Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
I too do not want to come off as 'superior' or putting you down. You have insinuated in the past that your background in some things historical may be lacking. This point would tend to bolster your argument. I'm assuming you would be pro-evolution, because of 'scientific method.' Me too. Yet in this historical scenario, you seem incapable of accepting time/place/practice. It's imperative to do so, if you are to garner the lessons of the past and appreciate the 'enlightened' people of the time. That is what the 3/5ths compromise illustrates. You however, are trying to impose late 20th C/21st C accepted morality onto the 18th C. Cannot be done and understood. It's like being stuck the way the Muslims are, from the opposit end of the spectrum.liberalogic said:First and foremost i want to apologize for making my comments seem arrogant. They were written in frustration and came out the wrong way. And also, I do not feel that I am smarter than anyone here and I don't want you to think that is what I believe. We have differing visions of society and it is as simple as that.
1) It's true, I did not research the 3/5 Compromise (and even though I have learned about it in the past, I have forgotten the details). My point, though, is that no matter what the circumstances any human being who is treated as 3/5 of a person is not acceptable. I could care less that it weakened the rights of slave owners; African-Americans WERE and ARE complete human beings and anything less than that is unfair and unacceptable.
I agree that is how it should work, but the Constitution does NOT say one has to be logical or even 'knowledgeable' to vote. If you can get a kumquat on the ballot, you can vote for it. Actually, if you could find a way to register said kumquat, it could vote. I believe in Chicago there are a couple hundred of them.2)
"Your personal, subjective notion of what is and isn't fair is neither relevant to the discussion nor binding upon society. The days of social engineering by judicial fiat are drawing to a close, my friend. Representative government is being restored; the people will determine the conduct of their everyday lives via the ballot box. If you want to change policy, you're going to have to change people's minds."
Actually, it is. I'm not denying nor have I denied that you and the majority have the right to vote as you see fit. There is no argument there whatsoever, so please don't try to make one. The responsibility, though, that SHOULD (even though it does not) come along with voting, is that you will vote fairly. You should at least be able to say "I voted this way because..." and that sentence should be finished with a fair and reasonable response. You have not done that for me, therefore, I cannot respect nor interpret your opinion. You have instead lectured me on your right to vote (which, once again, I never denied in the first place). While I strongly disagree with Gunnyl, at least he has provided me with a response that addresses the issue at hand.
So you won't have a problem with that 'woman' in love with the dolphin and giving the state's blessing to their union? Personally, I am less sickened by homosexuality than the animal folk, but in neither case do I want my taxes leading to the survivors collecting social security. Enjoy your fetishes, but I don't want to pay, monetarily.3) The idea of homosexuality being abnormal is true according to your definition of "normal." Can they reproduce? No, so maybe it's not normal because of that. But what about the barren woman: that's not normal; she can't reproduce, why can she marry?
You can control your actions, but you can't control how you feel. If there is a gay couple that is in a loving relationship (meaning they really do love each other), why is that not normal? If that's how they feel, isn't that an intrinsic trait? Did they really make themselves that way? No-- they feel that way. To tell them that they can't marry because they are "abnormal" doesn't make sense: they are not hurting YOU or anyone else; they are attempting to have their love recognized by the state, just as any heterosexual couple can have its love recognized by the state.
The black person cannot 'control' or 'escape' their blackness, nor should they. I tend to agree with you that gays can't avoid their attractions, but can control their behavior. Again, I'm against the state getting involved with consenting adults and if one feels compelled to discuss their sexuality/proclivities one must live with the repercussions, strait or gay. I just do not want to 'pay' through taxes for civil unions. Civil unions though have a place in our 'rule of law' society. Thus, make your plans accordingly.3) "Using slavery as an example is dishonest. You are comaring one human being owning another to people giving special rights to an abnormal minority."
No, I'm saying that people are being treated differently in both cases because of something that is/was viewed as "different." Just as an African-American is born with black skin, a gay person is born with sexual desires towards the same sex. The way we treat them should not be determined by these values.
I'm not getting into who is the 'most moral, Christian, better person.' I will say that one person's definition and remedy for perceived unfairness does not constitute such.4) "I beg to differ. I have a higher moral standard than you do. But I do not need to use Christianity as the basis of my argument, and usually do not. "
I take that one personally because that is untrue-- you don't have higher morals than me. I am not bowing to a specific minority group, I am bowing to what I see as unfairness being infiltrated in society. We have different moral values, but yours are no better than mine.
5) The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is no reasonable explanation to deny people the right to marriage who are of consensual age. Whether or not it is normal or abnormal, it does not effect you or the way you live your life. While I can argue about it being an abnormality, I still see no reason (even if you think that it is abnormal) that you should vote against it if it doesn't hurt you or anyone else in this country.Sure there is, if one is talking about the state recognizing such, lots of financial and values reasons. To argue differently is just revisionist.best thing you've said.6) "the same ones who want to create a law that would force churches to marry gays, or face losing their Fed tax exempt status due to discrimination.
"
Never would I say that. The church is a private institution and has no obligation whatsoever to marry gay people. I would never protest against their decision not to marry gays because they are not my government.