Where are my civil rights?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:42 am

Ambar wrote:
Viclor Voddyn wrote:Only argument that can stand up to non-gay rights, is God says its BAD.


yeah out of context and all ..

who has had a person to person talk with God lately?


Bush...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:48 am

On that note, just pretend it's too really ugly people getting married. No one wants to see that either.

But seriously, I've met a lot of people in rl and some around the mud who just think that your choice (their words, not mine)is a perversion. I fortunately stopped caring that they feel this way, but I am sorry anyone would say that about what's important to you when what you want is so basic to many other people out there. It's not hurting other people and I hope someday things get better. Good luck.

BTW: This are my condolences, not an attempt to start a gay debate. Ehh, a debate about what being gay is all about, that is. You know what I mean.
shalath
Sojourner
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:46 pm

some comments

Postby shalath » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:12 am

FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:

Here in the UK, unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples. You simply have to be living together, in a permanent relationship. This applies to any couple living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is an historically important legal institution, but is not "necessary". In fact, the statistics here are interesting (much as I despise statistics). One in three marriages in the UK end in divorce. I'm not sure how that compares to the US, but it's a frightening statistic. Conversely, 40% of long term relationships here in the UK are unmarried couples. This is a trend that is growing.

It's true that homosexual marriages cannot take place. But over here, there is much less "need" for them to take place. Marriage, as an institution, is fading from the secular world, slowly but surely. People are finding that marriage can negatively affect a relationship. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen - but that's how things are moving in the UK.

SECOND - from a religious point of view:

I was brought up in a mixture of Polish and English Catholic traditions. The Catholic church says that homosexual relations are a SIN and if you do not REPENT, you will BURN IN HELL for ever for your actions.

Mind you, the catholic church also says that masturbation is a sin. As is sex before marriage (a catholic marriage of course, legal marriages are irrelevant in the eyes of the church, so all those sinners fucking after their registry office weddings will BURN IN HELL for ever too).

As a matter of fact, 'recreational sex' is also theoretically a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church even when you are married. That is, any sexual act which does not take place specifically for the purpose of procreation is a sin, even between a married couple, in the strictest catholic tradition.

A lot of this is bullshit. But that doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe in my church. I go to church, my children will be brought up in the Catholic tradition, and my faith is very strong. The Catholic church is slowly changing. The rules exist the way they do because of history. As the world changes, the church must and will change with it. The core tenets of belief will remain, but as the older generations die out, younger priests will bring their own interpretations to the texts and foundations of belief, and things will change.


SUMMARY

In Poland up until very recently a priest did not have the right to legally marry two people, rather they were forced to have two weddings, a church wedding and a registry office wedding. I think that this distinction between church and state is important (although it was recently abolished, mainly for practical reasons to stop people from having to have two wedding ceremonies! I had a registry office wedding in the morning, then we went to a photographer for a couple of hours, then we had a church wedding in the afternoon, then the wedding party - which lasted until 6:30am the next morning - the Poles know how to party).

In my opinion, if two people love each other, that is all that counts. Nothing else is relevant. "Love conquers all"? Well, maybe not always - but it really really does count. Nothing else is as important.

-thalash
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:29 pm

It was my understanding that the entire purpose of this was to use the term 'marriage' for heterosexual couples and coin some other term for other couples - but to ultimately grant some sort of official standing to both.

I haven't paid close attention to politics in a long time. Is this incorrect?
Yotus group-says 'special quest if you type hi dragon'
Shevarash OOC: 'I feature only the finest mammary glands.'
Silena group-says 'he was so fat and juicy..couldnt resist'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:33 pm

moritheil wrote:It was my understanding that the entire purpose of this was to use the term 'marriage' for heterosexual couples and coin some other term for other couples - but to ultimately grant some sort of official standing to both.

I haven't paid close attention to politics in a long time. Is this incorrect?


The people who are seriously against gay marriage also tend to be against civil unions.

I just think that having civil unions constitutes "seperate but equal" and is akin to the old Jim Crowe laws which used to subjugate black people.

Frankly, what does a civil union provide that a legal marriage (in front of a judge instead of a priest) doesn't? Nothing? Then why make a seperate category for them?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:55 pm

How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.

1) Seperation of Church and State

The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church).

2) You Are Just As Immoral

Ok, offensive for the first part, which will put people on the defensive. This is like self-deleting. The louder you shout after this the louder they will shout back. Furthermore, any religious person will remind you that we are all sinners to begin with. They will still be strongly against their government allowing gay marraige.

Now for some seperate aruging points:

1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.

There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.

2) As Soon As The Church Starts Accepting Gay Marriage the State Will as Well

This is just a cold, hard fact. It has nothing to do with the influence of the church upon the state, but a reaffirmation of the effect of the people upon the state as well as the right to religion. As soon as mainstream churches (you know, ones with more than 2000 members nationwide) accept gay marriage, you will see a re-exploration of the subject of gay marriage.

Before you Flame:

I do not actually have a stance on whether or not gay marriage should or should not be outlawed.
Viclor Voddyn
Sojourner
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:13 am

Postby Viclor Voddyn » Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:15 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.

There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.


This is true.
Oghma responds to your petition with 'then you'll have to give me your credit card numbers, ban
k accounts, and shoe size.'

Oghma responds to your petition with 'but we'll wait until you hit 40 first'
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:48 am

Viclor Voddyn wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.

There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.


This is true.


Unless you live in Massachusetts. Then a few members of a court decide whatever they want and force it on the rest of us... or on other issues the leglislature ignores how the majority voted and goes against the people anyway.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:05 am

Can you explain the difference between segregation of blacks and this current subjugation of the gays?

Then take a go at how peaceful and non-confrontational the fight for the civil rights of black people were when they got rid of that segregation.

Lastly, explain how desegregation was really beneficial to the country beyond lessening the civil unrest being experienced at the time.


Go back to Lincoln, he freed the slaves because he understad as a human that slavery is wrong. He fought to do so, and it was actually tremendously _harmful_ to agriculture in the South.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: some comments

Postby Dlur » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:50 am

shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:

SECOND - from a religious point of view:

I was brought up in a mixture of Polish and English Catholic traditions. The Catholic church says that homosexual relations are a SIN and if you do not REPENT, you will BURN IN HELL for ever for your actions.

Mind you, the catholic church also says that masturbation is a sin. As is sex before marriage (a catholic marriage of course, legal marriages are irrelevant in the eyes of the church, so all those sinners fucking after their registry office weddings will BURN IN HELL for ever too).

As a matter of fact, 'recreational sex' is also theoretically a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church even when you are married. That is, any sexual act which does not take place specifically for the purpose of procreation is a sin, even between a married couple, in the strictest catholic tradition.

-thalash


So, let me get this straight. According to strict Catholic doctrine, homosexuality is a sin, masturbation is a sin, and screwing to have a good time is a sin(every sperm is sacred you know), but on the other hand priests raping altar boys is perfectly fine.

Yeah, sounds about right to me. Where do I sign up to become a Catholic?

Anyways, on a more serious note, for what it's worth, here's my views:

1) I do think marriage is a dying tradition. People are getting divorced almost as fast as they get married. More and more people are "living in sin" today than ever before and it's only going to keep happening more often.

2) I was in a long term relationship for 8 years. It was all peaches and cake until she went whackjob nutso on me about 2 years ago out of the blue. I thank the Four Winds every day that I didn't marry her. Any time I get down about the world, I just think how much worse things would have been if I had gotten hitched up.

3) I personally think there should be two checkboxes on your tax return: "Single" and "Not Single". That's as far as the government should get involved. I don't even think "marriage" should be a word that's in the government's dictionary regardless of who it applies to. I don't care if a man and a woman are "Not Single" together, or if it's two guys, two gals, a guy and 5 guys, or a hermaphrodite and an emu, should be the same thing.

4) I think that shared insurance(health, life, etc), death benefits, medical rights(including emergency care situations), social security and retirement benefits, tax benefits/hinderances, and any other "benefits" or "hinderances" that are currently applied to "married" couples should be applied to anyone who is "Not single" with another person.

5) If you want to get married, go to a church. I don't care what church it is, find someone that will marry you and go there. If the Catholics can't be bothered to marry you because they're too busy cornholing little boys then find a place of worship that follows some religion that actually does love everyone the same and doesn't discriminate against you.


In conclusion, these are my opinions. Everyone has one, but this one is mine. This particular opinion will piss certain people off, but at the end of the day it's just my opinion and it really doesn't hold any water by itself. I honestly don't care what sexual orientation you are, what you do in the privacy of your home, or what religion you are as long as you don't tell me what I should do personally. I also feel that marriage isn't something the government should be involved in, regardless of who the person or persons that are getting married are. I feel that as far as the government goes EVERYONE should get the same stick. I also feel that marriage is a remnant of dying religions that should stay a tennant of religion or whatever belief system you happen to have.

Also, someone is going to throw the whole separate but equal thing in here. What I'm proposing about would be completely equal. There would be no government marriages for anyone, at all, period. Only cival unions if that's what you want to call "not single".

Oh, and Birile thanks for your response. I appreciate it. I read it all and I do agree with a lot of what you had to say, and can definately see things from your point of view. I obviously have my own opinion on the subject, and although it may not help matters and isn't what the LBGT community necesarily have in mind as a collective, I thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of having my voice be heard.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:29 am

Sarvis wrote:Can you explain the difference between segregation of blacks and this current subjugation of the gays?

Then take a go at how peaceful and non-confrontational the fight for the civil rights of black people were when they got rid of that segregation.

Lastly, explain how desegregation was really beneficial to the country beyond lessening the civil unrest being experienced at the time.


Go back to Lincoln, he freed the slaves because he understad as a human that slavery is wrong. He fought to do so, and it was actually tremendously _harmful_ to agriculture in the South.


For their respective time periods, there is not much difference. The repression of gay couples in Amercia is the modern version fo the segregation of years past. It's only different in that it has a modern face, ie no KKK, no actual slavery, just don't want them to marry and be forced to accept it.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:32 am

Marriage is not a dying tradition, rather people have misinterpreted what marriage is.

Marriage is a comittment based on duty.

When we get married, we say "I do." rahter than "I feel."

What is not understood by much of society at large is that marriage is a comittment to actions and deeds, not words and feelings.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:32 am

I'd like to point out that two different types of marriage currenly exist. The regular marriage that we are all used to and a newer type called a covenant marriage. It exists in a few states now. In a nutshell, it is a marriage that you must have a reason for (abuse, infidelity, and a few other serious ones) a divorce. In addition, it takes a longer time to get a divorce from a covenant marriage. If two types of marriage currently exist, why not a type of marriage for same sex folks?

I think the danger here is similar to what dlur said, but I approach it from a different angle. Marriage is in trouble, more than half end in divorce. Most think that it results because we have taken the specialness of marriage away. Hell, no fault divorce was a terrible thing because it makes it to easy to get a divorce. We need to make sure we keep marriage special in our society. You see marriage isn't about love and that sort of thing. Really, it is a contract between two ppl and by the state to create a partnership for a family. We shouldn't mess with the definition of marriage which is considered by most to be between a man and woman.

We should create some sort of contractual relationship for homosexuals though. It should include things like partner benefits, estate protection, partner protection in terms of property during a marriage if a divorce takes place, and the same tax implications should be applied to this relationship as a hetersexual marriage. Hell, let them have the marriage penalty that us married folks used to have, until Bush removed it.

In closing, it is not segregation, it is simply that most folks believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a contractual relationship backed by the state. It is also a special religious meaning and serves a purpose in society. Create another marriage type in addition to regular marriage and convenant marriages for homosexuals.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:26 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.


The chances of changing anybody's mind on most moral issues is about .001% chance anyway, so arguing any point at all can be concidered a waste of time...just how life is.

teflor the ranger wrote:1) Seperation of Church and State

The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church).


First, there is no seperation of church and state...no where in the constitution. Also, you are confusing morality with religious dogma and doctrines. Morality is a completely different entity than the church. Churches are only seen as institutions of morality...their own morality. As far as your last argument there...murder is one person being responsible for taking another's right to live. Homosexual marriages, on the other hand, hurt nobody. This is why most, if not all, countries will adopt this "no murder" commandment as law. I'd like to see somebody try to justify slaver by saying, "What, you want to abolish slavery? Well, we might as well just start killing people as we chose then because it's in the same ballpark!"


teflor the ranger wrote:2) You Are Just As Immoral

Ok, offensive for the first part, which will put people on the defensive. This is like self-deleting. The louder you shout after this the louder they will shout back. Furthermore, any religious person will remind you that we are all sinners to begin with. They will still be strongly against their government allowing gay marraige.


This doesn't mean they are not still bigots and idiots. Like stated above...you'll probably never ever change a hardcore christian's mind on this subject...no matter what.

teflor the ranger wrote:1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.


The majority of the country was for burning witches, enslaving mexicans, indians, and africans. The majority was for the repression of women. The majority of the country where for the enslavement of chinese. Astoundingly, the majority where wrong... Just because the majority wills it does not mean it is right, and, since this is true, no government should ever segregate or discriminate a group of people based on majority. Segregation and discrimination are inherently bad and do nothing good for the country except let people live in the past.

teflor the ranger wrote:There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.


There was no tangible benefit from african's being freed either. Hell, we lost a lot of free labor. There was no tangible benefit from letting blacks drink out of the white's drinking fountains either -- none at all...yet it was still proven wrong and it was still changed. These are very poor logic arguments and this is why bigotry is idiotic.

teflor the ranger wrote:2) As Soon As The Church Starts Accepting Gay Marriage the State Will as Well

This is just a cold, hard fact. It has nothing to do with the influence of the church upon the state, but a reaffirmation of the effect of the people upon the state as well as the right to religion. As soon as mainstream churches (you know, ones with more than 2000 members nationwide) accept gay marriage, you will see a re-exploration of the subject of gay marriage.


The government should never wait to follow the suit of the Church. They did this in the middle ages, and I would have hoped we had learned from their mistakes by now. No matter how many people wish to stay in the dark ages, the government should not base it's laws around victimless morals created by any church or religion.

teflor the ranger wrote:Before you Flame:

I do not actually have a stance on whether or not gay marriage should or should not be outlawed.


Don't take this as a flame at all, but these arguments are extremely weak. Most of their basis is set on fallicies of logic. They are also based on the idea of keeping unconstitutional laws for the simple fact that the church and majority deems it so -- even though they wrong and have been proven wrong by the past on countless occasions.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
shalath
Sojourner
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:46 pm

Re: some comments

Postby shalath » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:01 am

Dlur wrote:
shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:

SECOND - from a religious point of view:

I was brought up in a mixture of Polish and English Catholic traditions. The Catholic church says that homosexual relations are a SIN and if you do not REPENT, you will BURN IN HELL for ever for your actions.

Mind you, the catholic church also says that masturbation is a sin. As is sex before marriage (a catholic marriage of course, legal marriages are irrelevant in the eyes of the church, so all those sinners fucking after their registry office weddings will BURN IN HELL for ever too).

As a matter of fact, 'recreational sex' is also theoretically a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church even when you are married. That is, any sexual act which does not take place specifically for the purpose of procreation is a sin, even between a married couple, in the strictest catholic tradition.

-thalash

[...]


Just one request - when you quote me and skip huge chunks of what I wrote, please make it clear that you are doing so. Conventional methods include seperating into seperate quotes (which you can do quite easily using the markup provided by phpBB2), or utilising [...] as I have above.

You're quite entitled to your opinions on my church, my race, my country or anything else you happen to comment about. One of the huge advantages of being me is that, to a large degree, I don't care what you think. However, I do take exception to being quoted out of context. You have removed a lot of what I wrote, you have not made it clear what you removed, and in doing so you have made it look as though I said something completely different to what I actually wrote, in order to support your own "counter arguments".

Please don't take this as a flame - simply as a request to always quote correctly. Misquoting is the mother of all flamewars.

Thanks,

-thalash
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:27 am

Kifle wrote:First, there is no seperation of church and state...no where in the constitution. Also, you are confusing morality with religious dogma and doctrines. Morality is a completely different entity than the church. Churches are only seen as institutions of morality...their own morality. As far as your last argument there...murder is one person being responsible for taking another's right to live. Homosexual marriages, on the other hand, hurt nobody. This is why most, if not all, countries will adopt this "no murder" commandment as law. I'd like to see somebody try to justify slaver by saying, "What, you want to abolish slavery? Well, we might as well just start killing people as we chose then because it's in the same ballpark!"


The seperation of church and state is not written in the constitution, but it is a tenant upon which this nation is founded. It would be foolish to not consider the foundation as part of the structure. Furthermore, the Church has had a history with setting popular Morality, also which cannot be ignored.

Kifle wrote:The majority of the country was for burning witches, enslaving mexicans, indians, and africans. The majority was for the repression of women. The majority of the country where for the enslavement of chinese. Astoundingly, the majority where wrong... Just because the majority wills it does not mean it is right, and, since this is true, no government should ever segregate or discriminate a group of people based on majority. Segregation and discrimination are inherently bad and do nothing good for the country except let people live in the past.


Just because something is Right does not give the government the Right to Force its people to do so. For instance, it would be Right for our Government to Halt the Genocide in Sudan, but in order to do so, our country would have to mount a military mission larger than what we have in Iraq. Furthermore, this is also why the government does not have the Right to do as it pleases without at least the tenative consent of a moral majority of it's people.

Do not confuse the Numerical Majority with the Moral Majority, as a moral majority merely states that the action would be considered moral by it's people, whether or not they support the necessary actions.

Kifle wrote:There was no tangible benefit from african's being freed either. Hell, we lost a lot of free labor. There was no tangible benefit from letting blacks drink out of the white's drinking fountains either -- none at all...yet it was still proven wrong and it was still changed. These are very poor logic arguments and this is why bigotry is idiotic.


Actually, the President announced the tangible benefits of freeing slaves when he drafted the Emancipation Proclaimation way back when.

The then "War Department" also published a report of the tangible benefits of the desegregation of the Armed Forces
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... genumber=1
(if that link has trouble, just search for "Utilization of Negro Manpower in Postwar Army Policy")

Desegregation actually occured primarily through the judicial branch of government, or the action of Supreme Court Justices in the cases,

Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. Board of Ed

You can read the opinions of the Judges at
http://www.law.cornell.edu (direct case linking sucks)

Furthermore, one tangible benefit was that public faclilites didn't have to order double sets of everything.

Kifle wrote:The government should never wait to follow the suit of the Church. They did this in the middle ages, and I would have hoped we had learned from their mistakes by now. No matter how many people wish to stay in the dark ages, the government should not base it's laws around victimless morals created by any church or religion.


Yet you've suppied no alternative. I don't believe government should wait to follow suit, but if the Church should change, Govenrment should change with it. You can't exactly stay ahead fo the Church as there is no real way to know what direction the Church is headed.

Kifle wrote:Don't take this as a flame at all, but these arguments are extremely weak. Most of their basis is set on fallicies of logic. They are also based on the idea of keeping unconstitutional laws for the simple fact that the church and majority deems it so -- even though they wrong and have been proven wrong by the past on countless occasions.


There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional. In fact, in the Federal Government, all we really have is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:46 pm

Kifle wrote:The chances of changing anybody's mind on most moral issues is about .001% chance anyway, so arguing any point at all can be concidered a waste of time...just how life is.


Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).

(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)



"Love thy enemies, do good onto those who hate you, bless those that would curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you."
Luke 6:27

1) To hate, curse, and mistreat homosexuals is against the tennants of the bible, for the Lord is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

"Do not Judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Luke 6:37

1) If I have to explain this one, I forgive you.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

1) Love != man + woman.



Finally:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:18
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:02 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Now for some seperate aruging points:

1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.

There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.


/flame on.
Uhh, the part in bold shows EXACTLY how moronic you can be. Perhaps
the tangible benefit doesn't effect the straight, but marriage = tax deduction. tax deduction = more money in my hand. now THAT is tangible. so think before you speak. oh wait, you're playing a ranger, guess thinking is out of the question.


Bottom line is there is NO good reason that this SHOULDN'T be legal.
The only reason it was voted on and made illegal in those 11 states are the (insert bigot group here) that are so unwilling to accept anything different from themself that they exile themself in places like oklahoma. wtf?

This is a complete repeat of history. Only last time it happened it was because their skin color was different. or was it different gender...

And as far as your "religous" post above teflor, there are equally as many
points you could find within the same text that are directly anti-gay. I don't have the time to research them (apparently either you have a bible next to your computer or no life), but they exist.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Re: some comments

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:06 pm

shalath wrote:FIRSTLY - from a secular point of view:

Here in the UK, unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples. You simply have to be living together, in a permanent relationship. This applies to any couple living together, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Marriage is an historically important legal institution, but is not "necessary". In fact, the statistics here are interesting (much as I despise statistics). One in three marriages in the UK end in divorce. I'm not sure how that compares to the US, but it's a frightening statistic. Conversely, 40% of long term relationships here in the UK are unmarried couples. This is a trend that is growing.

-thalash

Right now it is either 2/3 or 3/4 of marriages in the US end in divorce.
And the #1 source of conflict and argument in marriages is $.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:55 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:The seperation of church and state is not written in the constitution, but it is a tenant upon which this nation is founded. It would be foolish to not consider the foundation as part of the structure. Furthermore, the Church has had a history with setting popular Morality, also which cannot be ignored.


It is not written in the constitution...that is exactly right. Therefor, by your standards given here:

"There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional."

There should be no seperation of church and state? By your standards we are to accept implications of the constitution only when it favors the church?

teflor the ranger wrote:Just because something is Right does not give the government the Right to Force its people to do so. For instance, it would be Right for our Government to Halt the Genocide in Sudan, but in order to do so, our country would have to mount a military mission larger than what we have in Iraq. Furthermore, this is also why the government does not have the Right to do as it pleases without at least the tenative consent of a moral majority of it's people.


Your example here has a few fatal flaws. In your example the government would have to spend enormous amount of cash, possibley make some enemies in the world, lose the lives of our countrymen, etc... Those reasons are why we do not stop the genocide right now. However, none of those reprocussions would come to be if you legalized gay marriage. Nothing bad would happen because it doesn't effect anybody. At the end of that statement you talk about moral majority. Again, moral majority has been shown to be wrong. To continue to stagnate the country's moral evolution because of archaic institutions is ignorant and irresponsible. This would make the argument weak.

teflor the ranger wrote:Do not confuse the Numerical Majority with the Moral Majority, as a moral majority merely states that the action would be considered moral by it's people, whether or not they support the necessary actions.


Uh, a majority it is a quantitative measurement...dealing with numbers. A moral majority is a numerical majority. Even still, again, this would say that slavery is good, abortion is good (ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/etc... morals), and burning women at the stake is good. What's wrong is wrong regardless of a majority.

teflor the ranger wrote:The then "War Department" also published a report of the tangible benefits of the desegregation of the Armed Forces
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... genumber=1
(if that link has trouble, just search for "Utilization of Negro Manpower in Postwar Army Policy")

Desegregation actually occured primarily through the judicial branch of government, or the action of Supreme Court Justices in the cases,

Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. Board of Ed

You can read the opinions of the Judges at
http://www.law.cornell.edu (direct case linking sucks)

Furthermore, one tangible benefit was that public faclilites didn't have to order double sets of everything.


Delmair gave a great example of the tangible benefits homosexuals would recieve...and in Bush's logic, since they would get more money, our economy would raise because they would spend it on consumer goods. That's an enormous tangible benefit. As far as the benefits of not having slavery? I'm sure corperations would greatly desire slave labor if it was acceptable. And, again in bush's logic, or more precisely, Regan's logic, the corperations would be making so much money it would trickle down upon us like a golden shower from God. The benefits from abolishing slavery do not outweigh the cost...the benefits from legalizing gay marriages would.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:The government should never wait to follow the suit of the Church. They did this in the middle ages, and I would have hoped we had learned from their mistakes by now. No matter how many people wish to stay in the dark ages, the government should not base it's laws around victimless morals created by any church or religion.


Yet you've suppied no alternative. I don't believe government should wait to follow suit, but if the Church should change, Govenrment should change with it. You can't exactly stay ahead fo the Church as there is no real way to know what direction the Church is headed.


You want an alternative...ignore the church! There have been much better philosophers in this world that have not come from a church. If indeed the constitution does imply a seperation of church and state, and if we in fact should accept this implication as law, the government should never make a law based solely on religious doctrine. That is the alternative. The government should change independantly of the church...not with it. So as far as knowing which way the church is headed -- it shouldn't matter.

teflor the ranger wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional. In fact, in the Federal Government, all we really have is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.


Again, there was nothing in the costitution that should make slavery illegal either, yet it is. If we are going to use implications on what our fore fathers intended, we might as well look at "all men are created equal", "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", etcetera. In fact, the constitution gives us freedom of religion. With this follows that the government should not create a law where it is only concidered wrong based on religious doctrine. Gay marriages do not infringe upon any right given to us by our constitution, any freedom given by the UN's declaration, or natural rights; therefor, a ban on gay marriages is to be concidered unconstitutional because of the fact that it is ONLY found to be immoral based on church doctrine.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:01 pm

Kifle wrote:It is not written in the constitution...that is exactly right. Therefor, by your standards given here:

"There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional."

There should be no seperation of church and state? By your standards we are to accept implications of the constitution only when it favors the church?


Now, marriage is not something necessarily determined by the Church. There is no double standard here. The seperation of Church and State demands that the State maintain it's own definition of Marriage. Currently, we have a loose definition in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. It only deals with how the federal government approaches the individual states marriages, and nothing beyond that.


Kifle wrote:Your example here has a few fatal flaws. In your example the government would have to spend enormous amount of cash, possibley make some enemies in the world, lose the lives of our countrymen, etc... Those reasons are why we do not stop the genocide right now. However, none of those reprocussions would come to be if you legalized gay marriage. Nothing bad would happen because it doesn't effect anybody. At the end of that statement you talk about moral majority. Again, moral majority has been shown to be wrong. To continue to stagnate the country's moral evolution because of archaic institutions is ignorant and irresponsible. This would make the argument weak.


A weak argument irrefutable none the less. Your major points here: legalizing gay marriage would have no ill-effects, the Moral majority have been shown to be wrong, and that conservative thinking is stagnating the country's moral evolution, are all fairly weak themselves.

Legalizing gay marriage legitimizes sexuality as a right. The question in our moral evolution would then shift to other issues of sexuality, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, so forth and so on.

The moral majority I'm afraid has never believed that slavery is good, and burning woman at the stake is good while in this country with our ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independance and our Constitution. Our moral majority is significantly different than the moral majorities of history's past, and it would be ignorant and irresponsible to believe otherwise.

Furthermore, defining marriage would not stagnate our country's moral evolution. It merely gives legislators and judicators a starting point upon which to make changes. Currently, without a full national state definition of what marriage is, we cannot change it.

Kifle wrote:Uh, a majority it is a quantitative measurement...dealing with numbers. A moral majority is a numerical majority. Even still, again, this would say that slavery is good, abortion is good (ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/etc... morals), and burning women at the stake is good. What's wrong is wrong regardless of a majority.


I'm afraid no one polls on whether or not people 'feel' that things are right. No one polls on 'whether or not bringing democracy to the middle east feels like the right thing to do' because no one would quite be able to answer the question without dragging all the other issues into it.

If you look back upon history tho, you'll find that the majority of Americans were against involvement in World War II, but I could hardly see how anyone today would say that we did the 'wrong thing'. Unfortunatly, the Moral Majority can't be a quantitative measurement until after events have passed and decisions have been made (a lack of outstanding issues).

Kifle wrote:Delmair gave a great example of the tangible benefits homosexuals would recieve...and in Bush's logic, since they would get more money, our economy would raise because they would spend it on consumer goods. That's an enormous tangible benefit. As far as the benefits of not having slavery? I'm sure corperations would greatly desire slave labor if it was acceptable. And, again in bush's logic, or more precisely, Regan's logic, the corperations would be making so much money it would trickle down upon us like a golden shower from God. The benefits from abolishing slavery do not outweigh the cost...the benefits from legalizing gay marriages would.


Get more money? You mean government pensions paid out to the surviving significant others? There actually isn't much money moving around by specifically legalizing gay marriage. To be honest, it's not much of an arguing point for either side of the fence.

Kifle wrote:You want an alternative...ignore the church! There have been much better philosophers in this world that have not come from a church. If indeed the constitution does imply a seperation of church and state, and if we in fact should accept this implication as law, the government should never make a law based solely on religious doctrine. That is the alternative. The government should change independantly of the church...not with it. So as far as knowing which way the church is headed -- it shouldn't matter.


Ignoring the church would be ignorant and irresponsible. The organization that are the churches in this country are a major driving force behind the country's people. Think about it, across the nation, millions of people get up early on a SUNDAY to get dressed and go and listen to what it has to say. To ignore that kind of power is not only foolhardy, but demonstrates a principle misunderstanding of how this country lives as a nation.

Kifle wrote:Again, there was nothing in the costitution that should make slavery illegal either, yet it is. If we are going to use implications on what our fore fathers intended, we might as well look at "all men are created equal", "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", etcetera. In fact, the constitution gives us freedom of religion. With this follows that the government should not create a law where it is only concidered wrong based on religious doctrine. Gay marriages do not infringe upon any right given to us by our constitution, any freedom given by the UN's declaration, or natural rights; therefor, a ban on gay marriages is to be concidered unconstitutional because of the fact that it is ONLY found to be immoral based on church doctrine.


The fact that something is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is an extremely weak argument. There are many other documents that constitute the laws of our republic, for instance: the emancipation proclaimation, executive orders, the opinions of the supreme court, etc.

While it's true that our rights to the freedom of religion must be protected, certainly you can see the value in disallowing a religion that allows murder or at least the part of that religion that allows murder. While this may be a weak comparison to the banning of Gay marriage, nonetheless the point must be made that any Freedom is not all powerful or all encompassing, but must be temptered by other Freedoms (like the right to not be murdered).

Furthermore, gay marriages are not considered immoral only on church doctrines, but by the people who go to those churches. You can never forget that there are "people" in this country and that you cannot impose what you believe is "correct" upon them, as that doctrine is just as flawed as the doctrine they impose upon you. Welcome to democracy.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:11 pm

I think the thing that bugs me the most about this is that peoples freedoms are being attacked. If you can't choose who you want to spend the rest of your life with and get the same benefit as someone who chose a heterosexual relationship, what is the point? Next it will be what clothes you can and cannot wear, and then what music and movies you can and can't see. And expressing your opinions will be subject to fine and or imprisonment. Yes these are extremes, but it has to start somewhere.

Well, and the fact that this makes this country look like a bunch of bigots. Next lets go back after the arabs, then the women, then the blacks, then the jews, then...(/sarcasm on) go bush! yay! (/sarcasm off)

Actually what IS next is your right to choose. It isn't just a coincidence that the planned parenthood organization were pro-Kerry. George Bush plans on putting more of his southern baptist views into law. Abortion laws may be abolished, making it illegal to have an abortion. Other countries have gone as far as to legalize "the abortion pill" which is an oral medication that convinces the body to abort a fetus at any time during the first trimester if i am not mistaken. FDA won't approve it here. wonder why. *cough*bush*cough*. has been legal in canada and europe for years. I think it is time for a more liberal government. I think i am gunna move. BC, Canada or Amsterdam. I think immigration to canada is easier, so probbably there =P
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:14 pm

Umm.. it's kinda dangerous. The FDA won't approve cyanide as a food item either.
Duna
Sojourner
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:40 am
Contact:

Postby Duna » Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:05 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Umm.. it's kinda dangerous. The FDA won't approve cyanide as a food item either.

Actually Teflor, there are a few natural herbs that will cause an abortion, if taken. I'm not sure what the abortion pill contains, but there are completely natural over the counter ways of getting an abortion. Most women who get one, perfer to go to a doctor for such because of the medical risks involved.
Vorkul Tigerclaw
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:55 pm

Postby Vorkul Tigerclaw » Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:06 am

I would just like to point out something....I saw someone mention a Catholic tradition of not having sex without it being for procreation. This is a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing.

In fact, once you are married, it is a sin to NOT have sex when your wife wants it, and it is a sin for her to not give it to you when you want it. Imagine the population problem we would have if people didnt use birth control after they had their fair share of kids....imagine the problems it would cause if that actually was a sin. And in the old testament, it was, but Jesus fulfilled the old testament.

Also, so -called "christians" spewing hate and condeming gays is totally and entirely wrong. You do not sneer and hate them, if one asked you for help with something, you should give it to him as a Christian should. You pray for them to mend their ways....it is up to God to punish them not you.

Its sad how most agnostics/athiests see christians as.....because real chrisitans worship the way of the Bible, not what some italian guy with the funny hat says.

just my .02. Flame on.
Nuada GCC: 'what the heck is a khanjari'
Dudle GCC: 'it's a new player class'
Azerost GCC: 'Imagine for a second that they jammed Drizzt into a dagger'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:24 am

Vorkul Tigerclaw wrote:Its sad how most agnostics/athiests see christians as.....because real chrisitans worship the way of the Bible, not what some italian guy with the funny hat says.

just my .02. Flame on.


You forgot (he's Polish)!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:52 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:It is not written in the constitution...that is exactly right. Therefor, by your standards given here:

"There is nothing in the constitution that gurantees the right of Marriage, and thus, these laws are not unconstitutional."

There should be no seperation of church and state? By your standards we are to accept implications of the constitution only when it favors the church?


Now, marriage is not something necessarily determined by the Church. There is no double standard here. The seperation of Church and State demands that the State maintain it's own definition of Marriage. Currently, we have a loose definition in the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. It only deals with how the federal government approaches the individual states marriages, and nothing beyond that.


You completely missed why I wrote. I was stating that you had stated that there is a seperation of church and state...but it is not in the constitution. You said that even though it isn't there it holds validity because it is implied. You later stated that the freedom to marry whoever you want is not in the constitution and therefor carries no validity...it was a contradiction.


teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Your example here has a few fatal flaws. In your example the government would have to spend enormous amount of cash, possibley make some enemies in the world, lose the lives of our countrymen, etc... Those reasons are why we do not stop the genocide right now. However, none of those reprocussions would come to be if you legalized gay marriage. Nothing bad would happen because it doesn't effect anybody. At the end of that statement you talk about moral majority. Again, moral majority has been shown to be wrong. To continue to stagnate the country's moral evolution because of archaic institutions is ignorant and irresponsible. This would make the argument weak.


A weak argument irrefutable none the less. Your major points here: legalizing gay marriage would have no ill-effects, the Moral majority have been shown to be wrong, and that conservative thinking is stagnating the country's moral evolution, are all fairly weak themselves.


You arguments are not irrefutable...I just did. They have a very poor foundation and rely on either implications, generalizations, or faulty logic. I don't know where you are getting this. As far as the moral majority being proven wrong being a weak argument...I wouldn't say that. In some cases it could be considered as such, but when put into this context it is very strong because it destroys the argument of moral majority being the end-all-be-all go to for decisions based on right and wrong. The argument about the ill effects being non-existant isn't weak because it does what it was intended to do...refute the fact that law is here to protect the citizens and not restrain their freedoms when not necessary. This is all the ban does is restrict our freedoms. It doesn't protect anybody from anything... As far as the stagnation goes...look how most of america views the forced circumcision of women in other countries. We find it barbaric and brutal among other things. I know I wouldn't like it if I were a girl, would you? Do you think that is there to protect anybody besides insecure men? The same in america. The law is there for no other purpose than to placate bigots and homophobes. The onlyl difference...we consider those who force the circumcision of women to be barbaric while we are not? This is stagnation and hypocracy. We'd be a better country if we did not have these hate laws in place.


teflor the ranger wrote:Legalizing gay marriage legitimizes sexuality as a right. The question in our moral evolution would then shift to other issues of sexuality, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, so forth and so on.


How so? Pedophiles molest children who are either non-consenting or considered too young to make such decisions. Necrophiliacs are sexual predetors that have sex with dead people...you can't get the consent of dead people so it is classified as rape. In both of those cases you are denying the rights of other people to do what you want...homosexual marriages do not do this. They do not deny anybody of any rights at all. What you did there was a hasty generalization of sexuality. Logic fallacy.

teflor the ranger wrote:The moral majority I'm afraid has never believed that slavery is good, and burning woman at the stake is good while in this country with our ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independance and our Constitution. Our moral majority is significantly different than the moral majorities of history's past, and it would be ignorant and irresponsible to believe otherwise.


Did you take a poll 200 years ago to find out what the majority thought on slavery? No? Then don't presume that you know the statistics. The fact is, nobody took a poll back then so there is no way to know. On top of this, who's to say everybody would speak their minds? American voters now-days do not, what makes you think they did then? So, burning of women at the stake was good? Also, I'm not saying that our morals aren't better than they used to be, but they are still bad, and that is no excuse to not change them. 1st degree murder is considered morally superior to manslaughter, but they are both murder...and murder is still wrong. See what I'm saying? Bad morals are bad morals and it doesn't change the fact if one bad moral is better than the other...they are still both bad.

teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, defining marriage would not stagnate our country's moral evolution. It merely gives legislators and judicators a starting point upon which to make changes. Currently, without a full national state definition of what marriage is, we cannot change it.


Just modify the current definition to where they include gay people? There I did it...not too hard. Anyway, I never said that giving it a solid definition would stagnate anything. I said making the definition to exclude homosexuals would stagnate the moral evolution. There's a profound difference between those two statements.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Uh, a majority it is a quantitative measurement...dealing with numbers. A moral majority is a numerical majority. Even still, again, this would say that slavery is good, abortion is good (ancient greek/roman/mesopatamian/etc... morals), and burning women at the stake is good. What's wrong is wrong regardless of a majority.


I'm afraid no one polls on whether or not people 'feel' that things are right. No one polls on 'whether or not bringing democracy to the middle east feels like the right thing to do' because no one would quite be able to answer the question without dragging all the other issues into it.


Which would only implicate that moral majority is either a misnomer or it is an entirely bunk idea. If you can't prove a majority, how can you say there is one?

teflor the ranger wrote:If you look back upon history tho, you'll find that the majority of Americans were against involvement in World War II, but I could hardly see how anyone today would say that we did the 'wrong thing'. Unfortunatly, the Moral Majority can't be a quantitative measurement until after events have passed and decisions have been made (a lack of outstanding issues).


Which would imply that we should toss out moral majority being a definitive "go-to" when dealing with morals? Exactly my point. Hindsight is 20/20 for most folks. What's wrong is that they are too arogant to understand that they can be wrong and that the things they are wrong about should be changed.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Delmair gave a great example of the tangible benefits homosexuals would recieve...and in Bush's logic, since they would get more money, our economy would raise because they would spend it on consumer goods. That's an enormous tangible benefit. As far as the benefits of not having slavery? I'm sure corperations would greatly desire slave labor if it was acceptable. And, again in bush's logic, or more precisely, Regan's logic, the corperations would be making so much money it would trickle down upon us like a golden shower from God. The benefits from abolishing slavery do not outweigh the cost...the benefits from legalizing gay marriages would.


Get more money? You mean government pensions paid out to the surviving significant others? There actually isn't much money moving around by specifically legalizing gay marriage. To be honest, it's not much of an arguing point for either side of the fence.


Tax credits...that's bush's idea. Give tax credits and it will boost the economy.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:You want an alternative...ignore the church! There have been much better philosophers in this world that have not come from a church. If indeed the constitution does imply a seperation of church and state, and if we in fact should accept this implication as law, the government should never make a law based solely on religious doctrine. That is the alternative. The government should change independantly of the church...not with it. So as far as knowing which way the church is headed -- it shouldn't matter.


Ignoring the church would be ignorant and irresponsible. The organization that are the churches in this country are a major driving force behind the country's people. Think about it, across the nation, millions of people get up early on a SUNDAY to get dressed and go and listen to what it has to say. To ignore that kind of power is not only foolhardy, but demonstrates a principle misunderstanding of how this country lives as a nation.


So you're basically saying, no matter how wrong the church is, we must side with it or be overthrown? So, if the church wanted to start slaying jews at random, the government would have to go for it because of this? Granted, it's a little extreme, but that's reductio ad absurdum for you. Seriously, come on. If we legalized gay marriages, we would have a bit of an uproar and it would die down pretty quickly.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Again, there was nothing in the costitution that should make slavery illegal either, yet it is. If we are going to use implications on what our fore fathers intended, we might as well look at "all men are created equal", "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", etcetera. In fact, the constitution gives us freedom of religion. With this follows that the government should not create a law where it is only concidered wrong based on religious doctrine. Gay marriages do not infringe upon any right given to us by our constitution, any freedom given by the UN's declaration, or natural rights; therefor, a ban on gay marriages is to be concidered unconstitutional because of the fact that it is ONLY found to be immoral based on church doctrine.


The fact that something is not specifically mentioned in the constitution is an extremely weak argument. There are many other documents that constitute the laws of our republic, for instance: the emancipation proclaimation, executive orders, the opinions of the supreme court, etc.


This is an argument of convenience. It is usable for you when you want to say there IS a seperation of church and state, but when I want to say there is a freedom of who you wish to marry, it is just not going to work. You can justify yours by quoting Thomas Jefferon's letter where that quote is taken from, but I can then quote him and quite a few others who say things that I quoted earlier (i.e., "all men are created equal"). Either way, we'll eventually have to come to the conclusion to either assume both to be true or both to be untrue.

teflor the ranger wrote:While it's true that our rights to the freedom of religion must be protected, certainly you can see the value in disallowing a religion that allows murder or at least the part of that religion that allows murder. While this may be a weak comparison to the banning of Gay marriage, nonetheless the point must be made that any Freedom is not all powerful or all encompassing, but must be temptered by other Freedoms (like the right to not be murdered).


A religion that allows murder infringes upon the rights of others. Somebody not following the christian values of sexuality (in this case) does not. Poor analogy.

teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, gay marriages are not considered immoral only on church doctrines, but by the people who go to those churches. You can never forget that there are "people" in this country and that you cannot impose what you believe is "correct" upon them, as that doctrine is just as flawed as the doctrine they impose upon you. Welcome to democracy.


Welcome to democracy? Since when? This is a capitalist republic. Anyway, the fact is you are right. I can't impose my beliefs on them and have them accept them if they do not wish to, but that is what they are doing to homosexuals through the medium of the government. Allowing gay marriages will infring, again, upon nobody's rights or beliefs. We are not asking for christians and other bigots to accept that gay sex is just as moral as hetero sex. We are asking them to tolorate it because we have to tolorate them. The difference is is that they are forcing homosexuals to stay unwed because of their beliefs.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:35 am

Kifle wrote:You completely missed why I wrote. I was stating that you had stated that there is a seperation of church and state...but it is not in the constitution. You said that even though it isn't there it holds validity because it is implied. You later stated that the freedom to marry whoever you want is not in the constitution and therefor carries no validity...it was a contradiction.


Well, actually, I didn't think I had to say it, but two things.

1) The freedom to marry is not implied anywhere else, as the seperation of church and state are implied in the federalist papers, the personal documents of Thomas Jefferson, his conversations with his Adams, so forht and so on.

2) You are actually free to marry whoever you want, however you want, just fedgov won't recognize it.


Kifle wrote:I wouldn't say that. In some cases it could be considered as such, but when put into this context it is very strong because it destroys the argument of moral majority being the end-all-be-all go to for decisions based on right and wrong.


Again, a weak argument because you failed to address the point that in this country, we are dealing with the American Moral Majority and the American values of morality, and it is ignorant and irresponsible to merely throw them into the same classification as the moral majority of societies past (particularly those you mentioned that have long been dead and gone).

Kifle wrote:The argument about the ill effects being non-existant isn't weak because it does what it was intended to do...refute the fact that law is here to protect the citizens and not restrain their freedoms when not necessary. This is all the ban does is restrict our freedoms. It doesn't protect anybody from anything...


Again, the ill effect that I had stated would be that legitimizing gay marriage would legitimize a right to sexuality in the US. This would not just lend, but give credibility to those who would see pedophilia and other forms of deviant sexuality become protected as a right in this nation. To say that nothing would come from the legalization of gay marraige is, again, ignorant and irresponsible.

Kifle wrote:As far as the stagnation goes...look how most of america views the forced circumcision of women in other countries. We find it barbaric and brutal among other things. I know I wouldn't like it if I were a girl, would you? Do you think that is there to protect anybody besides insecure men? The same in america. The law is there for no other purpose than to placate bigots and homophobes. The onlyl difference...we consider those who force the circumcision of women to be barbaric while we are not? This is stagnation and hypocracy. We'd be a better country if we did not have these hate laws in place.


Well yes, but does that give America the right to become world police and impose our views of morality upon all other nations of the earth? You cannot replace stagnation with chaos. Things must be allowed to take their natural course through change, education, and actually convincing people to change. As Confucious pointed out, the nation starts with the heart. Forcing people to accept the things they do not want to accept is a form of slavery. To simply tell people 'this is how it's going to be' is both ignorant and irresponsible.

Kifle wrote:How so? Pedophiles molest children who are either non-consenting or considered too young to make such decisions. Necrophiliacs are sexual predetors that have sex with dead people...you can't get the consent of dead people so it is classified as rape. In both of those cases you are denying the rights of other people to do what you want...homosexual marriages do not do this. They do not deny anybody of any rights at all. What you did there was a hasty generalization of sexuality. Logic fallacy.


The fatal flaw to this argument, is that you believe that sexual deviants are sick, depraved people. This is the same ignorance and irresponsibility that you have accused me of. You see, the same tolerance you continually ask for gay marraige are only applied by you to those who you deem worthy of it and at your convenience. Cannot a 15 year old develop mentally to make a decision for themselves? Many of the boys who fought for our independance were only 14. Furthermore, cannot a necrophiliac obtain consent beforehand? To write them off so quickly, while preaching tolerance, is both ignorant and irresponsible.

Kifle wrote:Did you take a poll 200 years ago to find out what the majority thought on slavery? No? Then don't presume that you know the statistics. The fact is, nobody took a poll back then so there is no way to know.


Well, the popular vote went 55% to Lincoln after the War.

Kifle wrote:Which would only implicate that moral majority is either a misnomer or it is an entirely bunk idea. If you can't prove a majority, how can you say there is one?


Really just attention to details. Watching presidential elections, looking at the reasons for voters decisions. That and considering opinion polls on specific issues.

Kifle wrote:Which would imply that we should toss out moral majority being a definitive "go-to" when dealing with morals? Exactly my point. Hindsight is 20/20 for most folks. What's wrong is that they are too arogant to understand that they can be wrong and that the things they are wrong about should be changed.


A miss. Rephrasing this point. The majority of Americans before World War II were against joining the war. This was a poll of the issue. I'm certain that if people were asked if it would have been morally correct to join the war on our allies side, the answer would have been yes. It certainly is after the war. That's moral majority vs. issue opinion.

Kifle wrote:So, if the church wanted to start slaying jews at random, the government would have to go for it because of this? Granted, it's a little extreme, but that's reductio ad absurdum for you. Seriously, come on.


Terrible.

Kifle wrote:This is an argument of convenience. It is usable for you when you want to say there IS a seperation of church and state, but when I want to say there is a freedom of who you wish to marry, it is just not going to work. You can justify yours by quoting Thomas Jefferon's letter where that quote is taken from, but I can then quote him and quite a few others who say things that I quoted earlier (i.e., "all men are created equal"). Either way, we'll eventually have to come to the conclusion to either assume both to be true or both to be untrue.


Actually, in all the recorded debate, documents, journals, and publications I've read discussing the creation of our nation, I've never seen anything about a right to marry. I've seen the seperation of church and state a lot tho.

Kifle wrote:Welcome to democracy? Since when? This is a capitalist republic. Anyway, the fact is you are right. I can't impose my beliefs on them and have them accept them if they do not wish to, but that is what they are doing to homosexuals through the medium of the government. Allowing gay marriages will infring, again, upon nobody's rights or beliefs. We are not asking for christians and other bigots to accept that gay sex is just as moral as hetero sex. We are asking them to tolorate it because we have to tolorate them. The difference is is that they are forcing homosexuals to stay unwed because of their beliefs.


Well certainly, homosexuals are tolerated, and if they want to commit themselves to each other, no one's stopping them. All gay marriage lacks is Governmental Recognition. Surely, in a government by the people, of the people, and for the people, it would be responsible and wise to accept what a majority of it's people believe.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:52 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State



After reading your last post, and then re reading this stuff, I understand that you are incapable of understanding things from any other perspective than your own. On top of this, you can't argue. Don't take this as a flame, because you proved it yourself by saying what I have in the quote above this message, and then saying what I have you quoted as saying here...

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:The chances of changing anybody's mind on most moral issues is about .001% chance anyway, so arguing any point at all can be concidered a waste of time...just how life is.


Well, actually, there is something that can be said to those who oppose gay marriage for moral reasons (and are Christian).

(and of course, we must use religion to agrue effectively with them)



"Love thy enemies, do good onto those who hate you, bless those that would curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you."
Luke 6:27

1) To hate, curse, and mistreat homosexuals is against the tennants of the bible, for the Lord is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

"Do not Judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Luke 6:37

1) If I have to explain this one, I forgive you.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

1) Love != man + woman.



Finally:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:18



You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book" then you go ahead and say that an effective way to argue it would be to quote the "good book". So, the only conclusions that one could logically come to is either A) You are not above contradicting your own standards of debate, and, therefor, you can't debate well or 2) You are unaware of your contradictions and are unable to accept any other opinion but your own and will fight your side until death. These two conclusions lead me to my decision that by arguing with you on this, or any other topic for that matter, would only lead to my own frustration and would be an entire waste of my time.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:23 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State



Kifle wrote:After reading your last post, and then re reading this stuff, I understand that you are incapable of understanding things from any other perspective than your own. On top of this, you can't argue. Don't take this as a flame, because you proved it yourself by saying what I have in the quote above this message, and then saying what I have you quoted as saying here...

You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book" then you go ahead and say that an effective way to argue it would be to quote the "good book". So, the only conclusions that one could logically come to is either A) You are not above contradicting your own standards of debate, and, therefor, you can't debate well or 2) You are unaware of your contradictions and are unable to accept any other opinion but your own and will fight your side until death. These two conclusions lead me to my decision that by arguing with you on this, or any other topic for that matter, would only lead to my own frustration and would be an entire waste of my time.


*this post edited to remove flames

How to Not Convince People

1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book

Making this easier to understand:

No Examples from Bible = Not Convincing

Hence, I'm actually saying:

Examples from Bible = Effective.

What YOU think I said:

Examples from Bible = Ineffective. (wrong)

What I actually did indeed say:

Examples from Bible = Effective.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:48 pm, edited 5 times in total.
auslyx
Sojourner
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis IN

Postby auslyx » Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:30 pm

Someone enlighten me. I was raised agnostic, and by that my definition is that SOMETHING, obviously greater than we are, created 'us'. But you don't live your life worshipping your existance. When you are a teen, all you basically want to do is wax the nearest ass! All the requirement is that she wants it too. If I understand religion correctly, it's a 'sin' to score, yet catholic priests are infamous for fucking little boys, and their own self-imposed (after being pushed and PUSHED by the press) is to relocate those freakshop priests. Sounds pretty hypocritical. Short of murdering children, in my eyes anyone who sexually desires any child shouldn't be killed, but hung out in public and beaten, yet having medical aid and preserved for the next day's rinse and repeat. Nothing scours the bowls of hell better than a sadistic, baby-raping human. Regardless of my view, given that example, how are homosexual's a threat to anybody. I'm very content being heterosexual, but I certainly could give a rat's ass less if the dude beside me likes guys or girls. As long as his hand isn't on my ass, who cares?? The church should just worry about more important issues. After it can control its own pedofile priests, maybe it can find something helpful to add rather than imposing phobia of homosexuals. I don't see the fixation church seems to have always held, in its eyes, so much contempt.

I really hope I didn't offend anybody, and if I did, I'm sorry. churches should go after true evil..that being a lot of politicians. Example, how the HELL are gas prices so high? Nothing has changed. They've forcasted for years that gasoline supplies are limited, yet SUV's continually get worse MPG than ever. Ford conveniently says that 'Our SUV's have come a long way, as have SUV's in general. Even in 1994, fuel consumption was well within standard set by the government.' What the fail to mention is that according to a huge report and research by 20/20 on ABC, fuel consumption has fallen drastically SINCE 1994. Your local politicial could give a shit less. In that report, the officials who voted to make SUV/TRUCKS immune to fuel restrictions just happened to receive a new Chevy Suberban. Let the church chew on those politicians...bleh, they're too worried about gays and ignoring their own priests behavior.

All that matters to me, and in my life: Help people in need. Give what you can to those less fortunate. Advocate the cause of someone unable to represent themself in a dignified manner. Be virtuous and show by example. Do NOT be hateful or chastising to others for differing views or opinions. The whole point of the United States is to be different, yet accepable (within the limits of social normalacy). Again sorry to those whom I have offended for my limited understanding of religion. I do not personally see 'life' as a gift. As a victim of rape or incest just how wonderful and glorious life was at that time. The biggest pet peeve of mine is 'It must be god's will.' For those who have been misfurtunate enough to lose a newborn, a sibling, a parent, etc, just how is it God's will? What is the logic for a child to be raped? What the FUCK did that child do to 'prove itself' (some claim god puts you thru tests). This notion is ludicris. Again, I'll just keep ranting if I think about it.

People, in my opinion, should just let other people live. Quickly, take prejudice in the 1960's. Nobody liked blacks..blah blah, well too damned bad. What if everybody were caucasion. Oh wait! Ireland and UK are. Yet there are extremist who hate each other there. Just my example. Some people have no tolerance for the unknown. For one heterosexual, they just can't fathom the idea of a man desiring another man. But his recourse is to hate, compel others to hate...mainly due to ignorance. The cycle is perpetual, and disheartening. Even ancient mythological stories still have merit in today's world. The core of human emotion is imbued when you are born, changing that is virtually impossible. Tolerance is what needs to be taught, not fear of gays or anything else that doesn't hurt anybody.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:13 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State



Kifle wrote:After reading your last post, and then re reading this stuff, I understand that you are incapable of understanding things from any other perspective than your own. On top of this, you can't argue. Don't take this as a flame, because you proved it yourself by saying what I have in the quote above this message, and then saying what I have you quoted as saying here...

You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book" then you go ahead and say that an effective way to argue it would be to quote the "good book". So, the only conclusions that one could logically come to is either A) You are not above contradicting your own standards of debate, and, therefor, you can't debate well or 2) You are unaware of your contradictions and are unable to accept any other opinion but your own and will fight your side until death. These two conclusions lead me to my decision that by arguing with you on this, or any other topic for that matter, would only lead to my own frustration and would be an entire waste of my time.


*this post edited to remove flames

How to Not Convince People

1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book

Making this easier to understand:

No Examples from Bible = Not Convincing

Hence, I'm actually saying:

Examples from Bible = Effective.

What YOU think I said:

Examples from Bible = Ineffective. (wrong)

What I actually did indeed say:

Examples from Bible = Effective.


Thank you for furthur proving my case. Just admit you messed up.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:16 pm

Teflor wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State


Kifle wrote:You say that ineffective arguing of this topic would be to quote the "good book"


Omfg Kifle, please tell me you're kidding. Congratulations on completely bungling this one. You are 100% wrong on this interpretation.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:20 pm

Let's get this back to the subject at hand and off the subject of who is the better debater, please! :lol:
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:24 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.

1) Seperation of Church and State

The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church).

2) You Are Just As Immoral

Ok, offensive for the first part, which will put people on the defensive. This is like self-deleting. The louder you shout after this the louder they will shout back. Furthermore, any religious person will remind you that we are all sinners to begin with. They will still be strongly against their government allowing gay marraige.

Now for some seperate aruging points:

1) The Government Has No Right to Force the Acceptance of Gay Marriage upon a Majority that Resents It

This is horribly true through and through. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, no matter how much the liberal left wishes to inflate itself. While it's true the government forced desegregation, etc, etc. They had good reason (which is why it began in the military). Give them a good enough reason and your government will force the majority to accept something it does not want.

There is no real tangible benefit to allowing gay marriages in this country as of this moment. And no, being a gay marriage terrorist will just make the moral majority hate you even more.

2) As Soon As The Church Starts Accepting Gay Marriage the State Will as Well

This is just a cold, hard fact. It has nothing to do with the influence of the church upon the state, but a reaffirmation of the effect of the people upon the state as well as the right to religion. As soon as mainstream churches (you know, ones with more than 2000 members nationwide) accept gay marriage, you will see a re-exploration of the subject of gay marriage.

Before you Flame:

I do not actually have a stance on whether or not gay marriage should or should not be outlawed.


No, I'm not kidding. You're attempting to backpeddle here. All of what you listed there where your examples of how not to argue the the issue. You then listed your reasons why you shouldn't do what is one your list. Then you are saying that one of those things on your list IS the right way. I'll put them here so you can see...

teflor wrote:1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book



teflor wrote:No Examples from Bible = Not Convincing

Hence, I'm actually saying:

Examples from Bible = Effective.


Now you are attempting to say that you originally meant to use the examples to be effective in one's debate? If so, why would you expand on two of those things listed by saying why it wont work. This would only lead one to conclude that everything within those lists where not to be used to effectively debate the topic. Either you are confused yourself, or you contradicted yourself then or are backpeddling now. Either way, you still screwed yourself in the argument.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:27 pm

Sorry Birile. I'm just trying to show how illogical people who advocate the ban on gay marriages are. Those who stand on that side are only bigots who feel the need to impose their belief system on other people for self-serving reasons and nothing else. All it does is make this country look bad and stagnate moral growth and tolerance. We may as well go back to blacks using different bathrooms and women not being able to vote if we keep this archaic set of morals.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:29 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State


Kifle, again 100% wrong. These are titled lists discussing different reasons. This has been the most Ignorant and Irresponsible piece of hackeneyed critcisim based on your own complete, fundamental misunderstanding that I will have to give you a lesson in understanding.

First list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral

Second list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
The Church Says So

and for the hell of it:

Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.


I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME to see if you can GET this.

I had said that in order to NOT convince someone, you should NOT use examples from the bible.

This is exactly why i DID use examples from the Bible in order to try to CONVINCE people that gay marriage should be tolerated.

Please, please, please tell me you understand this most basic, simple, fundamental logic.

You are so blind you're making it hard for me to see.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:33 pm

Kifle wrote:Sorry Birile. I'm just trying to show how illogical people who advocate the ban on gay marriages are. Those who stand on that side are only bigots who feel the need to impose their belief system on other people for self-serving reasons and nothing else. All it does is make this country look bad and stagnate moral growth and tolerance. We may as well go back to blacks using different bathrooms and women not being able to vote if we keep this archaic set of morals.


It's all good. I'm really thrilled to see the participation in this thread, no matter what side of the debate people stand on.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:18 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
How to Not Convince People

If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...

Gay Marriage is Immoral
1) Tell them They are Just as Immoral
2) Say That It Is Moral, but Not Give Moral Reasoning
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State

The Church Says So
1) Don't Use Examples from the Good Book
2) Claim that the Church is Immoral and Scars Young Boys
3) Proclaim Seperation of Church and State


Kifle, again 100% wrong. These are titled lists discussing different reasons. This has been the most Ignorant and Irresponsible piece of hackeneyed critcisim based on your own complete, fundamental misunderstanding that I will have to give you a lesson in understanding.

First list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
Gay Marriage is Immoral

Second list is
If they Oppose Gay Marriage because...
The Church Says So

and for the hell of it:

Seriously, it's like you would rather hear your own voices than convince anybody. Here's a bit of insight as to why some arguements don't work.


I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME to see if you can GET this.

I had said that in order to NOT convince someone, you should NOT use examples from the bible.

This is exactly why i DID use examples from the Bible in order to try to CONVINCE people that gay marriage should be tolerated.

Please, please, please tell me you understand this most basic, simple, fundamental logic.

You are so blind you're making it hard for me to see.


I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills. I mean, it's not like I'm 3 classes away from my core requirements for my math degree and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree. You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic. Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:26 pm

Well, stay in school buddy, but definetly try to re-think where I'm coming from. I am being consistant.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:15 pm

Telfor, take a break. He's in defense mode and won't listen to a thing you have to say. He's not even reading what you are typing. If you were talking to him in real life, it would be the same exact thing. He'd hear what his defense mode wants to hear.

Now Kifle my dear, as one !straight person to another, listen to me with a clear head as I explain it to you. Because hon, you gotta understand what he's saying is different then what you are reading, which is causing the end result to be the opposite of what you really want.

Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills.


It's not logic, it's grammar. English grammar. He was implying that these were ways to achieve the goal. The goal was to not convince someone of the subject matter, and he listed legitimate reasons on how to do this.

Kifle wrote:I mean, it's not like I'm 3 classes away from my core requirements for my math degree


Math is not grammar. Math is not the study of communication or languages.

Kifle wrote:and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree.


Philosophy is not grammar. Philosophy is not the study of communication or languages.

Kifle wrote:You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic.


This is defense mode rambling. Completely un-related. Your degrees are not based in language communication. You're not majoring in English. If you were, then perhaps this rant would be slightly more warranted. But it's not. He's talking about basic grammar, and you're failing miserably at understanding the simple statements he made, because you have your guard so far up, you're blind.

Kifle wrote:Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.


He's not trying to show you the light, nor was he implying any religious implications. That is your missunderstanding. He's not against the idea. He's not against YOU. In fact, the whole point behind his initial post about how not to convince someone, was so that people who ARE trying to convince people that gay people should have the right to be married, would go about it more successfully. He was offering sincere advice on how to help.

Instead, being in defense mode, you missunderstood the core of what he said, and decided he was attacking you. And since that point you've responded with a continued closed mind that is hell bent on attacking him. By doing so, I can only assume that Telfor is probably leaning more heavily toward the direction in this matter you didn't want him to go in the FIRST PLACE because of your behavior toward him.

Do you understand now?
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'
Targsk group-says 'sexedse'
mount dragon
You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.
You have learned something new about mount!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:17 am

Sesexe wrote:Telfor, take a break. He's in defense mode and won't listen to a thing you have to say. He's not even reading what you are typing. If you were talking to him in real life, it would be the same exact thing. He'd hear what his defense mode wants to hear.


I read just fine. I even quoted him quite a few times and must have read if I were to reply to those specific quotes. Don't patronize me.

Sesexe wrote:Now Kifle my dear, as one !straight person to another, listen to me with a clear head as I explain it to you. Because hon, you gotta understand what he's saying is different then what you are reading, which is causing the end result to be the opposite of what you really want.


Sorry to break it to you, but I'm married with 3 kids. I'm as straight as they come :) I read what he wrote just fine, it's just that he contradicted himself. I have nothing to get defensive about as I am not apart of the community to which I am defending; therefor the basic laws of fruedian defense mechanisms do not apply here.

Sesexe wrote:
Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills.


It's not logic, it's grammar. English grammar. He was implying that these were ways to achieve the goal. The goal was to not convince someone of the subject matter, and he listed legitimate reasons on how to do this.


If those things on his list where ways to achieve a goal, specificly teaching somebody how not to convince somebody, why did he say:

"1) Seperation of Church and State

The main reason why this won't work is because it is a State of the People, and the State has no right to Seperate People from Church. Furthermore, most religions abhor gay unions. The State must be a Moral State, and therefore need to follow the guidelines of the Morality that the People provide. Some of this is bound to end up from the Church. Like not killing, or stealing, or coveting your neighbors wife (all also illegal, btw. or would you rather allow murders to kill you because the State must be seperate from Church). "

This clearly implies that the argument of "seperation of church and state" is to not be used when trying to convince somebody of why gay marriages should be legal...he even relied heavily upon the existance of the seperation of church and state within his own arguments...That's another contradiction.

If those things listed where ways to effectively debate, why did he write that right afterwards? That implies that what is on the list is ineffective in the debate as far as he is concerned. It's like if I where to say:

Here are improper ways to use a knife

1) Hold it in your hand
2) Hold it in your teeth

And then say, "if you hold it in your teeth, you wont have very good precision." Then down the road a couple of days I say, "The proper way to use a knife is to hold it in your hand." This would be a contradiction...which is exactly what he did. You can't do that in a debate and expect to hold any ground or validity...which he was trying to do.

Sesexe wrote:Math is not grammar. Math is not the study of communication or languages.


No, it isn't grammar. Math is, however, the study of a language. Math is concidered to be the universal language. Also, it has direct ties and influence on logic, which is extremely applicable in this situation.

Sesexe wrote:
Kifle wrote:and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree.


Philosophy is not grammar. Philosophy is not the study of communication or languages.


Philosophy is the study of, among other things, morals and logic. It deals heavily in strategies of debate and the common fallacies used to win arguments. I never said it was grammar or the study of communication or language.

Sesexe wrote:
Kifle wrote:You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic.


This is defense mode rambling. Completely un-related. Your degrees are not based in language communication. You're not majoring in English. If you were, then perhaps this rant would be slightly more warranted. But it's not. He's talking about basic grammar, and you're failing miserably at understanding the simple statements he made, because you have your guard so far up, you're blind.


It isn't defense mode rambling, it was frustration and sarcasm. My soon to be degrees have everything to do with the debate and the proper way to debate, however. Also, he wasn't just speaking about grammar, which was a very small portion of the whole thing, he was trying to make a logical argument by using "if a = b then b = a" type properties, but he failed because of prior posts. Let me break it down this way. Lets call both of those lists sets...lets the first list = set 1 and let the second = set 2. Each had three items. So, when speaking of things not to do to convince people we add the sets by {1} U {2}. If one item in each set is to be concidered as things NOT to do, we must also hold that the others within the set, and therefor, both sets are things not to do. This being the case, you can not then say that one item in set 1 OR 2 are things TO do in debating this topic without contradicting yourself. It is really simple.

Sesexe wrote:
Kifle wrote:Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.


He's not trying to show you the light, nor was he implying any religious implications. That is your missunderstanding. He's not against the idea. He's not against YOU. In fact, the whole point behind his initial post about how not to convince someone, was so that people who ARE trying to convince people that gay people should have the right to be married, would go about it more successfully. He was offering sincere advice on how to help.


You said it yourself -- he listed things on how to NOT to convince somebody. That was his intentions of his first post and his two lists. Then why, later in the debate, did he use one of those items as a way TO convince somebody?

Sesexe wrote:Instead, being in defense mode, you missunderstood the core of what he said, and decided he was attacking you. And since that point you've responded with a continued closed mind that is hell bent on attacking him. By doing so, I can only assume that Telfor is probably leaning more heavily toward the direction in this matter you didn't want him to go in the FIRST PLACE because of your behavior toward him.


I misunderstood nothing. If anything, he miswrote if his intentions where to say that quoting the good book was a way TO convince somebody instead of adding it in a list of ways to NOT convince somebody. As far as attacking, I wouldn't say that. I was debating something I believe in just like most people in this world. Sure, I put him down a bit, but it was warrented because of his inability to comprehend simple logic, and then he tried to backpeddle out of a contradiction so that his other arguments would hold some semblance of validity when they don't.

Sesexe wrote:Do you understand now?


I always did, do you?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Yadir
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Postby Yadir » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:40 am

It seems to me that a thread has 'jumped the shark'* when the posters are arguing about the context and meaning of one another's posts rather than discussing the subject of the thread.

*From 'Happy Days' - the TV Series
Vorkul Tigerclaw
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:55 pm

Postby Vorkul Tigerclaw » Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:38 am

Kifle wrote:I guess I'm going to bow to your superior intellect, understanding of logic, and debating skills. I mean, it's not like I'm 3 classes away from my core requirements for my math degree and 3 classes away from my core requirements in philosophy degree. You obviously grasp these ideas much better than me even though this is exactly what I've been going to college for for 6 years now, but I don't know what I'm talking about. In < 2 years I will have bachelor's degrees in both subjects, and I'm sure you'd still tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about or that I can't crasp logic. Guess I should just ignore my 3.8 gpa and drop out of college because it is just hopeless... Thank you for showing me the light.


....lol.....

That post there does a very good job of discrediting everything you said here to just promoting your own ego. Noone cares how many degrees you will have soon. All you do in college is learn info and regurgitate it on paper.....most of which was learned forgotten from not being used....

In any case, the extremists that go around screaming about gay marriage are not real christians, imo, because any real christian knows that no matter how much they bitch, the world will run its course.

And you cannot debate christianity from a logical stand point, because faith= illogical.
Nuada GCC: 'what the heck is a khanjari'

Dudle GCC: 'it's a new player class'

Azerost GCC: 'Imagine for a second that they jammed Drizzt into a dagger'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:34 am

Kifle wrote:This clearly implies that the argument of "seperation of church and state" is to not be used when trying to convince somebody of why gay marriages should be legal...he even relied heavily upon the existance of the seperation of church and state within his own arguments...That's another contradiction.


I would like to see some evidence. Where have I used "seperation of church and state" in order to convince somebody of why gay marriages should be legal?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:20 am

Kifle wrote:I misunderstood nothing. If anything, he miswrote if his intentions where to say that quoting the good book was a way TO convince somebody instead of adding it in a list of ways to NOT convince somebody.


This is your fundamental misunderstanding.

Nowhere did I EVER say that
quoting the good book was a way to NOT convince people.

FOR A FACT, I had said that
NOT quoting the good book was a way to NOT convince people.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:49 am

Good Lord, another innocent thread taken tot eh nth level

can we lock THIS one too? sheesh people .. get a grip
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:44 pm

First of all, take your personal squables realize that you have no deliberatory power whatsoever and neither of you will ever convince the other of your point of view.

GIVE IT UP!!!

Marriage as an institution is not harmed by being defined as a religeous institution between a man and a woman. Most religions are not liberal enough to perform the cerimony for homosexuals if it were otherwise anyway.

Battles for rights should not be battles of symantics, seperate but equal already exists. People who are married common law or through civil union are still symantically different from traditional marriage simply by how they came to be. As long as all individuals in all these institutions have the same rights, who cares if two men or two women pair up for life... Who are they hurting?

As for to segregating people for harmless lifestyle choices, it is no different to segregate homosexuals than it is to segregate any religion, political views or any other choices people come to make for themselves within the acceptable boundaries of the law.

Everyone has the right to chose how to live thier life, if two men or two women chose to spend the rest of thier lives together, nobody but them should have a say, they should have the same rights and priveleges as any heterosexual couple that make the same choice.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:20 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME to see if you can GET this.

I had said that in order to NOT convince someone, you should NOT use examples from the bible.

This is exactly why i DID use examples from the Bible in order to try to CONVINCE people that gay marriage should be tolerated.

Please, please, please tell me you understand this most basic, simple, fundamental logic.

You are so blind you're making it hard for me to see.


This is funny. Your assumption is that i actually CARE what the bible has to say. It was written by man. Man is fallible. Bible is nothing more than a book of short, touchy-feely stories. So i, for one, can not see why the bible is a good choice of text to go convincing people. You forget that this is also the book that is incredibly derogatory to women, and tells you many ways to run your life. And if you don't, then some all powerful diety is gunna come down and f'ing spank you or something.
Drache
Sojourner
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Bloomington IN USA

Postby Drache » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Bible may claim to be the word of god, but as written by man. Show me a dude that doesn't exaggerate when he wants to get his point across. Fanatics everywhere are overzealous to push thier views. Life is simple: Be nice, leave people alone. Someone messes with you or someone innocent - Kick their ass! Help people and blah blah. Common sense. These threads really need to quit being hijacked. Drop the egos, cuz we're tired of it.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests