Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Explain how another persons actions could possibly harm anothers morality if they are ot directly involved ...
Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.
Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.
People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."
People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."
But they aren't indirect to certain people. You are telling someone that they shouldn't be offended because YOU don't think those actions don't tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
That is YOUR opinion. They have just as much right to theirs.
You don't get to choose what is offensive to others.
No I'm saying what is offensive should have no bearing on law because nobody is tangibly affected. Their person, property, privacy, ability to do their job or live their lives is not in any way affected unless they choose to be irrational about it.
Burp: So then you are for the government telling people how to live and how to follow their religious ideals.
Never said that. I actually would like government to butt out of a lot of things.
My point is this. And I am really only talking about the Prop 8 issue. The pro Prop 8 group did everything they could to get the issue on the ballot. After years of trying, they succeeded.
They finally got the issue before the population of the state.
And they lost.
So now what do they do? They didn't like how the people voted so they want it go to to court. Essentially asking the court to agree that every single person who voted against the proposition was wrong.
They use the system (get enough signatures to get it on the ballot) to have their issue voted on; then when they don't get the result they wanted/expected, they want to over-rule the entire system that enabled them to have the issue voted upon in the first place.
I will say it again. Be careful what you ask for.
Suppose the law said that you couldn't marry the person you love because of race, gender, eye color or some other type that "isn't right" according to society's norms of the day. If the people democratically passed an arbitrary law against people like you marrying whatever type of person you want, would you just give up at that point?
Unfortunately, we don't all live in caves. People do things all the time that other people are aware of. Some people feel that dating/marriage outside their own race or dating "too young/old" is offensive. Some people feel that they should be allowed to use narcotics in their own home. Some people feel that H.S. cheer leading routines are too risque. The list goes on or on.
Everyone has an opinion. Who is to say that one person's opinion is correct or incorrect.
People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."
People don't have the right to never be offended? I love how the people who approach every other damned issue with "That offends me, so you can't do it!" now want to invalidate a legal vote on the basis of "they don't have the right not to be offended, so they can't vote that way".
But they aren't indirect to certain people. You are telling someone that they shouldn't be offended because YOU don't think those actions don't tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
That is YOUR opinion. They have just as much right to theirs.
You don't get to choose what is offensive to others.
No I'm saying what is offensive should have no bearing on law because nobody is tangibly affected. Their person, property, privacy, ability to do their job or live their lives is not in any way affected unless they choose to be irrational about it.
Really? On exactly what basis can society make something illegal, if not that it is offensive to the majority of voters?
And I think we can all see that your definition of "irrational" is "doesn't agree with my position".
They have not proven or disproved that homosexuality is not genetics!
Doesn't really matter if it is or not. Participating in homosexual acts is a behavior. Being black isn't.
The example of desegregation can call into question the validity of "separate but equal" that would be embodied in having civil unions for gays and marriage for non-gays.
A closer example would be striking down anti-miscegenation laws. As those attempted to prevent state recognition of the "behavior" of interracial marriage. Laws against interracial marriage were no more about race inequality than laws against homosexual marriage are about gender inequality. Both men and women of a specific sexual orientation are harmed by anti-gay marriage laws, just as both Blacks and Whites who wanted to marry the other race were harmed by anti-miscegenation laws.
People don't have the right to never be offended. We could use an amendment that says that too. The impacts you speak of here are all very indirect and do not tangibly or inherently affect anybody.
Things get a bit more complicated when you speak of minors, though. But immoral people are a fact of life. Parents need to take responsibility for giving their kids context for an imperfect world, and that includes people getting married for, "the wrong reasons."
People don't have the right to never be offended? I love how the people who approach every other damned issue with "That offends me, so you can't do it!" now want to invalidate a legal vote on the basis of "they don't have the right not to be offended, so they can't vote that way".
LOL. I approach every other issue by saying the law should be based upon what offends me? Where?
Doesn't really matter if it is or not. Participating in homosexual acts is a behavior. Being black isn't.
The example of desegregation can call into question the validity of "separate but equal" that would be embodied in having civil unions for gays and marriage for non-gays.
A closer example would be striking down anti-miscegenation laws. As those attempted to prevent state recognition of the "behavior" of interracial marriage. Laws against interracial marriage were no more about race inequality than laws against homosexual marriage are about gender inequality. Both men and women of a specific sexual orientation are harmed by anti-gay marriage laws, just as both Blacks and Whites who wanted to marry the other race were harmed by anti-miscegenation laws.
Well, since we weren't talking about civil unions, that's just a complete non sequitur. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Anything attempting to compare homosexuality with race is not a "closer example". It's a comparison of apples and oranges. Or apples and giraffes.
No I'm saying what is offensive should have no bearing on law because nobody is tangibly affected. Their person, property, privacy, ability to do their job or live their lives is not in any way affected unless they choose to be irrational about it.
Really? On exactly what basis can society make something illegal, if not that it is offensive to the majority of voters?
And I think we can all see that your definition of "irrational" is "doesn't agree with my position".
My standard is harm to others as a basis for making something illegal. Legislating based upon what somebody finds offensive, whether it's me or you, is indeed irrational.
People don't have the right to never be offended? I love how the people who approach every other damned issue with "That offends me, so you can't do it!" now want to invalidate a legal vote on the basis of "they don't have the right not to be offended, so they can't vote that way".
LOL. I approach every other issue by saying the law should be based upon what offends me? Where?
When did you become "people"? I know, I know. To every leftist, it's all about them.
As it happens, though, don't you want laws allowing homosexual "marriage" to be recognized because you find it offensive that it isn't?
The example of desegregation can call into question the validity of "separate but equal" that would be embodied in having civil unions for gays and marriage for non-gays.
A closer example would be striking down anti-miscegenation laws. As those attempted to prevent state recognition of the "behavior" of interracial marriage. Laws against interracial marriage were no more about race inequality than laws against homosexual marriage are about gender inequality. Both men and women of a specific sexual orientation are harmed by anti-gay marriage laws, just as both Blacks and Whites who wanted to marry the other race were harmed by anti-miscegenation laws.
Well, since we weren't talking about civil unions, that's just a complete non sequitur. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Anything attempting to compare homosexuality with race is not a "closer example". It's a comparison of apples and oranges. Or apples and giraffes.
It's not a comparison of homosexuality and race. Read the post you're responding to. If we want to reduce marriage to sexual desire, it's a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender.
Really? On exactly what basis can society make something illegal, if not that it is offensive to the majority of voters?
And I think we can all see that your definition of "irrational" is "doesn't agree with my position".
My standard is harm to others as a basis for making something illegal. Legislating based upon what somebody finds offensive, whether it's me or you, is indeed irrational.
It doesn't really matter what YOUR standard for laws is. That isn't the standard on which it's actually based. Shockingly, YOU are not the arbiter of how the world works.
It's completely rational to base the structure of society upon what kind of society the majority of the people want. And if they wanted what YOU wanted, you'd agree. The only reason you consider it irrational to allow the people's vote to stand is because they had the temerity to disagree with you.
LOL. I approach every other issue by saying the law should be based upon what offends me? Where?
When did you become "people"? I know, I know. To every leftist, it's all about them.
As it happens, though, don't you want laws allowing homosexual "marriage" to be recognized because you find it offensive that it isn't?
Actually I want it to be allowed because allowing it wouldn't hurt anybody.
Well, since we weren't talking about civil unions, that's just a complete non sequitur. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Anything attempting to compare homosexuality with race is not a "closer example". It's a comparison of apples and oranges. Or apples and giraffes.
It's not a comparison of homosexuality and race. Read the post you're responding to. If we want to reduce marriage to sexual desire, it's a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender.
Maybe YOU should read the post you're responding to, because if you're talking to ME, talking about "reducing marriage to sexual desire" is another non sequitur. I have NEVER reduced marriage to sexual desire in my entire life.
By the way, "a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender" IS a comparison of homosexuality and race, Mensa Boy. Note the phrases "attracted to other races" and "attracted to the same gender". Duhhh.
When did you become "people"? I know, I know. To every leftist, it's all about them.
As it happens, though, don't you want laws allowing homosexual "marriage" to be recognized because you find it offensive that it isn't?
Actually I want it to be allowed because allowing it wouldn't hurt anybody.
Nice attempt at semantics, but it won't work. You don't think it hurts anybody, so you find it offensive that it's not recognized. Spare me the attempts at "I don't like it, but that doesn't mean you can describe it as me finding it offensive!"
My standard is harm to others as a basis for making something illegal. Legislating based upon what somebody finds offensive, whether it's me or you, is indeed irrational.
It doesn't really matter what YOUR standard for laws is. That isn't the standard on which it's actually based. Shockingly, YOU are not the arbiter of how the world works.
I suppose not. No idea why you find it necessary to be insulting and rude instead of making your points. Does it give you some kind of sick pleasure?
It's completely rational to base the structure of society upon what kind of society the majority of the people want. And if they wanted what YOU wanted, you'd agree. The only reason you consider it irrational to allow the people's vote to stand is because they had the temerity to disagree with you.
You should know that the majority is capable of making the wrong decision. Using democratic processes was never said to be a perfect system, only better than conceivable alternatives. The main threat of democratic processes is the tyranny of the majority upon the minority. Constitutions are written with things like the 14th amendment to protect the minority from the majority. But it doesn't always work. I won't worry too much. Democratically or not, gays will have equal rights someday.
It's not a comparison of homosexuality and race. Read the post you're responding to. If we want to reduce marriage to sexual desire, it's a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender.
Maybe YOU should read the post you're responding to, because if you're talking to ME, talking about "reducing marriage to sexual desire" is another non sequitur. I have NEVER reduced marriage to sexual desire in my entire life.
By the way, "a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender" IS a comparison of homosexuality and race, Mensa Boy. Note the phrases "attracted to other races" and "attracted to the same gender". Duhhh.
Um no. Saying interracial marriage was about racial rights is like saying homosexual marriage is about gender rights. Is that more clear?
The fact of the matter is that people generally do reduce homosexual marriage to being only about lust, even if the people actually do love each other. They did that with interracial marriage too, saying these people needed to learn to control their lusts for the other race and stick to their own.
It doesn't really matter what YOUR standard for laws is. That isn't the standard on which it's actually based. Shockingly, YOU are not the arbiter of how the world works.
I suppose not. No idea why you find it necessary to be insulting and rude instead of making your points. Does it give you some kind of sick pleasure?
I'm not insulting and rude INSTEAD of making my points. I'm insulting and rude WHILE making my points. Multitasking, you know. As it happens, though, nothing about this particular statement was offensive or rude, unless you consider being told that your own personal standards are not the universally accepted ones. If anyone was offensive and rude, it was YOU calling those who disagree with you irrational. So why do you do that instead of making your point? Does it give you some kind of sick pleasure?
It's irrelevant whether or not the majority is capable of making the wrong decision. It's even irrelevant whether or not they DID. They still have the right to make that decision, you don't have the right to reverse it based on your opinion that they were wrong, and it is still rational that the people should get the society they choose.
And I can see that you definitely think democracy is better than the alternatives, what with your advocation of reversing the democratic process when it doesn't match up with your personal opinion.
There's no such thing as "the tyranny of the majority". It's a ridiculous nonsense phrase coined by people like you who want to justify being the REAL threat to the democratic process by way of replacing it with their "superior" understanding of how things should be.
I find your statement of "I wouldn't worry, because they'll get it democratically or not". THAT is exactly what I'm worried about, which you would notice if you didn't actually hate and fear the democratic process.
Actually I want it to be allowed because allowing it wouldn't hurt anybody.
Nice attempt at semantics, but it won't work. You don't think it hurts anybody, so you find it offensive that it's not recognized. Spare me the attempts at "I don't like it, but that doesn't mean you can describe it as me finding it offensive!"
So you disagree that actions that don't harm anybody should be legal? Or you disagree that homosexual marriage doesn't harm anybody?
Maybe YOU should read the post you're responding to, because if you're talking to ME, talking about "reducing marriage to sexual desire" is another non sequitur. I have NEVER reduced marriage to sexual desire in my entire life.
By the way, "a comparison of people who are attracted to other races to people who are attracted to the same gender" IS a comparison of homosexuality and race, Mensa Boy. Note the phrases "attracted to other races" and "attracted to the same gender". Duhhh.
Um no. Saying interracial marriage was about racial rights is like saying homosexual marriage is about gender rights. Is that more clear?
The fact of the matter is that people generally do reduce homosexual marriage to being only about lust, even if the people actually do love each other. They did that with interracial marriage too, saying these people needed to learn to control their lusts for the other race and stick to their own.
It was clear before. You compared homosexuality with race, and then told me you didn't, because what you actually did was compare homosexuality with race, and then you did it again. And now you've done it a third time. Let ME make it a little more clear. Anything having to do with race, interracial marrage, the civil rights struggles of blacks, etc. is irrelevant to this discussion, because they aren't comparable and there are no valid analogies or parallels whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is, I don't give a rat's ass what "people generally do", or more accurately, what YOU THINK "people generally do". You're responding to ME, and you're doing so as though I personally did so. I didn't, because I don't give a rat's ass WHY they want the state to recognize and sanction their relationships. It no more matters to me if their relationship is based on lust than if it's based on love, as so many people keep shouting as though it matters. If you want to rail against this particular argument, start a fresh post rather than sticking words in my mouth.
