FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » California Proposition 8 (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 30 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  28  29  30   
Author Topic: California Proposition 8
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So...basically, every opinion but your own is incorrect and should be ignored and ultimately silenced... is that what you're saying, Tom?
No. I'm saying that religious opinions speak from a position of unverifiable authority and should be ignored in any public policy discussion. I'm not speaking of "silencing" them at all; I think they're self-marginalizing because they're so useless.

And unless you have only religious justifications for your opinions, I welcome your opinions to the table. [Smile]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"Demonizing people who feel differently than you do is not the way to promote tolerance."

Cockroaches are scarcely demonic. And Prop8 is just another in a long long long line of "Look at me, I'm gullible gullible gullible!!!" initiatives designed solely to lure the cockroaches out of the cracks long enough to vote Republican.

Which would work great, except shining a spotlight on the cockroaches tends to shock people who would otherwise have absolutely no interest in politics. And they tend to vote Democrat.
Not because they like Democrats -- as I said, they're not much interested in politics: barely enough to distinguish between Democrat and Republican; and just enough to know that neither represents their interests -- but because it's embarrassing to have the whole world know that ones home is infested with cockroaches. And for that, they blame the Republicans.

So it's the same ol', same ol'. And a generally losing strategy in the long run. Cuz each time the scam is run, ever more Republicans get disgusted with being lumped in with the cockroaches. Eventually ya end up with a Republican state like Colorado shifting into the Democratic column.

In a Democratic state, Republican philosphy becomes ever more irrelevant. eg Even Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is more Democrat than the overwhelming majority of USCongressional Democrats. And a near shoe-in for the USSenate when California's term-limits kicks in, which is why current Democrat USSenator Feinstein is already exploring a run for the governorship.

[ October 16, 2008, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I am taking solace in the possiblility that the Patterson's $50 could have been donated to the McCain/Palin campaign instead.

Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
There are very vocal proponents of SSM that have all but admitted their ultimate goal would be to force religious institutions to be quiet in their opposition to homosexual relationships and possibly forcing acceptance of homosexual unions.

I'm not aware of any movement to legally force churches to recognize homosexual marriages. I'm sure there are movements to put social pressure on churches to recognize such marriages but they have no legal backing. If your church decides to recognize homosexual marriages I doubt it will be by force of law.

quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
Getting back to the point here, this is ultimately going to be a battle between rights that have never been defined as rights, and the right to believe as you wish. A right which is one of the major reasons for the founding of the United States.

[snip]

If I have to choose between two men and two women being able to marry each other and my right to believe what I want to...guess which one I'm going to pick.

This is a false dichotomy. This has to do with the right of gay people to marry each other. It has nothing to do with the right to believe that they should or shouldn't.

quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
And how is the extremely common view of religious people as idiots whose opinions should be demonized and ignored not a step *back* in the direction of 19th century idiocy?

"Extremely common"? The majority of this country IS religious. 15% of this country identifies as non-religious and I'm pretty sure not all of them think that religious people are idiot. Maybe you're talking about beliefs like young earth creationism? I think that polls reveal that only around half of the country potentially views those beliefs as wacky (meaning a lot of religious people view them as wacky too). Even then it is much more 19th century to actually hold those beliefs than it is to consider them wacky.

quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
The desire to ensure that the person who holds that opinion is silenced so as to prevent it from affecting your own version of the truth. It's the same thing that's been going on for 1000s of years, and it's still going on today.

What movements are there to "silence" religious opinions? Are they significant? Do you consider the movement to keep intelligent design out of schools to be an attempt to silence religious opinions?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am taking solace in the possiblility that the Patterson's $50 could have been donated to the McCain/Palin campaign instead.

Make that $50,000!
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
I'm not aware of any movement to legally force churches to recognize homosexual marriages. I'm sure there are movements to put social pressure on churches to recognize such marriages but they have no legal backing. If your church decides to recognize homosexual marriages I doubt it will be by force of law.


Some churches already recognize ssm. Shouldn't we be concerned about Prop8 stifling their religious rights by not allowing them the religious freedom to marry same sex couples?

ETA: Ooop! Yes. I forgot to add the "grand" in there.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm absolutely not at all worried about churches being forced to recognize in any way shape or form gay marriages, other than some realistic recognition that they exist in the world, but then so does evil, and hethens, and they can't really do anything about that.

Personally I favor civil unions but don't particularly care if they call it marriage, a civil union, or a flickenflaken; the name is much less relevent to me than the actual rights and privileges involved. So long as the legal protections are all equal, they can call it whatever they want.

A homosexual could TRY and sue a church for denying baptism I guess, but he'd lose. Unless he's a janitor that was fired for being gay, under which circumstances I think he'd probably have a decent wrongful termination case, I don't see how he'd bring a case before the court that literally argued unequal protection as a result of religious doctrine. It'd be dismissed out of hand, and though I support civil union rights, I'd be on the front lines of vocal dissenters against the lawsuit, which is probably the first time I'd find myself on the philosophical front lines with the religious right.

As far as gay rights go, I'm a small government states rights conservative. Government has no right to interfere with what you choose to do. And on the other side of it, government has no right to force churches to make doctrinal changes or to officially recognize gay unions, they just have to live with it. But that's the magic of living in a free plural democratic society. Sometimes things happen that you don't like. Blacks and women can vote, slavery was outlawed, etc, but the world keeps turning and other than a lot of jawboning, no one suffers when people get equal access to rights.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
As no one yet has forced the Catholic Church to marry divorced people, I really think this whole argument is a red herring.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.
Here's one: God told me that gay people shouldn't marry. That's perfectly internally logical, given all the necessary premises.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
The first premise being that God canvasses neighborhoods telling folks how to vote.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tom, I have yet (and I have been at this a while) to see a religious argument against ssm that I consider sensible.
Here's one: God told me that gay people shouldn't marry. That's perfectly internally logical, given all the necessary premises.
Internally logical is not the same thing as sensible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
Not that they'll be forced to perform them, but that they'll be forced to recognize them.

Let's take this as a for-instance. It's probably pretty unlikely, I know, but still...

A newly married gay person is approached by a couple of LDS missionaries. He likes what he hears and wants to get baptized. He gets through all the discussions and reveals that he is gay. The LDS missionaries inform him that they would not be able to baptize him unless he is willing to give up his current lifestyle. Said gay person refuses and then sues the church for discrimination.

Right...just like the Catholic church is constantly being sued for refusing to marry divorced Catholics, and non-Christians...

Oh right, it's not that it happens all the time...it's that it never happens, ever.

How do you expect your argument to be taken seriously when it's been obvious for decades that you can't sue churches over refusing to include you in their rituals?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Catseye1979
Member
Member # 5560

 - posted      Profile for Catseye1979   Email Catseye1979         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't mind Civil Union, or if they want to call it marrige but many who vote for prop 8 are doing so because of this Video. I think the father took things a little too far.Personally I would've just taken my kids out of that school and would have made it purely a parents rights issue and not a gay rights issue. But I would leave any state or country that told me they could talk and teach my kids about any thing that I didn't want them too.

As far as sueing religions, there was one case of a gay couple sueing a church because the prist/pastor told them they could pick any room in the church to be married in except the chapel. I moved out of California before I heard how the lawsuit ended.I agree that winning such lawsuits are highly unlikely....at least for the near future, but they will come up.

Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But I would leave any state or country that told me they could talk and teach my kids about any thing that I didn't want them too.
Really? Which state do you plan to move to in order to escape the mathematics requirements? [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I just watched the Video Catseye put up.

I have seen better more consistent logic in parody ads on SNL.

The big argument...A school in Mass. sent home a book on "Who is a parent" along with many other things in a "diversity" backpack. One of the pages in the book deals with a 2-man household.

The parents of one Kindergartner complained, and demanded to be notified before any homosexual issues were brought up in school. The father was so defiant that the police were called, and he was arrested.

From this, they argue that SSM will effect EVERY FAMILY.

How?

Well, they believe that once SSM is legal, homosexuality will be promoted as morally equivalent as married heterosexuality.

And they don't want to have to tell their children that under their beliefs, it is not equal.

They don't want to have to tell their children that while it might be legal, it is not moral according to their beliefs.

Kind of like, while not going to church is legal, it is not moral under their beliefs.

Kind of like, while working Sundays is legal, it is not moral under their beliefs.

Kind of like, while not believing in Jesus is legal, its not moral under their beliefs.

And somehow, fear of having that talk with their small children is such an overwhelming thing, that its going to ruin everyone's life.

I love how they keep calling the teachers, and the administration, and anyone who disagrees "intolerant."

"I may be intolerant of homosexuals, but you are intolerant of people who are intolerant of homosexuals." That may be, but I am not stopping you from getting married.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families.

I do think that the school could have been more diplomatic than what the parents in the video are portraying.

That "to make a long story short" part is a little worrisome. I wonder what the school's reason was for calling in the police.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
He was arrested because he refused to leave the school. Link.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families."

Ummmmm.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families.

Why?

In general I'm not sure that schools are promoting moral equivalence so much as social equivalence in these situations. It's certainly possible to view Jews or divorced people as social equals but not moral equals. The moral part is your call.

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Threads:
He was arrested because he refused to leave the school. Link.

That's my school district. From my perspective, both the principal and the father unnecessarily escalated the situation.

Parker filed a joint suit against the district with some friends of mine, the Wirthlins. In the Wirthlins' case (which I know about primarily through firsthand discussions with the father), he asked the teacher to be notified in the future when politically sensitive subject matter was discussed (with his second grader). When the teacher replied that she would not, he took the issue to the principal. When the principal refused to compel the teacher, they took the issue to the state. While the suit was in process, the district replaced both the teacher and the principal. When the suit was won by the district, they initiated a "diversity curriculum," specifically to address the issue of same-sex marriage. The curriculum will be integrated across all grade school levels, starting with kindergarten.

Personally, I think the school is in the wrong. I think parents retain the right to be informed about what their children are being taught, as well as the right to remove their children from class on days that subject matter they deem inappropriate is being discussed. They may have to face repercussions for the removal (the child doesn't get credit for that learning module), but the decision should reside with the parent, and the information should be required to be given to the parent. However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You just compared gay people to alcoholics. I think you've explained your position with a nice succinctness.
Nope, I said that engaging in homosexual sex is an action, and one can judge that action to be wrong, just as one can judge the abuse of alcohol to be wrong.

Making a moral judgment about an action a person engages in is not the same thing as making a pre-judgment based on non-actions, which is what racists do. They don't look at what a person says or does, they look at what they *look like*, and make a judgment.

Judging someone for something they *do* is completely, utterly, and totally different, and I'm quite tired of people equating the two things.

Most people don't call me a bigot for judging alcohol abusers negatively (they may disagree, or call me judgmental (the irony of which always delights me), or think I have no rational basis for making such a judgment, etc, but they generally recognize that we all make moral judgments and the difference is simply whether they agree or not.

But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot. I'm not simply making a controversial moral judgment, now I'm motivated by hate and it's called prejudice, even thought it isn't *pre* judging at all.

Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.

And by the way, and this is not addressed to anyone in particular, it is pretty poor debating to accuse someone of prejudice, knowing that such an accusation tends to paint people guilty until proven innocent, and also knowing that any attempt to defend oneself will only serve to cement the accusation!

I recognize the "some of my best friends are [group]" line as being historically used by prejudiced people claiming not to be, but what if, for example, someone really isn't prejudiced, how would you have them defend themselves? They can't prove a negative.

I mean, if a white person is accused of racism against black people, for example, how do they prove otherwise? They aren't racist, but how do they prove it? What if they really do have a lot of black friends? That really does seem to indicate they aren't racist, but of course they can't use that argument, it's been tainted and it's a cliché, so it doesn't count. What else is there? Just a quiet denial is all they can do.

Which makes the accusation of prejudice, unsubstantiated, nothing more than a smear, worthy of a politician, and deserving of about as much respect.

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter."

Any? Or subject matter about tolerating other students?

Yeah, the school should have informed parents... but they also should have said "this isn't optional. Some kids in our school are in this situation, and all students need to be tolerant of those students."

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot. I'm not simply making a controversial moral judgment, now I'm motivated by hate and it's called prejudice, even thought it isn't *pre* judging at all.

Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.

I agree with everything you said except for this point (which is basically a straw man). I assume you're aware that there are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage than "patently false epithets and projections of motive".

[ October 16, 2008, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
" but what if, for example, someone really isn't prejudiced, how would you have them defend themselves? "


In the case of the same sex marriage debate, there's a few prominent public policy statements.

1) Maintain status quo on marriage.
2) Constitutionally define marriage to be between a man and a woman.
3) Allow civil unions to opposite sex couples, civil marriage and civil unions to straight couples.
4) get rid of civil marriage, allow civil unions to SS or OS couples.
5) Allow both SS and OS couples to enter into civil marriage.

options 1, 2, 3 are all discriminatory positions. Allowing disciminatory law requires, at least in my mind and the minds of most people on the left side of the spectrum, a remarkable defense of why the discrimanatory law should exist rather then something that does not discriminate.

Holding that a law should discriminate requires that the whole group being discriminated against be, in this case, unworthy of entering into a legal institution for some reason. This requires that you judge the whole group, not the individual members of the group.

Supporting such policy means that you are at least "judiced," if not prejudiced.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I agree with everything you said except for this point (which is basically a straw man). I assume you're aware that there are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage than "patently false epithets and projections of motive".
Indeed, many people present arguments in favor of SSM which are not based on straw-manning the other side. While I am not persuaded by those arguments, I don't dismiss them, indeed, I am refreshed to know there are reasoning people who disagree with me; it's less lonely that way.

There are also plenty of anti-SSM arguments that I find unpersuasive as well. And of course, it *is* entirely possible to really be prejudiced and against SSM. I take issue that it's necessarily so. Perhaps the prejudiced people are even in the majority, I do not think so, but then I don't hang out with prejudiced people so you can't go by me.

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"However, as it stands, the school has no obligation to inform me as a parent of any sensitive subject matter."

Any? Or subject matter about tolerating other students?

Yeah, the school should have informed parents... but they also should have said "this isn't optional. Some kids in our school are in this situation, and all students need to be tolerant of those students."

Ideally I think all course materials should be available to the public (hopefully online). I don't see any intellectual property worth preserving in any school or university course.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"Ideally I think all course materials should be available to the public (hopefully online). I don't see any intellectual property worth preserving in any school or university course."

I agree. Things are moving a little that ways. I suspect in 10 years this will be the case, only because so many teachers will have most of their curriculum online for kids to access at home. Especially at the high school level.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
Here seems to be the lynch pin of the debate.

Seats believes that homosexual acts are a sin.

I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.

Is it a sin for two men to be in love with each other, even if they refrain from intimate contact?

Why aren't we talking about constitutional amendments to outlay homosexual acts, and not marriage?

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
I realize that the "I have a [minority] friend!" argument is played out and unconvincing ... but I'm curious what argument someone can make against accusations that their opinions are secretly founded in bigotry? Is there some other evidence that can be used to counter that accusation (which is disturbingly common in this debate)?

I, personally, am persuaded by the arguments on both sides, which leaves me a bit torn. When I look at the individual cases and stories, there seems to be very good reason to allow these couples to have the formal status they desire, especially when it comes to the litany of legal rights that are involved in the marriage issue.

But at the same time, I think that the survival value of marriage is heavily tied up in its benefit in creating stable environments around children, and the effect of same-sex marriage on that is hard to predict. On one hand, it provides more potential adoptive households for otherwise parentless children, which is great. But at the same time, I'm not entirely comfortable with making a change that reinforces the idea that marriage is all about the desire of any two consenting adults to be recognized as a couple, and not about protecting the next generation.

Obviously, not every marriage includes children, but there used to be a strong sense that if a couple became pregnant, the only honorable thing to do, in the interest of the child, was to marry and provide a home for that child. I'm concerned that this, and other cultural changes, are redefining marriage to the point where a pregnant couple might more often say, "Marriage? What does that have to do with being pregnant? I'm ready to have a kid, but ... I don't know. Are we in love with each other enough to be married?"

That attitude bothers me because it places the romantic feelings of the adults above the emotional and physical needs of the children, and I'm concerned that the legal changes we're talking about could cement that kind of attitude in an incredibly permanent way. It's not just gay marriage that contributes to this problem ... it's been a long process that has gotten us here. But it seems like once we step over that boundary, it will be a lot harder to compensate for this particular downside.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's something we should take into account. Personally, I think the net result will be better if the word "marriage" is removed from the legal equation and left in the hands of individual subcultures to define as they like, allowing those who are concerned about issues like this to continue to promote their ideals about marriage and family, while the government at the same time provides all the disputed legal benefits, under some other name, to everyone who desires them.

I know "marriage" is just a word, but words are the means by which humans transmit culture, and culture has incredible power to either help human society survive and prosper, or allow it to decay and decline. There are times when culture needs to change, but we'd be foolish to abandon all the benefits of an older form of our culture in favor of a new and untested one, if by some small means we could preserve the best of both.

[ October 16, 2008, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.
Sexual unity is inherent in the concept of marriage. (At least at the beginning... [Evil Laugh] )

But legitimizing SSM includes legitimizing the sexual activity it entails. If one believes the activity is wrong, the relationship could not be condoned either.

quote:
Is it a sin for two men to be in love with each other, even if they refrain from intimate contact?
What sort or love? Agape? Phileo? Not a problem. Eros? Could be a problem. But I don't read minds and I'm not God, so how would I even have a basis for a judgment in that case? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't try.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
Nope, I said that engaging in homosexual sex is an action, and one can judge that action to be wrong, just as one can judge the abuse of alcohol to be wrong.

Sure. And here you run smack into the major moral development of the 20th century...the idea that it makes no sense to call behavior morally wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody.

If you reject that development, fine. But you know perfectly well that lots of other people hold to it, and you know that you are being insulting when you claim that some kinds of consentual physical acts are inherently as harmful as poisoning yourself with a mind-altering, liver killing, dependancy-forming drug.

quote:
Making a moral judgment about an action a person engages in is not the same thing as making a pre-judgment based on non-actions, which is what racists do.
Oh really?

So what moral judgment would you make about the desire of two parapalygic women to marry?

What action prompts your judgment there?

quote:
Judging someone for something they *do* is completely, utterly, and totally different, and I'm quite tired of people equating the two things.
Okay, so what are those two parapalygic women doing that makes you judge them unfit to be married to each other?

quote:
Most people don't call me a bigot for judging alcohol abusers negatively
Becuase alcoholism causes objectively negative consequences. Biological damage, personality alterations, the inability to keep a job, or to keep up one's relationships. Alcohol impairs brain function, that's biological fact.

Being in a gay relationship doesn't cause any of these.

quote:
or think I have no rational basis for making such a judgment, etc, but they generally recognize that we all make moral judgments and the difference is simply whether they agree or not.
Sure, we all make judgments, but we don't all want to keep our fellow citizens from exercising their civil rights because our subjective judgements say that they don't deserve them.

You think that alcoholics are making mistakes. Do you think that they should be thrown in jail for what they do? Do you think that everyone who drinks at all should be thrown in jail?
What behaviors do you indulge in that some people might find morally wrong? How willing are you to lose your civil rights to the moral judgements of strangers?

quote:
But, if I judge someone negatively for their sexual activities all of a sudden I'm bigot.
It's not the judging. You can judge peope negatively all you want. For their sexual behavior, for their liking of Heroes and Lost, for their cooking activities, or their political activites, or their religious activities. Judge all you want.

But you try to keep people from having their civil rights based on your judgements, that's a different story. You vote to deny someone their civil rights based on your moral judgment, you will have no one to complain to when someone else votes to take away your civil rights, because you engaged in behavior they found immoral.

quote:
Being dismissed like that just strengthens my resolve in my beliefs, since if the other side was right, I figure they wouldn't have to resort to such patently false epithets and projections of motive.
Oh, that's logical. I'm sure the guy who broke into his own home to save his dog from the story I told earlier would totally understand.

quote:
And by the way, and this is not addressed to anyone in particular, it is pretty poor debating to accuse someone of prejudice, knowing that such an accusation tends to paint people guilty until proven innocent, and also knowing that any attempt to defend oneself will only serve to cement the accusation!
Worry not. Your equalizing of gay people and alcoholics has made your point of view perfectly clear. No one need read anyone else's words to figure out what you believe. Your own words do the job perfectly.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:
I do not believe that SSM is about the homosexual acts. Its about commitment, care, and love.
Sexual unity is inherent in the concept of marriage. (At least at the beginning... [Evil Laugh] )

But legitimizing SSM includes legitimizing the sexual activity it entails. If one believes the activity is wrong, the relationship could not be condoned either.

If one believes that, then they can continue to believe that.

As the act isn't illegal (at least not any more), that argument doesn't fly.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"I don't want my (hypothetical) children reading about families with divorced parents. Or presenting Jewish families as being morally equivalent to Christian families."

Ummmmm.

I really should have added the eye-rolly thingy so the sarcasm would be clearer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
Having something not be illegal and having something be condoned and legitimized and sanctioned are two very different things.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why aren't we talking about constitutional amendments to outlay homosexual acts, and not marriage?
Possibly because that would undeniably expose their bigotry.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
swbarnes2, you seem to be talking to me as if I am arguing that prop 8 should pass, and ludicrously implying I'm in favor of throwing people in jail for moral offenses.

I'm addressing the idea that making a moral judgment about homosexuality is inherently bigoted. What if I told you that I wasn't going to vote on the issue at all? But simply state my opinion on the morality (not the legality) of it? Still bigoted?

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Possibly because that would undeniably expose their bigotry.
Lines like this are the most poisonous part of this debate. Quashing your opposition with ad hominem attacks rather than engaging him on the issues helps you win in the short term, but if this is really the standard of discourse in our society, we will quickly become completely incapable of any kind of legitimate progress.

Even if every person in the world who disagrees with you about anything is secretly a bigot and a bad person, that doesn't make your opinions correct. If you can't see that, then you have no place trying to have a rational discussion with anyone.

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
We let people who are never going to have children marry.

We let people who have been divorced marry.

We let people marry for money, status, security or whatever the heck reason they choose.

We let people who don't even like each other marry.

How is ssm so detrimental to society?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
First, I would ask you why you think we do all those other things [Smile] Why do we support marriage at all? What is it's value? Is it just the fact that people want it that makes it valuable? And if so, why do people want it?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
hmmm, lets take another look at the Alcoholism comparison.

Many believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Many believe that drinking alcohol is morally wrong, especially by someone prone to Alcoholism.

So what is the appropriate response of the state?

Well, with alcoholism, we tried Prohibition. It worked real well...er maybe not. It took a wrong and drove it underground where it festered and corrupted the society that the law was meant to protect.

Since Prohibition was ended the State moved to control the excesses that Alcohol could create--death from poorly manufactured Alcohol, limiting drinking ages and public drinking times, curtailing drunk driving, etc.

If two men find each other attractive not allowing them to be married will not stop them from living together or practicing their "wrong" behavior. However, with marriage you reduce some of the worst effects of that behavior, limiting the spread of disease by limiting the number of sexual partners, requiring blood tests to better control the HIV epidemic, limiting the number of suicides and depressive episodes of those who participate in that "wrong" behavior.

And what is the cost?

Those against SSM say the cost is that it "Condones behavior we think is wrong." Does legalizing alcohol mean the state condones the abuse of alcoholics?

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
First, I would ask you why you think we do all those other things [Smile] Why do we support marriage at all? What is it's value? Is it just the fact that people want it that makes it valuable? And if so, why do people want it?

For legal marriage (as opposed to sacramental marriage. I don't think the government should be in the business of administering sacraments.) Partly because of history. Marriage is a contract. Originally, it transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Other times, it sealed alliances. It has been and still is a contractual combination of assets from two households into one. It turns two legal entities into one entity for certain purposes.

And, yes, it did make contractual the obligation of the groom to care for any children that issued from the union. Of course, now fathers are legally responsible for their children whether or not they are married to the mother.

Why do you think we have legal marriage?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
If suggesting a possible motive from a hypothetical action of a nonspecific group of people is being taken by anyone as an ad hominem attack, then I apologize.

I still stand by what I said, but I'll try to clarify a bit. My comment wasn't intended to be an end-all parting shot but to point out the ridiculousness of arguing that homosexual acts as opposed to same-sex civil unions should be singled out and outlawed. I don't know anybody who would support that.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
swbarnes2, you seem to be talking to me as if I am arguing that prop 8 should pass, and ludicrously implying I'm in favor of throwing people in jail for moral offenses.

Having equal access to the government's civil insitutions is a civil right. If you are oppsoed to people having their civil rights, then you are opposed to people having their civil rights.

If you aren't opposed, then great.

quote:
I'm addressing the idea that making a moral judgment about homosexuality is inherently bigoted.
Make whatever judgment you like. Just don't think that you are going to get applauded for saying that innocent gay people are just as "immoral" as alcoholics.

quote:
What if I told you that I wasn't going to vote on the issue at all? But simply state my opinion on the morality (not the legality) of it? Still bigoted?
You state whatever you like. It's your right. and I state whatever I like. That's my right too. And it's the right of citizens to have equal access to govenment institutions, like civil marriage.

See how that works??

What exactly do you expect? Someone to ride in a on a white horse and say "No one is ever allowed to express a critical opinion of anything that is labeled a 'moral judgment'. Now, continue your argument on why gay people are like alcoholics"?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
swbarnes2, I didn't ask you whether I could make judgments. I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry, if it has nothing to do with passing or repealing laws. C'mon, be brave and answer that question.

As for what I expect, it's prejudice against moralists, actually, which I'm getting from you quite nicely. :-)

Also, since you seem to be of the "if it doesn't hurt people it's not wrong" mindset, I take it you are in favor of legalizing marriage for sibling and parent/child relationships? (We'll assume they're sterile, so no possibility of birth defects to qualify as harm.)

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I asked if you thought it was necessarily bigotry, if it has nothing to do with passing or repealing laws.
I don't think that whether it has something to do with passing laws is a factor in determining whether or not it's bigotry.

quote:
it's prejudice against moralists
I'm not remotely prejudiced against moralists. I am a moralist. I completely reject the argument that religion correlates consistently with morality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.

What does that have to do with consenting adults.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think that whether it has something to do with passing laws is a factor in determining whether or not it's bigotry.
I didn't say that I thought it did, but a discussion of what is or isn't bigotry led swbarnes2 to bring up all kinds of hypotheticals about passing laws, so swbarnes2 seems to think the two are related.

quote:
I'm not remotely prejudiced against moralists. I am a moralist.
Terrific. Then, while I'm sure we disagree mightily on what actually is or isn't moral, I assume that means you think making a moral judgment isn't a priori bigoted, right? Perhaps unsound (but valid based on premises you disagree with), perhaps even invalid (due to faulty reasoning, regardless of the truth of the premises), but not necessarily motivated by bigotry?
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Parent/child sexual relationships are, by nature, predatory. There is indeed harm.
Adults are still the children of the parents. I'm talking about adults. Say a 22 year old and their 37 year old parent, for example, wanting to get married. Where's the harm?

Edit: [still thunderstruck at a totally unexpected, unintending interpretation of my words]

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Nowhere.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Strictly legally speaking, I see nothing wrong with it.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 30 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  28  29  30   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2