Homosexual marriage

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'll just spit out my main point.

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.

No it is not. The key is in this: both you and I agree that pedophelia is wrong. In fact, I'd venture a guess that 90% of the US population feels the same way. And, the idea that it is harmful is generally accepted by that same 90%.

I've never seen a serious debate about legalizing pedophelia, so obviously there is no real issue. And it also has no place in this discussion.

The tough issues in a democractic society are the things that a majority (say 60-70%) may oppose, but a very large minority do not (say 30-40%). Add to that the fact that I am sure many who opposed "gay marriage" don't quite go so far as to think that it is really all that dangerous to society.

After all, if "gayness" is so dangerous, why not make the act itself illegal? Why even entertain the idea of civil unions?

And let me add, I'm not gay and I don't particularly find the idea very palitable. But the difference between my reasoning and yours is that I am willing to say "if 30-40% of the country think it's okay, let's give it a chance."

Remember, being a democracy, we can change back if it doesn't work out.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

People, I think, need to stop making the whole gay-rights issue so personal. I realize that it hits personally, and that everyone on both sides of the fence feels personally about it. But when we start believing that the reason the other party wishes to push their beliefs over ours is because they hate us, we've taken it personally. What if it's because they love us that they are trying to get us to see their way? Is it wrong to tell someone that a bus is going to hit them if they stand in the middle of the road?

I agree. I don't take the issue personally. Though, at times, I've taken it personally when people jump to irrational conclusions by assuming that if you allow gay marriage, the next thing you know people will be marrying eight-years-olds and clubbing baby seals at the ceremony. It insults my intelligence. But I try to just take a deep breath and laugh it off.

We should be able to discuss the pros and cons of a debatable practice without having to bring in examples that no one in their right mind would debate.

I also don't think hate motivates many people. I think it is usually a lack of experience and understanding. A lot of people were against interracial marriage and it took a supreme court ruling against a majority who opposed it to change the laws. But I don't think that everyone who opposed it hated blacks. They simply weren't familiar with them in that kind of situation. It made them uncomfortable. Some even preached that it was against biblical tradition, but in time they learned to accept it.

Actions taken out of love can hurt just as bad as actions taken out of hate. The key is to try your hardest to understand the other person's point of view.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But Falagar, when you said that your judgements were based on facts rather than religion, as ours, you were basically implying that it is automatically better and seperate. I'm not saying we shouldn't use facts to judge, I'm saying that knowing facts are not the only reason to judge, and that there is a natural sense of right/wrong even in atheists, and that therefore saying that judgement using facts rather than religion is a bunch of bologna.

I think you're confusing facts with science. Facts should be the basis for any judgements, [even ] Christians agree with this - where we disagree is what is fact. E.g. many Christians believe it's a fact that God condemns homosexuality. The problem here is that this fact has little basis in the reality we can observe, and as such can't be used in a system of government which isn't supposed to take religious beliefs into consideration. This is where science appears.

I suppose Sodom was destroyed because there were too many Jack Abramoffs? (He recently reported to Federal Prison, btw).
*sigh* We shouldn't have to worry about it? Well, we do our best; we don't try to suppress gays, but when it comes to marriage, we feel that it's our territory they're trespassing.

Abramoffs probably contributed as well, yeah.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

No it is not. The key is in this: both you and I agree that pedophelia is wrong. In fact, I'd venture a guess that 90% of the US population feels the same way. And, the idea that it is harmful is generally accepted by that same 90%.

Yes, but Leif's point was about the Happiness part. Perhaps the child consents, are we to say it's wrong to not let them have that happiness?
Pretty fumbly phrasing from me, but there it is.

I've never seen a serious debate about legalizing pedophelia, so obviously there is no real issue. And it also has no place in this discussion.

I personally think my atheist wanting to become a catholic priest example is much more legitimate

The tough issues in a democractic society are the things that a majority (say 60-70%) may oppose, but a very large minority do not (say 30-40%). Add to that the fact that I am sure many who opposed "gay marriage" don't quite go so far as to think that it is really all that dangerous to society.

After all, if "gayness" is so dangerous, why not make the act itself illegal? Why even entertain the idea of civil unions?

I think the "dangerousness" part is sometimes overblown myself, but I look at it like this: let's say that atheists get the right to become priests (bwahaha). Wouldn't you agree that it totally changes the course of the Catholic Church? Wouldn't you agree that "catholic" is now meaningless?

And let me add, I'm not gay and I don't particularly find the idea very palitable.

*gasp*

But the difference between my reasoning and yours is that I am willing to say "if 30-40% of the country think it's okay, let's give it a chance."

Remember, being a democracy, we can change back if it doesn't work out.

I see what you're saying (even though I know you're talking to Leif), but I don't really see this as a majority issue. If 99% of people wanted to intern clowns, I wouldn't think that was right. I wouldn't be able to DO anything about it, but still...

If the majority of America in the future wants to legalize gay marriage, I will still not think it is right, but I won't be around then...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I think you're confusing facts with science. Facts should be the basis for any judgements, [even ] Christians agree with this - where we disagree is what is fact. E.g. many Christians believe it's a fact that God condemns homosexuality. The problem here is that this fact has little basis in the reality we can observe, and as such can't be used in a system of government which isn't supposed to take religious beliefs into consideration. This is where science appears.

OOoohh...change of course here, eh?
Well alright. The issue of condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, I think is pretty straightforward. But when you say it can't be used in the system of Gov't etc...well, it doesn't already. We don't treat gays as second citezens at all. There are controversies like the Gay Boy Scout Leader thing, where the parents are concerned about who is...leading their kids. I think that you can't go so far with Gov't that the Gov can tell the parents who can and cannot be scout leaders. It may be that the parents have a prejudice against gays, but thats just the part nobody is allowed to erase...though Elton John seems to think otherwise.

Abramoffs probably contributed as well, yeah.

So where are all the scandinavian lobbyist scandals?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yes, but Leif's point was about the Happiness part. Perhaps the child consents, are we to say it's wrong to not let them have that happiness?

The "happiness" thing includes everyone. It doesn't mean "you can do whatever you want". It means "you are free to do anything you want that doesn't seriously tread upon another person's happiness".

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

let's say that atheists get the right to become priests (bwahaha). Wouldn't you agree that it totally changes the course of the Catholic Church? Wouldn't you agree that "catholic" is now meaningless?

Different, not meaningless. After all, there are churches that allow gay marriage and I'd bet their parisioners still find a lot of meaning. My state started allowing gay marriage around a year or so back, and nothing has changed that I've seen.

What if the athiest-priest was a really inspiring speaker? Maybe it'd be better.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I see what you're saying (even though I know you're talking to Leif), but I don't really see this as a majority issue.

It's not a majority issue, but it is a large minority issue, and I think that to maintain a peaceful society sometimes you have to give in a little when such a large minority feels so strongly about something.

We have nothing to lose since, ultimately, the majority holds the power.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

OOoohh...change of course here, eh?
Well alright. The issue of condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, I think is pretty straightforward. But when you say it can't be used in the system of Gov't etc...well, it doesn't already. We don't treat gays as second citezens at all. There are controversies like the Gay Boy Scout Leader thing, where the parents are concerned about who is...leading their kids. I think that you can't go so far with Gov't that the Gov can tell the parents who can and cannot be scout leaders. It may be that the parents have a prejudice against gays, but thats just the part nobody is allowed to erase...though Elton John seems to think otherwise.

Change of course? Anyway, the point is that marriage includes many a few clauses (like some inheritance-privileges) which one by prohibiting gays from marrying denies them. This leads to gays actually being a sort of second-class citizens, as they are denied privileges the rest of us already have by default.

The scouts should be responsible for their own leaders, if parents can't deal with that they should take their kids elsewhere.

So where are all the scandinavian lobbyist scandals?

Hidden. I own the press and the politicians.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The "happiness" thing includes everyone. It doesn't mean "you can do whatever you want". It means "you are free to do anything you want that doesn't seriously tread upon another person's happiness".

Now you're agreeing with us.

Different, not meaningless. After all, there are churches that allow gay marriage and I'd bet their parisioners still find a lot of meaning. My state started allowing gay marriage around a year or so back, and nothing has changed that I've seen.

Maybe it takes a long time?

What if the athiest-priest was a really inspiring speaker? Maybe it'd be better.

Well there's nothing keeping him from being a good speaker otherwise. That's my point. I think gays don't really know what marriage is, they only see it as "that thing which will finally make me happy" or whatever. And yet there's nothing stopping gays from having a civil union, nor of having some kind of ceremony of their own, if that's all they want.

It's not a majority issue, but it is a large minority issue, and I think that to maintain a peaceful society sometimes you have to give in a little when such a large minority feels so strongly about something.

We have nothing to lose since, ultimately, the majority holds the power.

Well, but you do see my point about interning clowns though, right?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Change of course? Anyway, the point is that marriage includes many a few clauses (like some inheritance-privileges) which one by prohibiting gays from marrying denies them. This leads to gays actually being a sort of second-class citizens, as they are denied privileges the rest of us already have by default.

I very much think that people would be for a compromise for the inheritance thing...it's the first time I've heard of it though.

There can't be THAT MANY things that put them back economically that they must have marriage. I just don't believe that side of it at all.

The scouts should be responsible for their own leaders, if parents can't deal with that they should take their kids elsewhere.

As usually happens. But as your side often says, why not address the real issue here?
Men don't lead the girl scouts, so why should a gay man lead the boy scouts? It's pretty taboo to make a straight man the leader of the girl scouts, even if we are 100% sure he "wouldn't do that"...and I fail to see why gays are a special case when it comes to them being the leaders of boy scouts.

Hidden. I own the press and the politicians.

Aha...and you're probably the equivalent of Jack Abramoff over there...
copycats

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Men don't lead the girl scouts, so why should a gay man lead the boy scouts? It's pretty taboo to make a straight man the leader of the girl scouts, even if we are 100% sure he "wouldn't do that"...and I fail to see why gays are a special case when it comes to them being the leaders of boy scouts.

There are plenty of male girl scout leaders, and female boyscout leaders as well. My son has one.

Do your research!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There are plenty of male girl scout leaders, and female boyscout leaders as well. My son has one.

Do your research!

I question I suppose is....camping?

Hmmm...never heard of it before, I was never a boy scout type guy. The self-righteous little know-it-alls...

[Falagar]

I owned Abramoff. He was, however, no longer of any use to me and had to be discarded. My position is secure now anyway.














And now over to something completely related: World Domination!

I very much think that people would be for a compromise for the inheritance thing...it's the first time I've heard of it though.

There can't be THAT MANY things that put them back economically that they must have marriage. I just don't believe that side of it at all.

Well, most people haven't been willing to that for quite a long time (I haven't followed the issue in the US lately, can't imagine thing's changed much though).

It's not about the money - at least not all about them, contrary to what Morissette may claim - but also about principles. The state shouldn't have seperate rights for gays.

As usually happens. But as your side often says, why not address the real issue here?
Men don't lead the girl scouts, so why should a gay man lead the boy scouts? It's pretty taboo to make a straight man the leader of the girl scouts, even if we are 100% sure he "wouldn't do that"...and I fail to see why gays are a special case when it comes to them being the leaders of boy scouts.

I'd think all sides are pretty fond of that saying. For the rest, what T-rex said.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I owned Abramoff. He was, however, no longer of any use to me and had to be discarded. My position is secure now anyway.

Do you live in an Ice cave?

And now over to something completely related: World Domination!

via what ethical method?

Well, most people haven't been willing to that for quite a long time (I haven't followed the issue in the US lately, can't imagine thing's changed much though).

It's not about the money - at least not all about them, contrary to what Morissette may claim - but also about principles. The state shouldn't have seperate rights for gays.

I certainly have not thought of it as "seperate rights", which can mean "unequal rights". It's like the example I keep giving...(not the one about the clowns).

I'd think all sides are pretty fond of that saying. For the rest, what T-rex said.

*burp*...excuse me

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Do you live in an Ice cave?

Nope, an impenetrable underground fortress beneath the White House.

via what ethical method?

Via controlling all the world's politicians.

I certainly have not thought of it as "seperate rights", which can mean "unequal rights". It's like the example I keep giving...(not the one about the clowns).


*burp*...excuse me

What example? As long as there aren't any relevant differences (I've yet to see a good one on any other grounds than religious) and the law treats them differently they are "unequal rights". Well, privileges is a better word.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Nope, an impenetrable underground fortress beneath the White House.

And you have a tunnel that leads back to Norway?

Via controlling all the world's politicians.

ETHICAL, I said ethical method.

What example? As long as there aren't any relevant differences (I've yet to see a good one on any other grounds than religious) and the law treats them differently they are "unequal rights". Well, privileges is a better word.

Priveliges is the word for it. And gays shouldn't be so dissapointed, afterall, we don't give marriage benefits to straight unmarried people either.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And you have a tunnel that leads back to Norway?

Nah, but my scientists invented a teleporter a while back. Easier that way.

ETHICAL, I said ethical method.

Politicians first, then ethical method. Can't reveal all my secret plans at once.

Priveliges is the word for it. And gays shouldn't be so dissapointed, afterall, we don't give marriage benefits to straight unmarried people either.

Because they aren't 'officially' with anybody. At least they have the possibility.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Nah, but my scientists invented a teleporter a while back. Easier that way.

Ya know, it's kinda greedy to keep that to yourself...could save thousands of lives with it...

Politicians first, then ethical method. Can't reveal all my secret plans at once.

Of course...
Do you need a...helper or anything?

Because they aren't 'officially' with anybody. At least they have the possibility.

Well, at least they're not alone

Sorry, I've sorta run out of stuff to say on this subject.

[Falagar]

Debate's died a bit, it seems.

Of course...
Do you need a...helper or anything?

Well, actually...how do you like the sound of "Hector, President of the United States"?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Debate's died a bit, it seems.

Well, actually...how do you like the sound of "Hector, President of the United States"?

Well, I had been planning that anyways...but hey, easy access ...as long as you get to pull the strings eh?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

After all, if "gayness" is so dangerous, why not make the act itself illegal? Why even entertain the idea of civil unions?

Smoking is dangerous too, for both the smokers and other people, but it isn't illegal. With some things that are ethically wrong, making the act itself illegal is just not a workable option or a real way of solving the problem.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And let me add, I'm not gay and I don't particularly find the idea very palitable. But the difference between my reasoning and yours is that I am willing to say "if 30-40% of the country think it's okay, let's give it a chance."

So tell me, if most of the people in the US supported pedophelia being legalized, even though the evidence is that it is damaging to children, would you just go with the flow?

If the majority of Americans wanted gladiatorial games to be legalized, would you support the practice or be accepting of it, because it makes most people happy?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Remember, being a democracy, we can change back if it doesn't work out.

I'm afraid that's a bit naive, in my view. Sometimes laws can be changed, but once something bad is legal, first of all harm is being done, even if it's just for a short time, (I don't approve of using our nation as a guinea pig) and second of all once it's in the law, it's harder to get rid of it than it was before it was legalized.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Debate's died a bit, it seems.

I think that the discussion of homosexuality is straying from Elton John and his comments, though. He's against religious freedom . . .

One thing I wonder is whether or not he's considered that a significant number of the homosexuals he's hoping to protect by getting religious freedom banned are religious themselves, and will be most grumpy if he deprives them of the right to their beliefs.