A New Stance on Morality

[musicman]

But when people are not doing anything to strip you of your individual rights or of the rights of your fellow Americans, then you are not being tolerable; instead you are denying people something because you are uncomfortable with it. Well guess what...I'm uncomfortable with it too!

Yeah - it's a wacky, mixed-up world, and I don't think we'll ever make it quite perfect. Still, we try. There are templates for human governance - one being the establishment of policy by central government fiat; another, a little thing our founders referred to as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You have already expressed your preference for the former. Per the bolded portion of the quote, you seek to deprive me of my right to representative government.

 

[liberalogic]

Yeah - it's a wacky, mixed-up world, and I don't think we'll ever make it quite perfect. Still, we try. There are templates for human governance - one being the establishment of policy by central government fiat; another, a little thing our founders referred to as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You have already expressed your preference for the former. Per the bolded portion of the quote, you seek to deprive me of my right to representative government.

You've given me no REAL, justified reason to go against it. You forget that while you should be voting on something to represent whether it's fair or unfair. And I bring the slavery issue up again: For a while there, the majority thought it was quite ethical; did that make it right? And also, I believe that gays deserve the right to marry...so by giving you that right, we therefore take the rights of others away.

 

[dilloduck]

You've given me no REAL, justified reason to go against it. You forget that while you should be voting on something to represent whether it's fair or unfair. And I bring the slavery issue up again: For a while there, the majority thought it was quite ethical; did that make it right? And also, I believe that gays deserve the right to marry...so by giving you that right, we therefore take the rights of others away.

Then what do you recommend when someone wants X abolished and someone else wants X to stand ? Can you not see that everyone can't always have thier way?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Yeah - it's a wacky, mixed-up world, and I don't think we'll ever make it quite perfect. Still, we try. There are templates for human governance - one being the establishment of policy by central government fiat; another, a little thing our founders referred to as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". You have already expressed your preference for the former. Per the bolded portion of the quote, you seek to deprive me of my right to representative government.

Before going into the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers and the rights of citizens of the Republic, there are a few things I want you remember.

Under the system the Founding Fathers designed:
1. You could only directly vote for our one member of the House of Representatives. The President and the Senate are and were chosen by electors or the members of the House, and the Supreme Court is still appointed by the president.

2. The "people" cannot change their own Constitution of government, only the state legislatures and the Congress or a convention of the States can do this.

Not very democratic to me. Another quote that I believe highlights the ideology as well as the fighting among the fathers comes from Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $10)
"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact.The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?"

And this is from the man who lead the Federalist party, the ones who wanted the Constitution and stong government.

well look at the time; I've work to do. I'lll finish off this post later.

 

[Hobbit]

Before going into the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers and the rights of citizens of the Republic, there are a few things I want you remember.

Under the system the Founding Fathers designed:
1. You could only directly vote for our one member of the House of Representatives. The President and the Senate are and were chosen by electors or the members of the House, and the Supreme Court is still appointed by the president.

2. The "people" cannot change their own Constitution of government, only the state legislatures and the Congress or a convention of the States can do this.

Not very democratic to me. Another quote that I believe highlights the ideology as well as the fighting among the fathers comes from Alexander Hamilton (the guy on the $10)
"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact.The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?"

And this is from the man who lead the Federalist party, the ones who wanted the Constitution and stong government.

well look at the time; I've work to do. I'lll finish off this post later.

It's because we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional democratic republic. Yeah, it's a mouthfull, but it's what we are. The president is still chosen by electors (and the people elect the electors from the party they want their vote going to). The senators were appointed by the state government. The concept of a constitutional democratic republic is that, first and foremost, everyone is beholden to the constitution. Most decisions are made by elected officials, with primarily local issues being voted on by the people. A true democracy is a mess on a very large scale. And that's yet another reason I think the federal government should be smaller.

 

[liberalogic]

Then what do you recommend when someone wants X abolished and someone else wants X to stand ? Can you not see that everyone can't always have thier way?

Great point and I wholeheartedly agree. At the same time, though, this (to me) is an issue of fairness and equality. For those who are against it, they lose absolutely nothing (if gay marriage is legalized). While the gays who are for it gain absolutely nothing by being denied a privilege on weak grounds.

 

[musicman]

You've given me no REAL, justified reason to go against it.

A) My exercise of my constitutional rights is in no way contingent upon having justified such exercise to you.

B) I have nonetheless explained my position clearly, and will do so again. I will never support the legitimization of a behavior which has proven itself so dangerous to society.

You forget that while you should be voting on something to represent whether it's fair or unfair.

And who shall be the arbiter of what is fair and unfair - you? I'll stick with the Constitution, thanks.

And I bring the slavery issue up again: For a while there, the majority thought it was quite ethical; did that make it right?

You are wrong. Please refresh your memory of American history - particularly in regard to the opening salvo in the war against slavery in the new nation: the three-fifths compromise.

And also, I believe that gays deserve the right to marry...so by giving you that right, we therefore take the rights of others away.

You are GIVING me nothing; my constitutional rights are mine. I own them. Conversely, I am taking no one's rights away - I have no such powers. I simply refuse to support the tyrannical perversion of the Constitution which calls itself judicial activism, and puts itself in the business of creating new rights out of whole cloth.

While the gays who are for it gain absolutely nothing by being denied a privilege on weak grounds.

I guess this is where we just have to say we differ; I've never considered the U.S. Constitution "weak grounds".

 

[theHawk]

You've given me no REAL, justified reason to go against it. You forget that while you should be voting on something to represent whether it's fair or unfair. And I bring the slavery issue up again: For a while there, the majority thought it was quite ethical; did that make it right? And also, I believe that gays deserve the right to marry...so by giving you that right, we therefore take the rights of others away.

Nice liberal ploy to equate homosexuality to slavery. Homosexuality is an act, while being black isn't. Its rather insulting to black people when you compare your homosexual movement to the civil rights movement.

By the way, gays already do have the right to marry. Nothing, absolutely nothing is preventing them from getting married at the Rainbow Church of Christ or whatever churchs perform a marriage for them. Yet another ploy to distort the truth by saying they don't have the right to marry. They DO. And nobody is talking about passing laws to ban churchs from doing so. The only thing we are talking about here is if the government should recognize it for tax and other legal purposes. This is what is hypocritical of you libs when you suddenly become silent with your chants of "separation of church and state." Now suddenly, you want government to recognize a religious ceremony that a church performs.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is it that the "New Morality" is always the same old immorality of the past that people seem to think is somehow acceptable now that they label it new?

 

[liberalogic]

A) My exercise of my constitutional rights is in no way contingent upon having justified such exercise to you.

B) I have nonetheless explained my position clearly, and will do so again. I will never support the legitimization of a behavior which has proven itself so dangerous to society.



And who shall be the arbiter of what is fair and unfair - you? I'll stick with the Constitution, thanks.



You are wrong. Please refresh your memory of American history - particularly in regard to the opening salvo in the war against slavery in the new nation: the three-fifths compromise.



You are GIVING me nothing; my constitutional rights are mine. I own them. Conversely, I am taking no one's rights away - I have no such powers. I simply refuse to support the tyrannical perversion of the Constitution which calls itself judicial activism, and puts itself in the business of creating new rights out of whole cloth.



I guess this is where we just have to say we differ; I've never considered the U.S. Constitution "weak grounds".

It's true, you have the right to be against it. You are absolutely correct. But the grounds on which you base this decision ("I will never support the legitimization of a behavior which has proven itself so dangerous to society.") is garbage. Dangerous? I don't feel very threatened. And of course you'll bring in your pedophile comments-- as if all gays are child molestors. And once again, you've shown that you have the right to vote against it, but you've given no FAIR reason to oppose it.

And the 3/5 compromise....that sounds great; there's still no discrimination in that, right? At that time, blacks were given full rights, yes? The 3/5 compromise is just as good as a civil union.

 

[liberalogic]

Nice liberal ploy to equate homosexuality to slavery. Homosexuality is an act, while being black isn't. Its rather insulting to black people when you compare your homosexual movement to the civil rights movement.

By the way, gays already do have the right to marry. Nothing, absolutely nothing is preventing them from getting married at the Rainbow Church of Christ or whatever churchs perform a marriage for them. Yet another ploy to distort the truth by saying they don't have the right to marry. They DO. And nobody is talking about passing laws to ban churchs from doing so. The only thing we are talking about here is if the government should recognize it for tax and other legal purposes. This is what is hypocritical of you libs when you suddenly become silent with your chants of "separation of church and state." Now suddenly, you want government to recognize a religious ceremony that a church performs.

I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

1) The way blacks were treated (not the blackness itself); as in they were denied certain privileges and looked down upon by much of society, is similar to the way gays are treated today in society.

2) And you're damn right I believe in the separation of church and state-- which is why I couldn't give a shit if gays can get married in a church/institution of worship of any denomination...why do I feel that way? Because the church and the state are separate; therefore the state shouldn't tell the church who it should marry. But since our country does recognize the union of marriage; that union (the one that is SEPARATE FROM THE CHURCH), should not be influenced by the "moral standards" of the church.

 

[manu1959]

But since our country does recognize the union of marriage; that union should not be influenced by the "moral standards" of the church.

they perform the marriage ceremonies....they dictate the rules....or are you saying the government should pass a law that anyone should be able to marry anyone else in any church no matter their sex or religous beliefes?

 

[liberalogic]

they perform the marriage ceremonies....they dictate the rules....or are you saying the government should pass a law that anyone should be able to marry anyone else in any church no matter their sex or religous beliefes?

I'm saying that there is the marriage in the church (which should be up to the church because it's a private institution) and then there's the marriage granted by the government (which should not be influenced by church doctrine).

 

[Avatar4321]

It's true, you have the right to be against it. You are absolutely correct. But the grounds on which you base this decision ("I will never support the legitimization of a behavior which has proven itself so dangerous to society.") is garbage. Dangerous? I don't feel very threatened. And of course you'll bring in your pedophile comments-- as if all gays are child molestors. And once again, you've shown that you have the right to vote against it, but you've given no FAIR reason to oppose it.

And the 3/5 compromise....that sounds great; there's still no discrimination in that, right? At that time, blacks were given full rights, yes? The 3/5 compromise is just as good as a civil union.

The 3/5ths compromise was great. I can't believe how many people criticize it without any idea of why it was done. By only giving slaves 3/5s representation it weakened the power of slaveholders. Otherwise their states would have had more political power to promote their slave views.

 

[musicman]

It's true, you have the right to be against it. You are absolutely correct. But the grounds on which you base this decision ("I will never support the legitimization of a behavior which has proven itself so dangerous to society.") is garbage. Dangerous? I don't feel very threatened. And of course you'll bring in your pedophile comments-- as if all gays are child molestors. And once again, you've shown that you have the right to vote against it, but you've given no FAIR reason to oppose it.

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.

A word of advice: Check your elitist arrogance at the door. There's a world out there beyond the hallowed halls of academia; it is filled with people who are as smart as you, and have managed to learn a thing or two in the school of hard knocks, as well. Respect us or dismiss us - it's your call all the way. But, I warn you - everyday Americans aren't stupid. They recognize the sound of a lecture coming from someone who considers himself their intellectual and moral superior. It is an unpleasant noise, and one that is quickly tuned out.

And the 3/5 compromise....that sounds great; there's still no discrimination in that, right? At that time, blacks were given full rights, yes? The 3/5 compromise is just as good as a civil union.

I asked you to read up a bit on the three-fifths compromise before you tossed around statements like " The majority [of Americans] thought slavery was...ethical". Judging by the baffling, barely comprehensible content of the preceding quote, I guess that was too bothersome a task for you. May I suggest, as an alternative, Avatar's post (#94) in this thread? He provides an excellent thumbnail sketch of this vital piece of American history.

 

[Gunny]

A few things:

1) I am not "anti-religious" in the sense that I think people of faith are "wrong" or that they are not entitled to their beliefs. I feel, wholeheartedly, that if you believe in a religion, no one is to tell you that you shouldn't or you can't. At the same time, though, I am firmly for the separation of church and state AT ALL COSTS. I didn't understand the statement that you made (which I put in bold print), but I will say the gov't shouldn't have its hands in the church and vice verca.

I believe in the separation of chruch and state. I do not however believe in the version of the Constitution the anti-religious attempt to sell under the self-proclaimed title of secularism; a dishonest use of the term.

My statement is made in regard to those who think each-and-every religious artifact should be removed from government property are 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.

It disallows a church as a political entity to

2) The minority/majority argument makes sense logically, but what happens when the minority is being taken advantage of by the majority? For instance, why did slavery exist for so long? Because most people did not see blacks as "people" but rather as property. The rights of the minority were sacrificed for the despicable taste of the majority.

3) Any religious implications that you speak of with the tradition of marriage should not matter. No one is asking the church to recognize the marriage, just the gov't, which should not be affiliated with religious institutions. And also, if you value the sanctity or the "religious implications" of marriage, then why do we allow divorce? Why is adultery legal? Doesn't that strongly diminish those religious implications in the first hand?

4) I started this thread to show my side of morality. I become greatly offended when a devout Christian tells me that he/she has higher moral standards than me because he/she is religious. That is bullshit because they are no higher than my standards, they are DIFFERENT. I never asked anyone here to accept homosexuality-- you think it's immoral and that's okay. But when people are not doing anything to strip you of your individual rights or of the rights of your fellow Americans, then you are not being tolerable; instead you are denying people something because you are uncomfortable with it. Well guess what...I'm uncomfortable with it too! That doesn't mean, though, that I need to legislate my opinion between people who are of consent to marry.

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.

My morals are based on the common good as opposed to catering to every fringe-element minority group that manages to garner some media attention. You obviously are willing to accept abnormal as normal. That is not "different" .... that is lower.

I am not denying people bcause "I am uncomfortable with it." Now you sound like a REAL lefty, trying to twist it around into a weakness on my part. I'm not the one that wants to marry the wrong gender.

What I advocate is that if you choose to live outside the conforms of society, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions. Homosexuals do not want to be personally accountable for their actions. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They demand legitimacy for abnormal behavior.

Has nothing to do with comfort and everything to do with right and wrong.

 

[Gunny]

You've given me no REAL, justified reason to go against it. You forget that while you should be voting on something to represent whether it's fair or unfair. And I bring the slavery issue up again: For a while there, the majority thought it was quite ethical; did that make it right? And also, I believe that gays deserve the right to marry...so by giving you that right, we therefore take the rights of others away.

Using slavery as an example is dishonest. You are comapring one human being owning another to people giving special rights to an abnormal minority.

Homosexuals currently possess every right under the Constitution I do, and even have the added protection of "hate crime;" which, I cannot use in my defense because I don't happen to possess any quirks strange enough to entitle me to my own special law.

 

[theHawk]

1) The way blacks were treated (not the blackness itself); as in they were denied certain privileges and looked down upon by much of society, is similar to the way gays are treated today in society.

Blacks were not denied "certain privileges", they were denied basic human rights. They had no rights at all. And yes gays are looked down upon by much of society, but that has absolutely nothing to do with their rights or privileges granted by the government....it has everything to do with the fact that what they do is considered abnormal by the majority of the citizens. Please tell us again, what are these 'rights' guaranteed by the constitution that they are being denied? Marriage you say? They do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex....they just don't use it.

2) And you're damn right I believe in the separation of church and state-- which is why I couldn't give a shit if gays can get married in a church/institution of worship of any denomination...why do I feel that way? Because the church and the state are separate; therefore the state shouldn't tell the church who it should marry. But since our country does recognize the union of marriage; that union (the one that is SEPARATE FROM THE CHURCH), should not be influenced by the "moral standards" of the church.

It has nothing to do with the moral standards of the church. It has to do with the moral standards of the majority of the citizens, so long as it doesn't conflict with rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I could care less either if two liberal fairys want to kiss each other and slip rings on each other's fingers and call it a marriage. But don't expect me to call that a marriage or support it in any way.

 

[Hobbit]

Blacks were not denied "certain privileges", they were denied basic human rights. They had no rights at all. And yes gays are looked down upon by much of society, but that has absolutely nothing to do with their rights or privileges granted by the government....it has everything to do with the fact that what they do is considered abnormal by the majority of the citizens. Please tell us again, what are these 'rights' guaranteed by the constitution that they are being denied? Marriage you say? They do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex....they just don't use it.

I think this is where we see the major differences between a major philosophy that can usually be divided between liberals and conservatives. Some, like liberalogic, believe that rights are given or witheld from the government. There's some that they think everybody should have, but until the government gives it to them, they don't have it. It's another big government philosophy. I, however, think that basic rights are handed down by God, and that the purpose of the government is to protect those rights from other people. The right to marry one of the same sex is not one given by God, and for the government to give it has no practical purpose. If gays had the right to marry each other, the government couldn't stop it. Oh, they could squelch it a bit and prevent you from fully exercising it, but when God gives you a right, the government can't take it away.

 

[liberalogic]

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.

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.

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.

3) "Using slavery as an example is dishonest. You are comapring 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.

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.

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.