A New Stance on Morality

[Annie]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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) "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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

best thing you've said.

 

[musicman]

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.

That is most gracious of you. And, may I say, when I speak of elitist arrogance, I'm talking more about the beating heart of liberal ideology itself than your actual, personal conduct. The world may have to spin around you a few thousand more times before you see the offensive, audacious, and hateful character of the left. That's no knock on you; youth and idealism go hand in hand - it's a fact of life. For what it's worth, I believe you advance your arguments in a quite gentlemanly fashion; I enjoy chatting with you.

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.

Please, please, PLEASE do some reading on this. You are unwittingly taking the slaveowners' side; worse - you are missing a fundamental lesson on the character of our founding fathers. The three-fifths rule had nothing to do with the concept of inherent human worth, though it is in the interest of modern-day race hucksters and Constitution-haters to have you think so.

The majority of our founders were abolitionists. They did not want slavery in the new nation. But they had a small problem. That small problem was the world's reigning superpower, sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it, for the express purpose of grinding these upstart rebels into dust. A fast compromise had to be reached; a nation can scarcely uphold ANYONE'S rights after it has been smashed. It must first survive.

Our founders knew that - survival (hopefully) ensured - the slavery issue would soon come to a head. It did, fewer than a hundred years later - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. The three-fifths compromise was a necessary measure in proper historical context; it was - in fact - the opening shot in the war which would ultimately eradicate slavery.

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.

But, as I've tried to explain to you, "fair" and "reasonable" are subjective terms.

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.

On any number of today's burning social questions, the issue at hand is, in fact, "whose call is it?" For the last thirty years, liberal socialists have made it quite clear that the voters are not "fair" and "reasonable" enough to make these decisions; the say-so belongs in the hands of the unelected, unaccountable feudal lords known as the federal judiciary. This is madness; it is a prime example of the elitist arrogance of which I often speak. As long as we can agree that my freedom to exercise my constitutional rights is in no way contingent upon my having satisfied your - or anyone else's - subjective requirements of "fairness", I'll be happy to debate my views on their merits.

 

[liberalogic]

Ok, with this 3/5 Compromise issue: I do understand that the time was different and that it was an advancement for African Americans (as 3/5 is better than 0/5). My point was that even though America was young and times were different, EVERYONE (not just abolitionists) should have recognized that slavery and their perception of blacks as inferior to whites was unjust. It's not like they were looking at a dog; they were looking at a being with the same features as them only with a different skin color. Regardless, I understand that it was a different time and that the 3/5 Compromise was helpful to the cause.

"But, as I've tried to explain to you, "fair" and "reasonable" are subjective terms."

This is absolutely correct...I completely agree. There are many interpretations of the words "fairness" and reasonable." At the same time, that doesn't mean that we can't hear each other's arguments and see where the other side is coming from. The only standard that I can ask of you or anyone else is that the point of view presented encompasses more than just an opinion, but a rationale as well. For instance, I've heard some members here say derogatory things about gay people and then use that as their argument. When I hear that, I simply conclude that the person is ignorant, biased, and (in my opinion) despicable. While I am fully aware that we can vote without rationale behind our opinions, I firmly believe that when arguing a view, one should be able to back it up. And I would like to hear your views based on their merits; meaning why you would vote against it.

"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. "

I've been very specific with the word "consent." Can a dolphin "consent" to marriage? Please don't place the idea of animal fetishes anywhere near homosexuals. While gays may gross you out less, they are two completely different matters. Remember: consent.

I'll ask this about the tax issue: If you are paying taxes, aren't the gay people paying taxes as well? It's not like straight people pay taxes and the gays get off. It's a reciprocrative relationship.

And if you are angered about paying taxes for something that you don't support, then where is my tax refund for the Iraq War? As unfair as it is, we don't control where taxes go. Don't just isolate the gay marriage issue and forget about the things that you pay for that you don't support.

 

[Annie]

Ok, with this 3/5 Compromise issue: I do understand that the time was different and that it was an advancement for African Americans (as 3/5 is better than 0/5). My point was that even though America was young and times were different, EVERYONE (not just abolitionists) should have recognized that slavery and their perception of blacks as inferior to whites was unjust. It's not like they were looking at a dog; they were looking at a being with the same features as them only with a different skin color. Regardless, I understand that it was a different time and that the 3/5 Compromise was helpful to the cause.

"But, as I've tried to explain to you, "fair" and "reasonable" are subjective terms."

This is absolutely correct...I completely agree. There are many interpretations of the words "fairness" and reasonable." At the same time, that doesn't mean that we can't hear each other's arguments and see where the other side is coming from. The only standard that I can ask of you or anyone else is that the point of view presented encompasses more than just an opinion, but a rationale as well. For instance, I've heard some members here say derogatory things about gay people and then use that as their argument. When I hear that, I simply conclude that the person is ignorant, biased, and (in my opinion) despicable. While I am fully aware that we can vote without rationale behind our opinions, I firmly believe that when arguing a view, one should be able to back it up. And I would like to hear your views based on their merits; meaning why you would vote against it.

"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. "

I've been very specific with the word "consent." Can a dolphin "consent" to marriage? Please don't place the idea of animal fetishes anywhere near homosexuals. While gays may gross you out less, they are two completely different matters. Remember: consent.

I'll ask this about the tax issue: If you are paying taxes, aren't the gay people paying taxes as well? It's not like straight people pay taxes and the gays get off. It's a reciprocrative relationship.

And if you are angered about paying taxes for something that you don't support, then where is my tax refund for the Iraq War? As unfair as it is, we don't control where taxes go. Don't just isolate the gay marriage issue and forget about the things that you pay for that you don't support.

You're still not 'getting it', but I'll leave that for another time. I have to be at work in the morning at 7am. As for taxes and paying for what doesn't 'agree with', I'll be happy to leave you free of your and others % of the war, and you leave the rest of us to withdraw from those provisos we disagree with. I'm for starting with Medicade and the new prescription addendum to Medicare. I'm also against the aid to 'education' and all foreign aid.

 

[musicman]

Ok, with this 3/5 Compromise issue: I do understand that the time was different and that it was an advancement for African Americans (as 3/5 is better than 0/5).

No - I'm afraid you're still missing the point. From the abolitionists' (and the slaves') point of view, 0/5 would have been better. And the slave states would have been delighted to claim slaves at a 1:1 - or 5/5, if you like - ratio with the rest of their populations.

States enjoy power - in the areas of representation in Congress, votes in the electoral college, et al - in direct relation to their populations. Slave states would have been only too happy to fatten their numbers by adding in people who enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation. This would have strengthened the slave states, and - by extension - the institution of slavery itself - on the very backs of those slaves!

It was the abolitionist majority who forced this compromise. We can well afford to Monday morning quarterback them now, from the vantage point of freedom they bought for us with their courage and their blood. But, remember - the British were coming! A nation can scarcely preserve freedoms if it ceases to be a nation.

I have no words to describe my rage and contempt at educators and self-appointed leaders who try to represent the three-fifths compromise as some indication of our founders' racist views on the innate human worth of slaves. It is a vicious, hateful, agenda-driven lie - and the sheer, mind-numbing audacity of it is that precisely the opposite was true.

I would like to hear your views based on their merits; meaning why you would vote against it.

That's fair enough. We're getting into a fairly broad area here: Which philosophies inform my worldview? What is it that I feel most strongly about? How do I perceive danger? What have my life experiences taught me? Scooping all of this up into one or two coherent opinions seems a daunting task. Why don't we just go wherever the discussion takes us?

One assertion I've made is that homosexuality is a demonstrably dangerous behavior; that society further legitimizes the lifestyle at it's peril. As one proof, I have offered the scientific study which shows that homosexuals commit a percentage of child molestations that is wildly out of whack with their population numbers.

This study is now nearing twenty years old, and has never, ever been refuted. The doctor who conducted it has been vilified to within an inch of his life, to be sure; one does not sail heresies into the face of the politically correct establishment with impunity. And his findings have been parsed, manipulated and couched to the point of pathetic comedy (100% of child molestations are carried out by PEDOPHILES - their sexual preference is irrelevant; the study doesn't factor in bisexuality; the glaring disparity is easily explained - homosexual pedophiles are in fact "super-predators" - as if this in itself doesn't suggest something disturbing about homosexuality; homosexual pedophiles rack up more victims because our bigoted society makes victims ashamed to speak out - i.e., it's OUR fault; etc., etc., ad nauseum).

It all works a little hard for the rhyme, don't you think? And, at the end of the day, the findings remain - unrefuted. I take no vicious glee in presenting these numbers, liberalogic. I don't hate anybody. But they suggest something disturbing about homosexuality, don't they? Don't you think society has a right, and a duty, to get to the bottom of this, before it allows itself to be bullied and browbeaten into accepting homosexuality as just an orientation - no better or worse than any other?

 

[Gunny]

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?

It is not solely my definition. It is the definition given by the overwhelming majority of ALL societies since the beginning of recorded history. And society DOES decide what is and is not acceptable to it.
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.

It makes perfect sense. There is no logical reason to allow them to marry. It is biologically pointless, and weakens our society by allowing the fringe minority to dictate law to the overwhelming majority.

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.

Gays are not "born that way." That is nothing more than your opinion, and if you pull up a bunch of the one-sided links that say it is, I can pull up just as many that say it isn't. There is no conclusive proof one way or the other, so it boils down to your opinion vs mine, and I disagree with yours.

If gays use their homosexuality to define who they are, it is absurd to believe that it is not going to factor into how they are treated.

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.

The moral standard is set. YOU are the one trying to replace what already exists with a lesser standard.

IMO, my moral values ARE better than yours; otherwise, I would adopt yours, right? I have seen no logical reason, nor argument from you that would lead me to think I should.

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.

Again, I do not define "normal," society has. And I believe I did not point a finger at you with my statement regarding hypocrisy, and made a point of explaining why I did not.

If the shoe doesn't fit, quit trying so hard to put it on.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

originally posted by liberal logic:
Quote:
2) respect/fairness/tolerant
We may all have different opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong," but the least that we can do is respect others as long as they do not hurt us or hurt and take advantage of others. If someone is living life in accordance with the rights of others, we have no reason to condemn them or deny them, even if we disagree with them internally. To disagree with someone is one thing, but to tell them how they must live (if they are not violating the rights of others) is another.

Yeah try getting that point through to all the bigoted homophobic Christians on this board.

Yea, Powerman, your response is the most RESPECTFUL/TOLERANT/ AND FAIR response I have ever seen!

This debate can easily go into many directions. One thing to consider is the term "traditional values" in our society, has a somewhat peculiar meaning anymore, somewhat hijacked by conservative Christians. Not in a negative way though. I use the term hijacked in a somewhat modern sense of the term also.

Now, if we read the Declaration of Independence, a very extremely important document, one that many liberals love to dismiss as meaningless, (yet without it we wouldnt exist as a nation, and we managed to go 13 years without the present Constituion, hmmmm) our rights, inalienable, are afforded us by our Creator.

The basic difference in the beliefs of "traditional values" proponents is the source of those values. Christians believe certain values are God given, and not affordable to change. Non Christians might have beliefs in "values" that include things like murder is wrong, but what, what in a Godless society would prevent certain acts, like cannabalism (which was ended in some cultures by Christians) and virgin sacrafice, to become legal if THE MAJORITY DEEMED IT OK?

Christians cannot deem certain acts moral. Adultery for example. Other Godless societies can, and are not bound by ANYTHING other than their own thinking. Dont think things like cannabalism and virgin sacrafice can happen in our society??????

Its actually rather ironic that the most ardent supporters of abortion are females (but not in actual percentage of females who support abortion), and yet this same barbaric act they wish to keep legal and they claim gives females more freedom and equality, is the same barbaric act that is dwindling their own numbers:

Summary

The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.

The background

"Female infanticide is the intentional killing of baby girls due to the preference for male babies and from the low value associated with the birth of females." (Marina Porras, "Female Infanticide and Foeticide".) It should be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of infanticide, which has also targeted the physically or mentally handicapped, and infant males (alongside infant females or, occasionally, on a gender-selective basis). As with maternal mortality, some would dispute the assigning of infanticide or female infanticide to the category of "genocide" or, as here, "gendercide." Nonetheless, the argument advanced in the maternal mortality case-study holds true in this case as well: governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement, as by direct murder. R.J. Rummel buttresses this view, referring to infanticide as

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

ahhh yea, but dont let the facts get in the way of them using PARTIAL truths to further their propaganda.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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).

First, you are simply wrong about the "seperation" concept. We have thouroughly proven the founding fathers NEVER wrote, nor intended for their to be a complete seperation of church and state.

Second, marriage is a cultural institution that is supported by our society to create strong families and help kids have a steady enviorment to grow up in. Our society supports, overwhelmingly, heterosexual marriages ONLY. The govt supports it also as a function of the government IS THE PEOPLE voice.

The people have spoken. You have lost. It wont change, get over it.

As for comparing black civil rights to homosexual civil rights, virtually every black person I speak to, friend or stranger, is OFFENDED when homosexual equate the two. There is simply no comparision. NO RIGHTS afforded anyone else is denied homosexuals. The PRIVLEDGE of marriage is regulated by the state because it is an institution formed to help society at large. It is a PRIVLEDGE to get married, just as getting a drivers license, and the state has the authority to regulate who receives one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

You make some good points, but I want to add something. ALOT, maybe most, homosexuals arent for same sex marriage. Most homosexuals do not support the radical homosexual lobby, and the fact is, MOST of the people making noise about this issue are non homosexual liberals who need something to attack conservative republicans about,mainly cuz the economy is doing so GREAT!

As musicman said, most Americans hear the shallow sound of elitists pounding for issues they really know nothing about, but the general public smells them the instant they walk in the door, the stench of hypocracy is something those from the school of hard knocks detect quite easily.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

Yea, isnt that peculiar? you could be murdered by someone and they would receive a lesser punishment just because you arent a homosexual. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMM

The main point that needs to be brought up when this issue arises is that marriage laws are laws of granting a PRIVLEDGE, not controlling illegal behavior. Privledge laws by nature are discriminatory.

Making discrimination illegal has to do with the activity of everyday americans, and the govt in how it applies existing laws, but not laws of privledge. I hear elderly people complain every time an old person plows into a crowd and kills many because they thought the gas pedal was the brake. Then people start calling for more testing for older drivers, then the AARP starts yelling discrimination! PRIVLEDGE LAWS ARE ALWAYS DISCRIMINATORY. They are there precisely to encourage CERTAIN people to certain behaviors.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Blacks were not denied "certain privileges", they were denied basic human rights. They had no rights at all.

BINGO! Marriage laws discriminate regarding who are allowed certain PRIVLEDGES, just as states have the right to regulate transportation, trade, business and marriage, because these are all activities that influence our society at large.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

I thouroughly enjoyed the tone of your post.
I dont think Musicman was lecturing you, so to speak, as much as speaking out as he understands quite well, how we conservatives have been getting reamed by the liberals using judicial fiat, and he is expressing his overwhelming joy that the country is finally reeling it in.

My only comment is that you consider marriage a right, I dont. It isnt a right, it is a privledge. Rights, by definition, have to extend to every living human being in the society. Do children have the right to marry? No, I dont think so. Yet every right afforded in the Constitution, with some degree, extends to children also. Marriage, like a drivers license, is a privledge.

You seem reasonable at times, I suggest you think of what some of us have been saying in terms of marriage as a right vs. a privledge, spend some time thinking that issue through.

By the way, as for homosexuality being abnormal. Yea, some things are simply self evident.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No - I'm afraid you're still missing the point. From the abolitionists' (and the slaves') point of view, 0/5 would have been better. And the slave states would have been delighted to claim slaves at a 1:1 - or 5/5, if you like - ratio with the rest of their populations.

States enjoy power - in the areas of representation in Congress, votes in the electoral college, et al - in direct relation to their populations. Slave states would have been only too happy to fatten their numbers by adding in people who enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation. This would have strengthened the slave states, and - by extension - the institution of slavery itself - on the very backs of those slaves!

It was the abolitionist majority who forced this compromise. We can well afford to Monday morning quarterback them now, from the vantage point of freedom they bought for us with their courage and their blood. But, remember - the British were coming! A nation can scarcely preserve freedoms if it ceases to be a nation.

I have no words to describe my rage and contempt at educators and self-appointed leaders who try to represent the three-fifths compromise as some indication of our founders' racist views on the innate human worth of slaves. It is a vicious, hateful, agenda-driven lie - and the sheer, mind-numbing audacity of it is that precisely the opposite was true.



That's fair enough. We're getting into a fairly broad area here: Which philosophies inform my worldview? What is it that I feel most strongly about? How do I perceive danger? What have my life experiences taught me? Scooping all of this up into one or two coherent opinions seems a daunting task. Why don't we just go wherever the discussion takes us?

One assertion I've made is that homosexuality is a demonstrably dangerous behavior; that society further legitimizes the lifestyle at it's peril. As one proof, I have offered the scientific study which shows that homosexuals commit a percentage of child molestations that is wildly out of whack with their population numbers.

This study is now nearing twenty years old, and has never, ever been refuted. The doctor who conducted it has been vilified to within an inch of his life, to be sure; one does not sail heresies into the face of the politically correct establishment with impunity. And his findings have been parsed, manipulated and couched to the point of pathetic comedy (100% of child molestations are carried out by PEDOPHILES - their sexual preference is irrelevant; the study doesn't factor in bisexuality; the glaring disparity is easily explained - homosexual pedophiles are in fact "super-predators" - as if this in itself doesn't suggest something disturbing about homosexuality; homosexual pedophiles rack up more victims because our bigoted society makes victims ashamed to speak out - i.e., it's OUR fault; etc., etc., ad nauseum).

It all works a little hard for the rhyme, don't you think? And, at the end of the day, the findings remain - unrefuted. I take no vicious glee in presenting these numbers, liberalogic. I don't hate anybody. But they suggest something disturbing about homosexuality, don't they? Don't you think society has a right, and a duty, to get to the bottom of this, before it allows itself to be bullied and browbeaten into accepting homosexuality as just an orientation - no better or worse than any other?

Oh my gosh, not to mention the health statistics related to homosexuals. They die much younger, suffer many more health problems, (sorry, packing the fudge just doesnt work with what nature intended for our bodies to do).

Its quite ironic that we have had to go out and make specific laws opposing same sex marriage BECAUSE OF THE JUDICIAL FIAT that you speak of. If the justices werent CREATING laws and CREATING PRIVLEDGES (affirmative action anyone?) for people who shouldnt have them, then we wouldnt have to pass such laws. The judiciual activists are the ones FORCING people to come out in droves to pass such laws.

The state has the right to regulate certain activities. Business, transportation, marriage.It was never looked upon as a "right" to have those privledges. But now that the term "rights" has been so perverted, and judicial activists have gotten involved and granted special privledges to certain groups based on the notion of "equal rights" we now have to take matters into our own hands.

 

[liberalogic]

I thouroughly enjoyed the tone of your post.
I dont think Musicman was lecturing you, so to speak, as much as speaking out as he understands quite well, how we conservatives have been getting reamed by the liberals using judicial fiat, and he is expressing his overwhelming joy that the country is finally reeling it in.

My only comment is that you consider marriage a right, I dont. It isnt a right, it is a privledge. Rights, by definition, have to extend to every living human being in the society. Do children have the right to marry? No, I dont think so. Yet every right afforded in the Constitution, with some degree, extends to children also. Marriage, like a drivers license, is a privledge.

You seem reasonable at times, I suggest you think of what some of us have been saying in terms of marriage as a right vs. a privledge, spend some time thinking that issue through.

By the way, as for homosexuality being abnormal. Yea, some things are simply self evident.

I understand that marriage is a priviledge and not a right. I may have used the words interchangeably (albeit accidentally), but I have cautioned against morphing a priviledge into a right. And I agree with you: there is a difference.

Quite frankly, I do not post pro gay marriage statements in order to piss off people on the right; nor to attack conservatives when the economy is doing well. I write these things because I think they are fair and that is my opinion.

I've argued the separation of church and state in many threads. My fundamental premise is the first ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). I've explained my interpretation various times and many here just don't see it the same way as me. Regardless, allowing religious principles to be a factor in the law is not appropriate. We (as a country) have no religion; we have no God; we only have the law. Please don't post links to the intentions of the founding fathers because I can find just as many biased links on the other side of the spectrum.

The reason why we do not let children marry is because they are not at the age where they can consent to marriage. My entire rationale behind this argument is consent. An animal can't marry a man because the animal cannot consent. A child cannot marry an adult because the child cannot consent. Two adults of the same sex can consent and therefore I believe that they should be able to get married, regardless of tradition. And part of the reason why I referred to slavery/segregation with this issue is because it was a tradition that dated back to biblical times. Does that make it right? And I'm not implying that all change is good, but instead that just because something is "tradition" doesn't make it fair or right.

While marriage is a priviledge, there is no reason why homosexuals should not be entitled to it. They are not endangering the union of marriage, they are broadening it so that it embraces equality.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I understand that marriage is a priviledge and not a right. I may have used the words interchangeably (albeit accidentally), but I have cautioned against morphing a priviledge into a right. And I agree with you: there is a difference..

You arent the only one who has accidentally used it interchangably. The liberals have pushed it in that direction because thats how they want the arguement framed. Its hard to argue that one group shouldnt have equal rights. Its kinda like the question, "have you quit beating your wife", if you frame the arguement as it being a question of "equal rights", then the debate is over.

Quite frankly, I do not post pro gay marriage statements in order to piss off people on the right; nor to attack conservatives when the economy is doing well. I write these things because I think they are fair and that is my opinion.

I've argued the separation of church and state in many threads. My fundamental premise is the first ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). I've explained my interpretation various times and many here just don't see it the same way as me. Regardless, allowing religious principles to be a factor in the law is not appropriate. We (as a country) have no religion; we have no God; we only have the law. Please don't post links to the intentions of the founding fathers because I can find just as many biased links on the other side of the spectrum..

However, no one has answered how the first amendment could possibly be construed to mean govt should not be influenced by religion when the signers of the Constitution went back to their respective states and did just that.

The reason why we do not let children marry is because they are not at the age where they can consent to marriage. My entire rationale behind this argument is consent. An animal can't marry a man because the animal cannot consent. A child cannot marry an adult because the child cannot consent. Two adults of the same sex can consent and therefore I believe that they should be able to get married, regardless of tradition. .

This is another attempt to "frame" the issue as something it isnt. Consent between adults is not, and never has been the binding issue if something should be legal or not. A person can consent to let another kill them, but its still homicide/murder. Many agreements between consenting adults are illegal, even financial contracts with too high an interest rate (usury, and this goes back to Biblical principles which again shows the influence of Judeo-Christian values in our laws). Agreements to slavery type conditions are illegal. The laws of the land are full of instances where consent between two adults is simply not enough to justify the agreement. So, using that, or "fairness" is not a sound basis for arguing why the law or privledge of marriage should be granted to someone. Another example is brother sister marriage, they are consenting adults. And besides, yes, animals CAN CONSENT.

And part of the reason why I referred to slavery/segregation with this issue is because it was a tradition that dated back to biblical times. Does that make it right? And I'm not implying that all change is good, but instead that just because something is "tradition" doesn't make it fair or right..

Comparing Biblical slavery to what was occuring circa 1700's and 1800's Europe and America is not even remotely accurate. The two terms describe two radically different situations.

While marriage is a priviledge, there is no reason why homosexuals should not be entitled to it. They are not endangering the union of marriage, they are broadening it so that it embraces equality.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons why they should not be entitled to it.
It wont benefit society in any large or practical way.
It will clog up family law courts which are already overcrowded as is and often leads to bad choice in placement of kids regarding who gets custody and sometimes even leads to the death of the kids because the court doesnt have enough time to hear all the arguements by the parties involved. Homosexual marriage will just add to that problem when the two guys divorcing are arguing before the judge as to who gets the poodle.
When society supports an activity, it encourages more people to engage in it.
There are people who are borderline on deciding if to engage in such activity or not. Homosexual activity is very detrimental to the health of the people involved.
Heterosexual marriage is encouraged because it strengthens families and creates enviorments that are more healthy for kids (contrary to what welfare does, and many other liberal ideas eminating from the 60's on).

 

[liberalogic]

You arent the only one who has accidentally used it interchangably. The liberals have pushed it in that direction because thats how they want the arguement framed. Its hard to argue that one group shouldnt have equal rights. Its kinda like the question, "have you quit beating your wife", if you frame the arguement as it being a question of "equal rights", then the debate is over.

However, no one has answered how the first amendment could possibly be construed to mean govt should not be influenced by religion when the signers of the Constitution went back to their respective states and did just that.


This is another attempt to "frame" the issue as something it isnt. Consent between adults is not, and never has been the binding issue if something should be legal or not. A person can consent to let another kill them, but its still homicide/murder. Many agreements between consenting adults are illegal, even financial contracts with too high an interest rate (usury, and this goes back to Biblical principles which again shows the influence of Judeo-Christian values in our laws). Agreements to slavery type conditions are illegal. The laws of the land are full of instances where consent between two adults is simply not enough to justify the agreement. So, using that, or "fairness" is not a sound basis for arguing why the law or privledge of marriage should be granted to someone. Another example is brother sister marriage, they are consenting adults. And besides, yes, animals CAN CONSENT.


Comparing Biblical slavery to what was occuring circa 1700's and 1800's Europe and America is not even remotely accurate. The two terms describe two radically different situations.



Yes, there are plenty of reasons why they should not be entitled to it.
It wont benefit society in any large or practical way.
It will clog up family law courts which are already overcrowded as is and often leads to bad choice in placement of kids regarding who gets custody and sometimes even leads to the death of the kids because the court doesnt have enough time to hear all the arguements by the parties involved. Homosexual marriage will just add to that problem when the two guys divorcing are arguing before the judge as to who gets the poodle.
When society supports an activity, it encourages more people to engage in it.
There are people who are borderline on deciding if to engage in such activity or not. Homosexual activity is very detrimental to the health of the people involved.
Heterosexual marriage is encouraged because it strengthens families and creates enviorments that are more healthy for kids (contrary to what welfare does, and many other liberal ideas eminating from the 60's on).

The first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." "The establishment of religion" is any institutional form of religion- judaeism, christianity, islam, etc. By Congress not making a law that respects these institutions, it is not making a law based on religion.

My point with consent was not to show that all consent is good, but to invalidate the comparison to bestiality...despite what you say, animals cannot consent. If two consenting adults want to get married, they should be able to.

Your point about clogging up the courts is very good. I can agree with you there. But at the same time, that doesn't make it fair that gay people can't get married. You can also look at it this way: the President says that we are in Iraq to spread freedom and democracy. Didn't that decision hurt us a bit financially? Didn't it kill over a thousand soldiers? But once again, we are in Iraq because it is the "right" or "fair" thing to do. We went in knowing that there would be consequences in order to ensure fairness to the people there. So my connection here is as follows: We are willing to risk those consequences to liberate Iraq to ensure fairness, yet clogging up the courts is a reprecussion that is far greater than fairness.

It's funny because we're supposed to be teaching the world a lesson about freedom, yet we limit it unfairly in our own society.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." "The establishment of religion" is any institutional form of religion- judaeism, christianity, islam, etc. By Congress not making a law that respects these institutions, it is not making a law based on religion. .

No, the first amendment was put in, AND LISTED FIRST, because King George had created a national religion in England, the church of england, so he could get his desired divorce. The colonists despised the fact that he imposed that upon them, THEY WANTED their individual colonies to decide for themselves which official religion their states would sponsor. IT had ZERO intent for preventing religion to have an effect or be the basis for govt decisions.

My point with consent was not to show that all consent is good, but to invalidate the comparison to bestiality...despite what you say, animals cannot consent. If two consenting adults want to get married, they should be able to..

brother and sister? and besides, my point still stands, consent is not a good yardstick. Betterment of society is. But animals certainly can give consent. When a female doesnt want to engage in sex with a male, she lets him know, when she does want to consent, she lets him know. Their are many more ways of communicating than through speech or the written word.

Your point about clogging up the courts is very good. I can agree with you there. But at the same time, that doesn't make it fair that gay people can't get married..

It is not the govt's role to create fairness. LIfe isnt fair. Heck, I have to pay taxes to put others through college, yet I was not ever able to afford it myself. Is that fair?
'

You can also look at it this way: the President says that we are in Iraq to spread freedom and democracy. Didn't that decision hurt us a bit financially? Didn't it kill over a thousand soldiers? But once again, we are in Iraq because it is the "right" or "fair" thing to do. We went in knowing that there would be consequences in order to ensure fairness to the people there. So my connection here is as follows: We are willing to risk those consequences to liberate Iraq to ensure fairness, yet clogging up the courts is a reprecussion that is far greater than fairness..

No, it wasnt based on "fairness". It was "partly" fairness, but MOSTLY because of our national interests, and security. This in fact pesuades one to my point about betterment of society. Free flowing oil in Iraq, and a democratic govt that wont support terrorism is in the USA's best interests. If "fairness" were the priority in deciding, we would have gone into Sudan, or Tibet instead of Iraq. North Korea for that matter also. Of course, then their is the Democratic National Convention, to be completely fair, I think the military needs to invade that for sure!

It's funny because we're supposed to be teaching the world a lesson about freedom, yet we limit it unfairly in our own society.

We dont have unlimited freedom by any means, but we do basically have more than anyone else.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Of course not. We should be in the business of granting as many rights as possible. Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority. This is one of those cases. It's not like we're granting them anything extra that no one else has. We're just making things equal. Do you have a problem with granting equal rights to other human beings?

Even most of the people who are very vocally against same sex marriage have expressed a willingness to support civil unions. If it's just about having rights, why not accept civil unions?

As for other things mentioned, it's often the difference between what people whould do as individuals and what the government should do and how much power the government should have that is the question.

 

[liberalogic]

It is not the govt's role to create fairness. LIfe isnt fair. Heck, I have to pay taxes to put others through college, yet I was not ever able to afford it myself. Is that fair?

What are we as a country if we are not fair? And you're right; we aren't fair (just the example you give above is a perfect example). But it SHOULD be the government's role to ensure fairness; otherwise the entire idea of equality goes down the drain.

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or the role of the government in ensuring fairness; do you think that not allowing gay people to marry is unfair?