people want. Right?

I was just responding to BJ's statement that people shouldn't shove their personal beliefs and practices down people's throat...

Don't get too worked up Lotesse, I'm not the President... yet

[Lotesse]

When I said "what bigotry?" it was a rhetorical sarcastic question, but malheureusement subtle sarcasm is impossible to convey in most online debates.

I'm not "worked up," li'l buddy! No more so than you are about your views, or anyone else on planet earth is about what they believe is just or unjust, or what they hold to be "right" or "wrong."

And as far as "people shoving their personal beliefs and practices down people's throats" who is shoving what personal beliefs and practices down whose throat, here? Or attemting to, via legislation? Are gays trying to remove the right of legal marriage from their fellow non-gay citizens? Or are some non-gay citizens trying to remove the same exact right of legal marriage from their gay fellow citizens? Who's zoomin' who? And what is the reason behind discriminating against gay couples by denying them the right to legal marriage? What harm is done to anyone from two loving people becoming married and raising a family together? I have never understood and have never been adequately explained to by any opponent of gay marriage, anywhere, what their reason is, what this "harm against society" spells out to. I expect I never shall, either. Unless it involves christian morality, of course, but far be it from a christian opponent to gay marriage to fess up and be direct and admit that this is the reason why they would deny gay people the right to be married - because under god's law, it is morally wrong.

Feh. Whatever. I'm just ecstatic that the dems took back both the senate and the house in this recent election, and that Webb won Virginia, and Nancy Pelosi's our new Speaker of the House. The halcyon days for the republican-backed Moral Majority, it seems, are over.

[brownjenkins]

It's really all about the legal system. And no, I don't think we should "ban" anything within reason.

The problem comes in when people push laws solely based upon religion, or even just call it "tradition" to make it more general, as opposed to looking at it from a more pragmatic point of view.

There are many beliefs that people hold true that would make downright stupid laws. For instance, I think many people have children who have next to zero ability to actually raise a child well. But it simply isn't realistic to make a law that restricts someone's ability to get pregnant.

In the same way, certain religions have beliefs that don't mesh too well with the general workings of modern day society, but we can't ban them without bringing about other unwanted consequences.

Laws should reflect what most people feel is important to maintain a peaceful society. Not what 51.9% of people think are important. In some ways I think our system is partly to blame with a simply majority needed to enact legislation. A better solution might be to require 2/3rds for any new law to be passed. It would force consensus and compromise out of necessity.

In addition to that, we should really look at a whole lot of laws that are already on the books that really don't make sense anymore and probably never should have been part of the legal system in the first place, like marriage and many other personal matters.

[Rían]

People that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman are pushing legislation now ONLY because there are people that want to CHANGE it. There was never a "right" for anyone to marry anyone else in this country. Each state has always defined it. There were never millions of married gay couples in our past and now people are trying to take away that right. It was NEVER a right for anyone to marry anyone that they want. People's views on what make a marriage are based on their own personal belief system, whatever that may be, "religious" or non-religious.

And btw, our Declaration of Independence mentions rights (although not a right to marry anyone you want to) as being bestowed by a CREATOR

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

When I said "what bigotry?" it was a rhetorical sarcastic question, but malheureusement subtle sarcasm is impossible to convey in most online debates.

I'm not "worked up," li'l buddy! No more so than you are about your views, or anyone else on planet earth is about what they believe is just or unjust, or what they hold to be "right" or "wrong."

*hugs Lotesse...but then realizes there's a french knife in his back...*
Just kiddin'

And as far as "people shoving their personal beliefs and practices down people's throats" who is shoving what personal beliefs and practices down whose throat, here? Or attemting to, via legislation?

That's what I'm saying! It's just as much shoving on THAT side as over here...

Are gays trying to remove the right of legal marriage from their fellow non-gay citizens? Or are some non-gay citizens trying to remove the same exact right of legal marriage from their gay fellow citizens? Who's zoomin' who? And what is the reason behind discriminating against gay couples by denying them the right to legal marriage?

There is a case for that. And it goes like this: to give legalize marriage for gay people absolutely destroys what marriage is in the first place. It'll be totally meaningless. Absolutely worthless...because it opens the door to people bieng able to marry whomever and whatever they want. "Well, what's so bad about that?" Well, should a man married to his couch get the same benefits as you?
Marriage is sortof like becoming clergy, it's not for everyone, whether they want it or not.
I suppose gays do have some reasons for wanting marriage in view of practical rights: married couples get special benefits etc...
But for the purely symbolic part, together with the part that marriage is supposed to produce children, and raise them.... I just cannot see why gay people want it so much, except for just wanting to beat "the other side".

As I said, I guess we'll just have to make another club...

What harm is done to anyone from two loving people becoming married and raising a family together?

Now when did I say that was wrong?

I have never understood and have never been adequately explained to by any opponent of gay marriage, anywhere, what their reason is, what this "harm against society" spells out to.

What if atheists were allowed to become catholic priests? Wouldn't you agree that the catholicity was lost? Thats the kind of "changing of society" that is usually alluded to.
I don't understand why gay people, who go against tradition in the first place, WANT to be accepted into a tradition.

I expect I never shall, either. Unless it involves christian morality, of course, but far be it from a christian opponent to gay marriage to fess up and be direct and admit that this is the reason why they would deny gay people the right to be married - because under god's law, it is morally wrong.

That is actually a good reason...for us. But, we try to play by the rules

Feh. Whatever. I'm just ecstatic that the dems took back both the senate and the house in this recent election, and that Webb won Virginia, and Nancy Pelosi's our new Speaker of the House. The halcyon days for the republican-backed Moral Majority, it seems, are over.

Your beloved Dubya, on the other hand, has been accused by some of purposefully losing both of those so that he could pass the amnesty bill...might still be under his thumb...

...but I'm not fooling myself.

[Rían]

I think Elton John's beliefs promote hatred and bigotry and intolerance towards people of "religion".

I know a lot of Christians, and not one of them hates homosexuals.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know a lot of Christians, and not one of them hates homosexuals.

I know a lot of christians as well, and not all of them feel the need to stand in the way of other people's pursuit of happiness.

[Rían]

I certainly don't, except in the same way that you do - we both vote for what we think is right.

[Anglorfin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's a good argument for maintaining laws supporting racism, isn't it? Or laws supporting Anti-Semitism. They create contention in the society, and eliminating them might lead to a boring society, so leave 'em!

It depends on what the organization was formed to do. Either way this situation already exists in the US. The KKK is protected by laws and can gather and hold rallies. While there is no direct law supporting racism, our Constitution is so broad it will happen anyway.

I just think it's silly that people would even say things that allude to a utopian society. To me it just seems like wishfull thinking and it makes that person look kinda dumb for saying such a broad statement.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Anglorfin

It depends on what the organization was formed to do. Either way this situation already exists in the US. The KKK is protected by laws and can gather and hold rallies. While there is no direct law supporting racism, our Constitution is so broad it will happen anyway.

I think I should probably refrain from responding, as I'd be getting a bit off topic.

Originally Posted by Anglorfin

I just think it's silly that people would even say things that allude to a utopian society. To me it just seems like wishfull thinking and it makes that person look kinda dumb for saying such a broad statement.

Not at all realistic in this world, I agree.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I certainly don't, except in the same way that you do - we both vote for what we think is right.

Yes you do.

I, on the other hand, don't vote to deny people happiness just because I think a certain practice is wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes you do.

I, on the other hand, don't vote to deny people happiness just because I think a certain practice is wrong.

So if you think a practice is wrong, you'll vote for it anyway just because it'll make some people happy?

Then we should eliminate all legal barriers against all drugs. And against pedophelia.

Why would you vote against such things?

[Jonathan]

The reason why some Christians don't want gays tobe able to marry for instance, is of course not because they want to deny people happiness. But it sure seems that way, seeing as the arguments against gay marriage are a lot more fuzzy than the arguments we have against certain drugs and pedophilia.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So if you think a practice is wrong, you'll vote for it anyway just because it'll make some people happy?

Then we should eliminate all legal barriers against all drugs. And against pedophelia.

Why would you vote against such things?

Because it makes its victims (verifiable) unhappy, unlike allowing gay marriage, I should think - which is different from what he said, true, but it should be implied.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So if you think a practice is wrong, you'll vote for it anyway just because it'll make some people happy?

Then we should eliminate all legal barriers against all drugs. And against pedophelia.

Why would you vote against such things?

Can you, for once, drop the pedophila thing?

I think I've explained it to RÃ*an and others a million times, but it never seems to sink in.

Sexually abusing minors is not even in the same ballpark as who two adults choose to have sex with!

If you can't make that simple distinction it is impossible to have a discussion, or at least any meaningful one.

[Lief Erikson]

With pedophelia, a child won't necessarily always find the adult's ideas objectionable. So if they're both consenting, and it's making happiness for both, why not? Because it causes harm?

And why not allow all drugs, with no legal barriers? Because they cause harm (as Falagar is arguing)? After all, they provide happiness, and who are you to say how someone else is to be allowed to be happy?

[Jonathan]

Lief, why don't you share your thoughts with us?
Why don't you think pedophilia should be legal? Why don't you think gay marriage should be allowed? What do these things have in common, according to you?

[Lief Erikson]

I'll just spit out my main point.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I, on the other hand, don't vote to deny people happiness just because I think a certain practice is wrong.

My point is yes you will. Your line of reasoning is no different than Christians'. We might vote against homosexual marriage partly because we believe homosexuality is harmful, and so saying it's just as valid a course as heterosexuality is a negative and false message for society that will just lead more people (who may or may not have had those instincts already) into unknowingly harming themselves.

You would vote against legalizing pedophelia or unlimited freedom of the drug trade because you believe those things are harmful, even though they might increase people's happiness, at least in the short term (and we don't think homosexuality brings a lasting or real happiness either), and who are you to say (any more than we are, anyway ) how other people choose to be happy? You're interfering with their choice for their lives and for their happiness because you think there is substantial and sufficient evidence to prove that the practice is wrong.

With homosexuality, our reasoning is no different . . . no, actually there is a difference. With homosexuality, we're only desiring a ban on homosexual marriage, not on homosexuality itself, so we're actually being much less severe than you (and we) are with pedophelia or the drug trade.

So when you say that you "don't vote to deny people happiness just because I think a certain practice is wrong," I don't think you're thinking it through. You vote against practices being allowed because you think they are harmful, and hence wrong, even though they might increase people's happiness. Your line of reasoning is exactly the same as that which Christians use.