Where are my civil rights?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:52 pm

Ok, so, I came into this late and may have missed a number of people making the following points, so I apologize if I repeat anything anyone has said already - just consider it affirmation of your valid points! :wink:

Facts
1. Bush is against homosexuality in general, not just gay marriages and civil unions.
2. Kerry is against gay marriages, but supports civil unions
3. Marriages, at least in the United States, confer a great deal of rights upon the married couple. Married couples are granted immediate Power of Attorney, meaning they can make legal, fiscal, and medical decisions for either partner, or for the couple, in the absence of their spouse. By law, too, a spouse is entitled to retirement benefits of their partner in the event of their "other half"s death. In legal proceedings, a confession made from one spouse to the other, is inadmissable in court, meaning a man could kill someone, and if the only evidence linking him to that crime was his confession to his wife, then he would likely never even be brought to trial. Insurance, taxes, etc. are all rolled into the package as well.
4. As I know was mentioned earlier, civil unions are not considered marriage in the legal sense, so those rights and privileges listed above do not necessarily apply unless explicitly stated in the "Legal Definition" of a civil union in that particular state.
5. Approximately 50-60% of all American marriages end in divorce, and that rate is growing higher. Yet Bush, and most conservatives think that marriage is a sacred, interminable (unending) bond.
6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex. In fact, there is evidence that Emporer Hadrian, whose lover committed suicide on his 18th birthday, thinking that he was too old to be considered attractive to the emporer anymore, created a cult worshipping his deceased lover. Ruins of Shrines to the dead boy can be found all over within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was at it's largest during Hadrian's reign.
7. As the Catholic church gained influence during the end of the Roman Empire and through the Dark Ages, their goal was to stamp out the "decadence" of the Roman Empire, and so many of the "sins" were created out of what the Romans were most noted for.
8. EQUALITY: the quality or state of being equal: as a : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree (Webster)

Observations:
America is a very conservative country at this time, and is likely to become more so, thanks to the ignorance of the "religious right" in their efforts to force their views on others. Essentially, Bush and his supporters, in my opinion, are working their hardest to plunge America into a second Dark Age, where moral and intellectual growth are impossible. By banning not only gay marriages, but also the numerous other positive things that Bush has spoken against, such as stem-cell research, abortion, etc., we as a society are going to be forced to take action. Do not misunderstand me: the complacence of Bush's sheep, I mean, followers, is taking action. Those of us, however, with open minds, are able to make informed decisions on topical matters for ourselves, and should not be led to "greener pastures".

Someone mentioned that now is not the time to fight. That is about the most ludicrous thing I read in these posts. Waiting until a constitutional amendment proposed is waiting too long. Standing up, using your voice, and the freedoms granted in the First Amendment, at this time is not just your right, but is essentially becoming your moral obligation. America was built on change and on the voices of her people rising to decry or support individual topics. To be cowed into complacency by the current leadership is to accept "taxation without representation." If your elected officials will not speak with your voice, as they are supposed to do, then it is the right, privilege, honor, and obligation of each American citizen to make sure that their voice is heard. That is the beauty of Democracy; if functioning properly, all voices are heard with equal weight. Of course, if people hold their tongues and roll over when faced with adversity, Democracy turns to Tyrrany, as a president who thinks he has a "Divine Mandate" to rule runs the country without checks or balances.

Have we learned nothing from history? Where would England be without the Magna Carta? The French without the Bastille riots? America without the Declaration of Independence?

Do not dissolve your beliefs into apathy. Just because I am not gay, does not mean that I do not support the rights of homosexuals, or any other person for that matter. A person with a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, or mental capacity, is still a human, and should be treated accordingly. As Birile, and others (including at least one before), have mentioned, "Separate but Equal" is the epitome of inequality. To separate is to divide, to divide is to conquer.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:57 pm

rer wrote:Have we learned nothing from history?


Of course not! What the hell country do you think this is? I mean, we didn't even learn from the four most recent years of history!
<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
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:06 pm

Sarvis wrote:Of course not! What the hell country do you think this is? I mean, we didn't even learn from the four most recent years of history!


Good point, thanks! :lol:
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:34 am

Delmair Aamoren wrote: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.


teflor the ranger wrote: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)


No, Delmair, I did not assume that you cared about what the bible had to say.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:53 am

Jeez, for all the talk of tolerance, why is there no tolerance for the opposite viewpoint against changing the meaning of marriage being between a man and a woman? If you believe in free speech, you have to believe in it for everyone, even for things you disagree with. Most Americans believe in tolerating homosexuals, which is a good thing. In contrast, most Americans do not accept the homosexual lifestyle. There is an important difference between tolerance and accept.

No one really cares what gay folks do in their own houses or bedrooms. What people care about is forcing acceptance of a radical lifestyle which against their beliefs. Marriage is an important institution which needs help. As I talked about earlier, this is why convenant marriages have been introduced, to make it harder to get divorced. No Fault Divorce is to blame for alot of this. In addition, we have moved away from clear right and wrongs in our society. If a married person wants to fool around with someone else, alot folks would say they have a right to do it. Others believe that the cheating spouse should be harshly penalized.

We are losing our perspective on right and wrong, and part of that is the blurring of what things mean. Marriage is between a man and a woman. By changing to to include gay folks, you lessen what marriage is. It is no different than "God" in the pledge of allegiance or putting your hand on the bible when you swear in court. It is what it is.

Homosexuals clearly have a tough time of it. Gay women probably have an easier time as only most women are against gay women. To men, gay women play into the male fantasy of threesomes. Hell, they even have a cool name, "lesbians". Now gay men, they really have it tough, both men and women tend to have a negative view. Without getting graphic, no one wants to try to understand sexual relations between two men as most consider it abhorent. Finally, many consider the feminization of men which goes hand and hand with homosexuality to be a threat. We have roles in society and this kind of thing is a threat to them.

Clearly, gays should have access to all the legal benefits and penalties of marriage, but it should have a different name. Equal protection is only an argument when "Separate but Equal" is not actually equal. If you give legal standing to civil unions for homosexuals equal to marriage, that should be enough. In addition, we should not be forced to accept a lifestyle which is radically different as being equal to another. If I had kids, I know I would be one of those against any attempt to teach my children that homosexuality is acceptable which would go against my beliefs and desires for them.

Our uptightness is part of what has always made America great. Hell, our forefathers left Europe to be able to practice their uptightness, that's who we are.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:22 am

rer wrote:Ok, so, I came into this late and may have missed a number of people making the following points, so I apologize if I repeat anything anyone has said already - just consider it affirmation of your valid points! :wink:


This post is the quintessential dissertation of the views of the left concerning the topic of homosexuality in America. It is also the principle example of why we are a nation so divided. This post exudes a supposedly enlightened view which is completely biased and insensitive of all those who do not accept everything they see written. This elitist attitude is unconvincing, not factual, and furthermore, gives the wrong reasons for all the wrong changes. It is this type of ignorance and irresponsibility which takes away any benefit that can come from the left. Below is a moderate criticism of points:

Facts
1. Bush is against homosexuality in general, not just gay marriages and civil unions.


Bush has never spoken out against homosexuality in general or legislated against homosexuality. Furthermore, the current amendment he is proposing is merely to define the institution of marriage as all religions and societies have encouraged for known history.

>>> 0% Fact, 25% Possible, 100% Slander = 75% Ignorant

2. Kerry is against gay marriages, but supports civil unions

Kerry has made statements supporting such, but he is not in the running for president.

>>> 50% Fact, 75% Possible, 0% Slander = But No One Cares

3. Marriages, at least in the United States, confer a great deal of rights upon the married couple. Married couples are granted immediate Power of Attorney, meaning they can make legal, fiscal, and medical decisions for either partner, or for the couple, in the absence of their spouse. By law, too, a spouse is entitled to retirement benefits of their partner in the event of their "other half"s death. In legal proceedings, a confession made from one spouse to the other, is inadmissable in court, meaning a man could kill someone, and if the only evidence linking him to that crime was his confession to his wife, then he would likely never even be brought to trial. Insurance, taxes, etc. are all rolled into the package as well.
4. As I know was mentioned earlier, civil unions are not considered marriage in the legal sense, so those rights and privileges listed above do not necessarily apply unless explicitly stated in the "Legal Definition" of a civil union in that particular state.


These are the only two actual facts.

>>> 100% Fact, 100% Possible, 0% Slander

5. Approximately 50-60% of all American marriages end in divorce, and that rate is growing higher. Yet Bush, and most conservatives think that marriage is a sacred, interminable (unending) bond.

Sacred != Interminable

Religion tells us that angels fall. Church tells us that there may be divorce.

>>> 50% Factual, 50% Possible, 75% Slander = 25% Ignorant

6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex. In fact, there is evidence that Emporer Hadrian, whose lover committed suicide on his 18th birthday, thinking that he was too old to be considered attractive to the emporer anymore, created a cult worshipping his deceased lover. Ruins of Shrines to the dead boy can be found all over within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was at it's largest during Hadrian's reign.

And what of the emperor’s concubines?

>>> 25% Factual, 50% Possible, 50% … well, too long gone to be slander, but = 25% Ignorant

7. As the Catholic church gained influence during the end of the Roman Empire and through the Dark Ages, their goal was to stamp out the "decadence" of the Roman Empire, and so many of the "sins" were created out of what the Romans were most noted for.

Yet all are still sinners. Also, the Catholic church isn’t quite the same. Furthermore, many other Christian churches share many of the same guidelines.

>>> 50% Fact, 50% Possible, 50% Slander = Neutral Statement

8. EQUALITY: the quality or state of being equal: as a : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree (Webster)

That’s not a fact; it’s a dictionary definition.

Observations:
America is a very conservative country at this time, and is likely to become more so, thanks to the ignorance of the "religious right" in their efforts to force their views on others.


The very same could be said of the liberal left. This is a neutral argument which serves only to turn off conservatives and some leftists.

Essentially, Bush and his supporters, in my opinion, are working their hardest to plunge America into a second Dark Age, where moral and intellectual growth are impossible.

Brilliant. When the eyes are closed the world is dark.

By banning not only gay marriages, but also the numerous other positive things that Bush has spoken against, such as stem-cell research, abortion, etc., we as a society are going to be forced to take action.
100% Incorrect, 100% Irresponsible, 100% Ignorant

Bush intends to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He is not seeking to specifically ban gay marriage.

Furthermore, Bush SUPPORTS STEM CELL RESEARCH WITH FEDERAL FUNDING. Where you get the idea that he is against stem cell research is probably where you get the rest of your ideas.

Abortion as a Positive Thing? Even people getting abortions don’t think they’re a trip to Disney World.

Do not misunderstand me: the complacence of Bush's sheep, I mean, followers, is taking action. Those of us, however, with open minds, are able to make informed decisions on topical matters for ourselves, and should not be led to "greener pastures".

Your mind does seem open enough to call false statements ‘factual,’ I’ll give you that.

Someone mentioned that now is not the time to fight. That is about the most ludicrous thing I read in these posts. Waiting until a constitutional amendment proposed is waiting too long. Standing up, using your voice, and the freedoms granted in the First Amendment, at this time is not just your right, but is essentially becoming your moral obligation. America was built on change and on the voices of her people rising to decry or support individual topics. To be cowed into complacency by the current leadership is to accept "taxation without representation." If your elected officials will not speak with your voice, as they are supposed to do, then it is the right, privilege, honor, and obligation of each American citizen to make sure that their voice is heard. That is the beauty of Democracy; if functioning properly, all voices are heard with equal weight.

Yes, at the polls and through the electoral college. We’re a Republic.

Of course, if people hold their tongues and roll over when faced with adversity, Democracy turns to Tyrrany, as a president who thinks he has a "Divine Mandate" to rule runs the country without checks or balances.

Your best adversity is your own bungled attempts to convince anyone who is not already convinced. Your post is ineffective and totally unusable by those who are against gay marriage and trying to keep an open mind. You offer NOTHING for an open mind, but ammunition for closed ones.

Have we learned nothing from history? Where would England be without the Magna Carta? The French without the Bastille riots? America without the Declaration of Independence?

We have the Declaration of Independence. This is America.

Do not dissolve your beliefs into apathy. Just because I am not gay, does not mean that I do not support the rights of homosexuals, or any other person for that matter. A person with a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, or mental capacity, is still a human, and should be treated accordingly. As Birile, and others (including at least one before), have mentioned, "Separate but Equal" is the epitome of inequality. To separate is to divide, to divide is to conquer.

In this entire dissertation, you’ve missed the entire point that most Americans consider first. Morality. Is there a right to sexuality? No one who has read your post would be able to determine any better for themselves. Here’s a couple problems with your stance:

1) You Assume Americans are Idiots

Joke as much as you will, but you insult your own country, and even more so all other countries in the world who have thanked her for her assistance, her friendship, and follow in her path.

2) You Don’t Actually Address the Real Issues

Just the newsweek/new york times cannon fodder and stuff already well covered by the liberal left, who we know have done such a great job of convincing America.


I’m not against gay marriage, and I do believe that people have the right to sexuality in this country.

And I think that your post is both ignorant and irresponsible, and that it offers nothing to help anyone with an open mind change their ideas.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:09 am

Imis how can you call right and wrong into this dispute?
The marriage of homosexual people in NO way infringe upon your rights or belives. And banning it just basing on belives of 'majority' is prejudice. The only line that should be drawn for rights of other people is when they invade into somebodies freedom. Gay merriages in NO way affect your life.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:23 am

We all decide what is right and wrong around us, it is human nature. How can you accept something which is unacceptable to you? As I said, tolerance should exist, but don't force folks to accept something. Of course calling a union between gay folks marriage affects everyone because it calls into question what a marriage really is. Remember, words mean things, and to most folks, a marriage is between and man and a woman. Just look down in TX how they changed the school books to reflect this.

Finally, we're all prejudiced. You may like Coke or Pepsi. You may like American or European cars. You may be for or against gay marriage. It's all a choice. To act like we don't judge things is just pretending. Why do we control billboards and signs for businesses in alot of states and cities? Because the things around us affect our behavior and our beliefs.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:36 am

As you said yourself most people agree that it's not their bussines what happens in bedroom between two people. Allowing gay marriage is no more than accepting the thing that happens anway. Why not legalize something that is common? Why legislate double standard for 'us' and for 'them'? If that is not prejudice i dont know what is. Law should not protect morality. Just freedom of other people. Unless you want second Iran
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:45 am

I agree, give them civil unions which convey all the financial, tax, estate, and work benefits which are aspects of marriage, just don't change the meaning of what marriage is. Different types of automobiles require different sorts of licenses, so should something like different types of unions, marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. As a few folks have mentioned, there already exist a number of types of marriage for heterosexuals, so differences already exist. Hell, just look at the fact some states are community property states and others aren't with regard to marriage.

Law does protect morality. We believe killing is morally wrong, right? Which is why it is against the law in most cases. We believe that stealing is morally wrong, which is why it is against the law. We used to believe adultry was against the law until we started being more understanding about it. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? Our moral code is based on the beliefs of society and from these, we create our laws.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:51 am

I have a question, which just popped in my head, why do homosexuals want to call a union between themselves "marriage"? What is the goal and reasoning behind the desire to change what a marriage means? What is the issue with having something that is equal but with a different name? You need different driving licenses for various types of automobiles. You need various types of licenses to sell mortgages and other securities. Each of these has a different name. I'm just confused by the desire to grab onto a word like marriage and change its meaning.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:00 am

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ?separate but equal? has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. "
?Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court


Yes, that's about education. It can basically apply to anything.


You need different licenses for different vehicles because they take different skills to drive AND anyone driving one without those skills becomes a danger to others.

It doesn't take some special skill to be gay, nor does it take special skill to be straight. So no good trying to claim "separate but equal" on that basis.

Gay people want to change the definition because the current definition excludes them. It makes them feel like lesser people, cast out, inhuman. I mean hell, we even let <a href="http://www.beachwed.com/pets/pup_nuptials.htm">PETS</a> get married! So by not allowing them to marry we are essentially saying we think gay people are less deserving than DOGS!
<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 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:03 am

Can we not also point out the obvious fact that this issue, at the heart, is not about descrimination or seperate but equal?

It is a fact that government encourages marriage as it is traditionally known. This is an issue of encouragement. We encourage man to marry woman, to have families, we encourage them with legal protections, tax breaks, so forth and so on.

The question is, why is it so wrong that government does not extend these encouragements to other types of relationships?

The answer is simple, the government does not wish to encourage other types of relationships.

This is not the only case of government favoritism. All of us who have applied for financial aid (for education) know this for a fact. Those of us who checked "Caucasian" or "Asian/Pacific Islander" know for a fact that we are not eligible for as much aid as say "African American", "American Indian" or "Latin/Hispanic" (note the wording used to describe non-caucasians in this country).

The point being the government encourages African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos to attend college more so than the Cacuasians and Asians.

I would also like to point out that this is not the only case of racial descriminiation, or descrimination otherwise in our government.

Speaking on the grounds of equality, at best, makes for a poor argument, due to the fact that yes, government encourages certain things, values, in American life.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:09 am

Imis9 wrote:I have a question, which just popped in my head, why do homosexuals want to call a union between themselves "marriage"? What is the goal and reasoning behind the desire to change what a marriage means? What is the issue with having something that is equal but with a different name? You need different driving licenses for various types of automobiles. You need various types of licenses to sell mortgages and other securities. Each of these has a different name. I'm just confused by the desire to grab onto a word like marriage and change its meaning.


This is an interesting question, one most easily answered by looking into basic human desires. One of which is to be accepted by others.

It would seem that homosexuals that wish to define marriage in such a way as to allow unions with their gay partners to be called marriage.

Thusly, forcing an eye to eye acceptance of their union to all others woul would call their unions with their spiritual partners, marriage.

On the other side of the fence, it would make it significantly more difficult for the government to discriminate against gay unions if the language was not seperate in legislation.

But really, not by much.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:10 am

Sarvis wrote:You need different licenses for different vehicles because they take different skills to drive AND anyone driving one without those skills becomes a danger to others.


This is incorrect. From the ground up, it is true. You do need a different license as vehicles get larger.

However, in actuality: you really only need a Commercial License in order to drive any vehicle.

There is one license that does cover any vehicle legal on the road.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 am

Imis9 wrote:Law does protect morality. We believe killing is morally wrong, right? Which is why it is against the law in most cases. We believe that stealing is morally wrong, which is why it is against the law. We used to believe adultry was against the law until we started being more understanding about it. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? Our moral code is based on the beliefs of society and from these, we create our laws.


Adultry is still against the law in the vast, vast majority of the states. Adultry is also grounds for a clean divorce, or in other words a faulted divorce. If one member of a divorce commits acts of adultry that may be proven, or has been admitted, said member can legally divorce immediatly on such grounds and is entitled to at least half the estate. If the estate holder is divorcing his/her partner on grounds of adultry, the adulterator is entitled to nothing.
Tuga
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Postby Tuga » Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:36 pm

A democracy is not supposed to be three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Cheers
Tuga the Sunless Troll
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:22 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Can we not also point out the obvious fact that this issue, at the heart, is not about descrimination or seperate but equal?

It is a fact that government encourages marriage as it is traditionally known. This is an issue of encouragement. We encourage man to marry woman, to have families, we encourage them with legal protections, tax breaks, so forth and so on.

The question is, why is it so wrong that government does not extend these encouragements to other types of relationships?

The answer is simple, the government does not wish to encourage other types of relationships.

This is not the only case of government favoritism. All of us who have applied for financial aid (for education) know this for a fact. Those of us who checked "Caucasian" or "Asian/Pacific Islander" know for a fact that we are not eligible for as much aid as say "African American", "American Indian" or "Latin/Hispanic" (note the wording used to describe non-caucasians in this country).

The point being the government encourages African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos to attend college more so than the Cacuasians and Asians.

I would also like to point out that this is not the only case of racial descriminiation, or descrimination otherwise in our government.

Speaking on the grounds of equality, at best, makes for a poor argument, due to the fact that yes, government encourages certain things, values, in American life.


Your example is faulty. That IS discrimination, it is just discrimination that enough of us accept. There are some who think strongly that Affirmative Action is highly racist.

What is the difference between the government "encouraging" gay couples not to marry and the government "encouraging" African-Americans to ride different buses or go to different schools?
<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 » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:39 pm

Sarvis wrote:Your example is faulty. That IS discrimination, it is just discrimination that enough of us accept. There are some who think strongly that Affirmative Action is highly racist.

What is the difference between the government "encouraging" gay couples not to marry and the government "encouraging" African-Americans to ride different buses or go to different schools?


This is not a faulty example. The whole point which you have missed, is that there are different types of discrimination. Not all of which are necessarily detrimental to our societal fabric. To simply ball and term any form of discrimination as being bad is ignorant and irresponsible, and ultimately discriminant in itself.
Rytnor
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:18 pm

Postby Rytnor » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:03 pm

I was hesitant to post to this thread because of my intimate association with the subject matter. Let me start by saying that I’m a 27 year-old, white, homosexual male. I’ll try to keep this succinct since much has already been written.

I don’t purport to change other’s beliefs as testimony sans phenomenological reinforcement lacks the substance required to significantly impact another’s theological or philosophical perspective (I realize that a logical perspective may be discrete from both). Anything is true to an individual only because s/he believes it is true. That’s not to say that all beliefs are equal; beliefs reinforced by logical science or common experiences have more of a penchant for validity than a belief subjectively absolute to the self.

I won’t regurgitate what has already been posted in this thread. Suffice to say I’ve been encouraged, disheartened and infuriated by this thread, as have many others who have taken the time to digest the content. The technical and intimate aspects of my relationship with another male may prove unpalatable to you, but the personal and relational sexuality between consensual adults is not something that should be institutionally regulated based upon palatability. This relationship deserves the privilege of recognition by a government that regulates my personal freedoms. A government, mind you, for which I am financially and legally responsible.

Without legally delineating the historical development of marriage, I think advocates of exclusively heterosexual marriage should keep the following in mind:
1) Marriage was created to benefit a religious institution within a specific historical and cultural context. This context no longer exists. I do not propose the abolition of marriage, but I think it should be noted that the historical and cultural environment has changed significantly. Just as both the Church and government have changed to accommodate societal paradigm shifts, so should the institutions that each engenders (or of which they consist, depending on your perspective). If these do not change, they become closed and subject to entropy.
2) To my knowledge, the institution of marriage has propagated discrimination based upon race, gender and economics within the past 100 years of our history. We have abolished discrimination based upon most aspects of these attributes. I find it interesting and sad that as early as 50 years ago, interracial marriage was a prosecutable offense in some states. Indeed, much of what is being said about the current homosexual involvement in marriage could be taken verbatim from the arguments against interracial marriage back then.

Preferential discrimination can be extremely beneficial for a society. But that’s the key: beneficial. The attempt to discriminate in certain bureaucracies is towards a beneficial end. Gender and racial tick boxes are not included on application forms for the purpose of exclusion. They are included to allow benefit for groups of people who have traditionally been excluded due to similar discrimination. My point is not to debate advocate Affirmative Action, but to make a logical point. The original intent of such discrimination was to benefit the entire population that the bureaucracy was created to facilitate. And if it was not originally created to facilitate the entire population, it has been modified to meet the current needs and avoid entropy for a time.

Well, that was a bit longer than I anticipated and I’m truncating my post here on a final note. I believe it was Imix that asked why there is little or no tolerance for a viewpoint opposing the inclusion of homosexuals in the traditional and legally recognized definition of marriage. The reason that I have no tolerance for this viewpoint is that while an exclusive belief restricts my personal freedoms (which, in turn, have legal ramifications), my belief does no such thing to yours.

Finis
"You are a living mockery of your own ideals.
If not, you have set your ideals too low."
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:43 pm

First of all, Teflor, my statement included several facts, and then my own opinions and observations, hence the distinction between the two. If you are planning on rebutting arguments made, it helps to pay attention to what is being said.

Facts
1. Bush is against homosexuality in general, not just gay marriages and civil unions.

Bush has never spoken out against homosexuality in general or legislated against homosexuality. Furthermore, the current amendment he is proposing is merely to define the institution of marriage as all religions and societies have encouraged for known history.

>>> 0% Fact, 25% Possible, 100% Slander = 75% Ignorant


The ignorance here is that you do not believe that Bush has spoken out against homosexuals, and that he actually supports them. He has worked hard to have legislation created to ban gay marriages, for example. And, up until Cheney's daughter came out, Bush openly spoke against homosexuality. It's part of his personal religious views to think homosexuality is a sin.

2. Kerry is against gay marriages, but supports civil unions

Kerry has made statements supporting such, but he is not in the running for president.

>>> 50% Fact, 75% Possible, 0% Slander = But No One Cares


100% Fact, he stated as much several times during the campaign. Unfortunately, it's irrelevant for the next 4 years, as people voted for Bush, not Kerry.

Left out the facts that you "agreed" on.

5. Approximately 50-60% of all American marriages end in divorce, and that rate is growing higher. Yet Bush, and most conservatives think that marriage is a sacred, interminable (unending) bond.

Sacred != Interminable

Religion tells us that angels fall. Church tells us that there may be divorce.

>>> 50% Factual, 50% Possible, 75% Slander = 25% Ignorant


I never said the Sacred = Interminable, hence the comma separating the two adjectives, joining them, similar to using the conjuction "AND". Catholicism tells us Divorce is a sin, hence the reformation and the Anglican church being formed. King Henry VIII split from the Catholic church because the Cardinal said he couldnt have any more "annulments". And, while divorce may be allowed in other religions and sects of Christianity, it is certainly not a praiseworthy event, or one that Priests/Rabbis/etc. would ever suggest or truly endorse.

6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex. In fact, there is evidence that Emporer Hadrian, whose lover committed suicide on his 18th birthday, thinking that he was too old to be considered attractive to the emporer anymore, created a cult worshipping his deceased lover. Ruins of Shrines to the dead boy can be found all over within the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was at it's largest during Hadrian's reign.

And what of the emperor’s concubines?

>>> 25% Factual, 50% Possible, 50% … well, too long gone to be slander, but = 25% Ignorant


Pick up a book on Emporer Hadrian, and you'll learn that it's 100% fact. Do a little research. Read and enlighten yourself before speaking.

7. As the Catholic church gained influence during the end of the Roman Empire and through the Dark Ages, their goal was to stamp out the "decadence" of the Roman Empire, and so many of the "sins" were created out of what the Romans were most noted for.

Yet all are still sinners. Also, the Catholic church isn’t quite the same. Furthermore, many other Christian churches share many of the same guidelines.

>>> 50% Fact, 50% Possible, 50% Slander = Neutral Statement


This doesnt change the fact that the Catholic Church, during the decline of the Roman Empire and the Dark Age, set it's policy at conformity with something new, rather than allowing practices from the Roman Empire to continue. Pick up Constantine's Sword by James Carrol. Granted, the book is mostly a history of the conflict between Catholics and Jews, but it does have some very relevant information about the Church's practice's, particularly as propogated by the Emporer Constantine.

8. EQUALITY: the quality or state of being equal: as a : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree (Webster)

That’s not a fact; it’s a dictionary definition.

So now dictionary definitions are matters of opinion?

Observations:
America is a very conservative country at this time, and is likely to become more so, thanks to the ignorance of the "religious right" in their efforts to force their views on others.

The very same could be said of the liberal left. This is a neutral argument which serves only to turn off conservatives and some leftists.

This is a matter of opinion, hence the tag "observations" and not "facts".

By banning not only gay marriages, but also the numerous other positive things that Bush has spoken against, such as stem-cell research, abortion, etc., we as a society are going to be forced to take action.

100% Incorrect, 100% Irresponsible, 100% Ignorant

Bush intends to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He is not seeking to specifically ban gay marriage.


Actually, if you followed the election at all, or any of the last 4 years, Bush has explicitly stated that Gay Marriages should not be allowed, stating that marriage is a sacred institution, and can only exist between a man and a woman. I would appreciate it if you would at least do some research before attacking arguments.

Furthermore, Bush SUPPORTS STEM CELL RESEARCH WITH FEDERAL FUNDING. Where you get the idea that he is against stem cell research is probably where you get the rest of your ideas.

So, when he said during the Presidential debates that he does not support stem cell research, and planned on pulling the plug on it's funding that's been in place since Clinton was in office, he was lying? Just curious.

Abortion as a Positive Thing? Even people getting abortions don’t think they’re a trip to Disney World.

Valid point - poor wording led to confusion. My point was, barring a woman's right to choose is a definite negative. Please do not misunderstand me, or any other's who are Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice does not mean "Pro-Abortion."

Do not misunderstand me: the complacence of Bush's sheep, I mean, followers, is taking action. Those of us, however, with open minds, are able to make informed decisions on topical matters for ourselves, and should not be led to "greener pastures".

Your mind does seem open enough to call false statements ‘factual,’ I’ll give you that.

That is certainly not the way to get your point across. By attacking the person, rather than the argument, what are you hoping to prove? And when you cannot support your statements "proving" facts to be "false", where does that leave your arguments?

Someone mentioned that now is not the time to fight. That is about the most ludicrous thing I read in these posts. Waiting until a constitutional amendment proposed is waiting too long. Standing up, using your voice, and the freedoms granted in the First Amendment, at this time is not just your right, but is essentially becoming your moral obligation. America was built on change and on the voices of her people rising to decry or support individual topics. To be cowed into complacency by the current leadership is to accept "taxation without representation." If your elected officials will not speak with your voice, as they are supposed to do, then it is the right, privilege, honor, and obligation of each American citizen to make sure that their voice is heard. That is the beauty of Democracy; if functioning properly, all voices are heard with equal weight.

Yes, at the polls and through the electoral college. We’re a Republic.

For the record, we are a Democracy, not a Republic, at least, not Plato's version of a Republic. I'm not sure what definition of "Republic" you are using Teflor, but please enlighten me. The beauty of the First Amendment is that we do not need to wait for an election to have our voice be heard. If you want something changed, your Senator's address and email are easy to find, so send a letter. Write an editorial in the paper. Hold a peaceful rally supporting your cause. America allows for referendum votes, that do not need to wait for the Presidential election to be voted on. But no referendum was ever proposed that was never spoken for ahead of time. On a side note, my opinion is that the electoral college is outdated, but that's something for another thread.

Of course, if people hold their tongues and roll over when faced with adversity, Democracy turns to Tyrrany, as a president who thinks he has a "Divine Mandate" to rule runs the country without checks or balances.

Your best adversity is your own bungled attempts to convince anyone who is not already convinced. Your post is ineffective and totally unusable by those who are against gay marriage and trying to keep an open mind. You offer NOTHING for an open mind, but ammunition for closed ones.

My post was designed to do 2 things: 1) Offer facts, which it did; and 2) to offer my opinions, which it did.

People can make their own inferences, draw their own conclusions, and form their own opinions, either using what I posted, or not. That's something I have no control over. I do have control over whether or not my voice is heard.


Have we learned nothing from history? Where would England be without the Magna Carta? The French without the Bastille riots? America without the Declaration of Independence?

We have the Declaration of Independence. This is America.

Please clarify - I'm not sure what you meant here. For clarification of my post, my point was that America is where it is today because of open-minded people who spoke their mind and wrote the Declaration of Independence (thanks Jefferson!). They spoke in favor of change, and were rewarded because of it, albeit not immediately.

Do not dissolve your beliefs into apathy. Just because I am not gay, does not mean that I do not support the rights of homosexuals, or any other person for that matter. A person with a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, or mental capacity, is still a human, and should be treated accordingly. As Birile, and others (including at least one before), have mentioned, "Separate but Equal" is the epitome of inequality. To separate is to divide, to divide is to conquer.

In this entire dissertation, you’ve missed the entire point that most Americans consider first. Morality. Is there a right to sexuality? No one who has read your post would be able to determine any better for themselves.

By not explicitly stating the word "morality", does not mean that I ignored it. Of course people have a right to choose their sexuality, just as they have a right to express themselves in any way that is not harmful to another.

1) You Assume Americans are Idiots

Joke as much as you will, but you insult your own country, and even more so all other countries in the world who have thanked her for her assistance, her friendship, and follow in her path.


Yet it's ok for American's to make jokes about the French, despite them having helped us in the Revolution? Or for people across Europe to hold protests to America's actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan? If we can speak out against other countries, and they can speak out against ours, why can we not speak against, and criticize, our own country? I love America, but there are definite things that I would like to see change, and I will continue to speak my mind, presenting a mixture of both fact and opinion, but making them distinguishable, until such time as I see fit.

2) You Don’t Actually Address the Real Issues

Just the newsweek/new york times cannon fodder and stuff already well covered by the liberal left, who we know have done such a great job of convincing America.


I dont read newsweek or the new york times, I read the Denver Post and the Colorado Springs Gazette, both of which are conservative papers that endorsed Bush. Just for the record. Yet, despite reading Conservative papers, I am a Liberal. Funny how that works, huh?

I’m not against gay marriage, and I do believe that people have the right to sexuality in this country.

And I think that your post is both ignorant and irresponsible, and that it offers nothing to help anyone with an open mind change their ideas.


Explain to me how your rebuttal has done anything to allow people to change their ideas? Whereas I offered facts, followed by opinions, you offered opinions followed by opinions, and topped with derision and personal attacks. Much as I despise having said that, as attacking a character is far less effective than attacking an argument, I felt that it needed to be said.

Wow that got long - sorry all!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:37 am

rer wrote:First of all, Teflor, my statement included several facts, and then my own opinions and observations, hence the distinction between the two. If you are planning on rebutting arguments made, it helps to pay attention to what is being said.


I made no statement that your entire post was a reporting of fact. Perhaps you should pay attention to what is being said.

rer wrote: The ignorance here is that you do not believe that Bush has spoken out against homosexuals, and that he actually supports them. He has worked hard to have legislation created to ban gay marriages, for example. And, up until Cheney's daughter came out, Bush openly spoke against homosexuality. It's part of his personal religious views to think homosexuality is a sin.


Stating that homosexuality is a sin in his beliefs, is not speaking out against homosexuals. If you would actually take a second to think: to a Christian, not being Christian is a sin. If you would actually take another second to think: Being Alive is a sin to a Christian.

I never said the Sacred = Interminable, hence the comma separating the two adjectives, joining them, similar to using the conjuction "AND". Catholicism tells us Divorce is a sin, hence the reformation and the Anglican church being formed. King Henry VIII split from the Catholic church because the Cardinal said he couldnt have any more "annulments". And, while divorce may be allowed in other religions and sects of Christianity, it is certainly not a praiseworthy event, or one that Priests/Rabbis/etc. would ever suggest or truly endorse.


For that matter, Bush has never said that Marriage is Interminable.


6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex.


Bullshit. Many Roman emperors were known for maintaining brothels and raping women.

This doesnt change the fact that the Catholic Church, during the decline of the Roman Empire and the Dark Age, set it's policy at conformity with something new, rather than allowing practices from the Roman Empire to continue. Pick up Constantine's Sword by James Carrol. Granted, the book is mostly a history of the conflict between Catholics and Jews, but it does have some very relevant information about the Church's practice's, particularly as propogated by the Emporer Constantine.


You do realize that the Christians have this thing called a bible, which tells them from right and wrong? Which most if not all sins are grounded upon?


This is a matter of opinion, hence the tag "observations" and not "facts".


Yes, and if you would open your eyes, you would see that I have made no further fact ratings.

Actually, if you followed the election at all, or any of the last 4 years, Bush has explicitly stated that Gay Marriages should not be allowed, stating that marriage is a sacred institution, and can only exist between a man and a woman. I would appreciate it if you would at least do some research before attacking arguments.


I would appreciate if you would do some research as to the wording of the proposed amendment. Notice how it does not mention Gay Marriage whatsoever, as that is not its intention.

So, when he said during the Presidential debates that he does not support stem cell research, and planned on pulling the plug on it's funding that's been in place since Clinton was in office, he was lying? Just curious.


Again, I would appreciate it if you could do some research on your own.

Why don't you try starting with say... BUSH'S STATED OPINION as an authority on Bush's Opinion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-2.html



For the record, we are a Democracy, not a Republic, at least, not Plato's version of a Republic. I'm not sure what definition of "Republic" you are using Teflor, but please enlighten me. The beauty of the First Amendment is that we do not need to wait for an election to have our voice be heard. If you want something changed, your Senator's address and email are easy to find, so send a letter. Write an editorial in the paper. Hold a peaceful rally supporting your cause. America allows for referendum votes, that do not need to wait for the Presidential election to be voted on. But no referendum was ever proposed that was never spoken for ahead of time. On a side note, my opinion is that the electoral college is outdated, but that's something for another thread.


Ignorant, Irresponsible, and Just Dead Wrong

Again, I am not the one that needs to do some research. If we take a look into the CIA FACT BOOK, we see that our government is:

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.

It is painfully obvious that you haven't a clue as to even what style of government our nation is based upon. This is the worst offense in your entire post. Furthermore, our style of government shares many of the ideas Plato presented in The Republic.


Yet it's ok for American's to make jokes about the French, despite them having helped us in the Revolution?


Want to point out where I said this? Oh wait, you can't. I didn't.

I dont read newsweek or the new york times, I read the Denver Post and the Colorado Springs Gazette, both of which are conservative papers that endorsed Bush. Just for the record. Yet, despite reading Conservative papers, I am a Liberal. Funny how that works, huh?


You and a 3.5 million minority in this country.




So far, all you've shown is that you have no idea what kind of governmental system our country is founded upon, that you have no idea where Bush stands on issues such as Stem-Cell Research, are completely unaware of how Christians determine what is sin, and unaware of how little reasearch you've done.

Furthermore, you do not even seem to be aware that you won't find the same definitions as you go from major dictionary to major dictionary.

So, who's launching us into a "Second Dark Age" now?

Welcome to the Republic.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
Adalek
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 9:25 pm

Postby Adalek » Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:57 am

Homosexuality=Ewwwww.

Soon we'll be allowing homosexuals to get married, there is no doubt in my mind about that. And then after that we'll be letting one guy marry 5 women, because hell, its not infringing on anyones rights...right? Then we will let the peeps that are into beastiality marry the sheep they love and stuff....not infringing on any person's rights at all...

Discrimination always has and always will be here. And in this case, I'm damn glad it is. Won't be here for long, but I'm glad it is for the time being.

There are some who shout equality blah blah blah we should all get around camp fires and sing hymns and fuck each other and shit, because it is our God given right to be free! If it feels groovy, do it!

I will never call a homosexual a name, and I will treat him no worse than I would a heterosexual man. But I damn sure won't be forced to accept something I believe is morally wrong. That IS infringing on MY rights. I don't care to have gay marriages.....does that make me prejudice? Does that make me a "bigot"? Maybe so. But I guess I'm not alone, either.

Flame on.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:07 am

oteb wrote:Imis how can you call right and wrong into this dispute?
The marriage of homosexual people in NO way infringe upon your rights or belives. And banning it just basing on belives of 'majority' is prejudice. The only line that should be drawn for rights of other people is when they invade into somebodies freedom. Gay merriages in NO way affect your life.


He's talking about the rightness of religiously motivated people to argue for what they believe in. This happens to result in their arguing against same-sex marriages.

Whether or not the laws directly affect the lives of Christians is irrelevant to whether or not they have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, by arguing against it. Don't you find it ironic that many liberals are in effect arguing against freedom of expression and freedom of religion? Or that so many liberals only support it up to a point where it inconveniently clashes with the liberal agenda?

I agree with quite a few ideas that are labeled as liberal, but I cannot see this particular vein of argument (one against religious self-expression) as having merit. The archetypical "right wing" conservative Christian has some basis in their espoused beliefs when they argue on this matter; the "left wing" liberal who preaches tolerance for religious expression does not. Of course, this is easily remedied by instead being against religion, whereupon one can argue against Christians without contradicting oneself. However, one is then attempting to stifle the beliefs of a group simply because one does not agree with them. One then would have no moral ground upon which to advocate the acceptance of homosexual marriage. Funny how that works.

Whether or not you believe homosexuals should be able to get married should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in the rights of people to speak their mind on this issue.

For the record, since I have met a good number of Christian Liberals, I am additionally amused by the lumping of all Christians together, and the lumping of all homosexuals together.
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'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:20 am

rer wrote: Please clarify - I'm not sure what you meant here. For clarification of my post, my point was that America is where it is today because of open-minded people who spoke their mind and wrote the Declaration of Independence (thanks Jefferson!). They spoke in favor of change, and were rewarded because of it, albeit not immediately.


This is an excellent statement. It was people like Thomas Jefferson that was able to get America to agree upon the articles of our federation. The fact of the matter was that they had to do a lot of convincing, debating, publishing. Thomas Jefferson did not force immediate change, but merely convinced Americans to agree upon the direction.

The methods employed by the liberal left to argue, belittle, and to appear morally superior are not the ways through which open-minded peole changed forever the face of government on the earth. Nor did change come immediately or overnight.

It is said that, to fix the nation, we must fix the state, and to fix the state, we must fix the neighborhoods, and to fix the neighborhoods, we must fix the family, finally, in order fix the family, we must fix the heart.

Posting ficticious nonsense for the purpose soley to further split the nation has been the ignoranance and irresponsibility to which I pin the blame for the stalling of progress in general and on the whole within the nation. Mostly I blame the liberal left for such actions, but I am aware that such acts take place from the right as well.

Things worth doing are worth doing right. Allow the natural course of things to take effect. Start with the heart of the problem. We live in a great republic because we have made it that way.

Heal that divide in your heart, and you will see the nation come together in the right direction.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:08 am

rer wrote:6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex.

...

Read and enlighten yourself before speaking.


I'm sorry, but you are the one who needs enlightening.

Caligula (37-41)
Caligula revived the treason trials of his predecessor, Tiberius, opened a brothel in the palace, raped whomever he wished, reported on the woman's performance to her husband, committed incest, killed for greed, and thought he should be treated as a god.

Elagabalus (218-224)
Elagabalus did not act in a manner befitting an emperor, stopping short of self-castration in his pursuit of alien religions. This transvestite emperor raped a vestal virgin and in his unsatiable sexuality, set up a brothel at the palace. He imprisoned and executed those who criticized him.

Domitian (81-96)
Domitian was paranoid about conspiracies. He developed new tortures and harassed philosophers and Jews. He had vestal virgins executed or buried alive on charges of immorality. After he impregnated his niece, he insisted she have an abortion and then, when she died as a result, he deified her. He executed officials who opposed his policies and confiscated their property.

It also appears that you know nothing about Roman emperors either.

Ignorant and Irresponsible. The republic that expends federal funding on stem cell reseearch awaits your answer. (As well as the Roman emporers that did women for pleasure.)
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:29 am

moritheil wrote:
oteb wrote:Imis how can you call right and wrong into this dispute?
The marriage of homosexual people in NO way infringe upon your rights or belives. And banning it just basing on belives of 'majority' is prejudice. The only line that should be drawn for rights of other people is when they invade into somebodies freedom. Gay merriages in NO way affect your life.


He's talking about the rightness of religiously motivated people to argue for what they believe in. This happens to result in their arguing against same-sex marriages.

Whether or not the laws directly affect the lives of Christians is irrelevant to whether or not they have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, by arguing against it. Don't you find it ironic that many liberals are in effect arguing against freedom of expression and freedom of religion? Or that so many liberals only support it up to a point where it inconveniently clashes with the liberal agenda?

I agree with quite a few ideas that are labeled as liberal, but I cannot see this particular vein of argument (one against religious self-expression) as having merit. The archetypical "right wing" conservative Christian has some basis in their espoused beliefs when they argue on this matter; the "left wing" liberal who preaches tolerance for religious expression does not. Of course, this is easily remedied by instead being against religion, whereupon one can argue against Christians without contradicting oneself. However, one is then attempting to stifle the beliefs of a group simply because one does not agree with them. One then would have no moral ground upon which to advocate the acceptance of homosexual marriage. Funny how that works.

Whether or not you believe homosexuals should be able to get married should have no bearing on whether or not you believe in the rights of people to speak their mind on this issue.

For the record, since I have met a good number of Christian Liberals, I am additionally amused by the lumping of all Christians together, and the lumping of all homosexuals together.


Mori, I don't think it's so much as they are trying to douse the christian view, but more take it out of the law books. It is one thing to express what you believe in, but it is another to force that upon others. My parents are conservative christians and they are against gay marriage. I talk with them all the time about things like this and we respect each other's opinions. However, what is different about them in this instance is that they agree that while they do not believe that homosexual marriage is proper or right, they do not think there should be laws denying this. Maybe it is because I am a Buddhist and that has changed their opinions on things, but it is there none-the-less.

Like it's been stated so many times before, the liberals are not trying to force their beliefs upon the christians, but only trying to be allowed to express themselves the way they see fit...be it sexuality, religion, etc. On the other hand, some christians are attempting to force their ideas and morals upon the homosexuals in an attempt to push them into a hole so they don't have to see them as much as possible. It can be directly linked to race segregation and discrimination. Ironicly, those have been all but defeated while this is still around.
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!!"
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:49 am

Kifle wrote:Like it's been stated so many times before, the liberals are not trying to force their beliefs upon the christians, but only trying to be allowed to express themselves the way they see fit...be it sexuality, religion, etc.


Perhaps it's been stated many times, but that does not change the fact that I have seen a great many instances of self-avowed liberals telling Christians to shut up, that nobody wants to hear their opinion, that they are misinformed bigots, etc, etc. All this is internally inconsistent with the liberal ideology of allowing expression.

Furthermore, while I have seen some Christians say that they believe other Christians are mistaken about their approach to the issue of homosexuality, I have never, in hundreds of discussions, web pages, and forum posts, seen a single liberal act apologetic in the least for this blatant violation of their own code of conduct.

Let's see if I can give you the chain of events that I see:

1. Liberals state that they believe in freedom of expression.
2. Christians express an unpopular opinion on an issue, because they believe that their deity wants them to speak out.
3. Liberals tell Christians to shut up, en masse, simply because they don't agree with the Christian perspective, or simply tell the Christians that they are wrong, behind the times, etc.
4. I note that this is rather bizzare, while no self-identified liberals think anything is wrong with it.
5. Those same liberals attack Christians for having the temerity to tell someone that they are wrong on a matter of personal belief, when that is in fact exactly what they have just done.

Please note that I am talking specifically about internal consistency and two groups: 1) liberals who attack Christians or Christianity broadly, and 2) Christians who advance an argument because they feel compelled to do so for religious reasons.

This is a glaring inconsistency on the part of the liberals, and I cannot in the interests of honest discourse allow anyone to merely sidestep it with a handwave and "it's been said many times, we're not the ones forcing stuff down peoples throats."

Say it as many times as you want, it's still what I'm seeing everywhere.

Face the issue.
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'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:57 am

moritheil wrote:
Kifle wrote:Like it's been stated so many times before, the liberals are not trying to force their beliefs upon the christians, but only trying to be allowed to express themselves the way they see fit...be it sexuality, religion, etc.


Perhaps it's been stated many times, but that does not change the fact that I have seen a great many instances of self-avowed liberals telling Christians to shut up, that nobody wants to hear their opinion, that they are misinformed bigots, etc, etc. All this is internally inconsistent with the liberal ideology of allowing expression.

Furthermore, while I have seen some Christians say that they believe other Christians are mistaken about their approach to the issue of homosexuality, I have never, in hundreds of discussions, web pages, and forum posts, seen a single liberal act apologetic in the least for this blatant violation of their own code of conduct.

Let's see if I can give you the chain of events that I see:

1. Liberals state that they believe in freedom of expression.
2. Christians express an unpopular opinion on an issue, because they believe that their deity wants them to speak out.
3. Liberals tell Christians to shut up, en masse, simply because they don't agree with the Christian perspective, or simply tell the Christians that they are wrong, behind the times, etc.
4. I note that this is rather bizzare, while no self-identified liberals think anything is wrong with it.
5. Those same liberals attack Christians for having the temerity to tell someone that they are wrong on a matter of personal belief, when that is in fact exactly what they have just done.

Please note that I am talking specifically about internal consistency and two groups: 1) liberals who attack Christians or Christianity broadly, and 2) Christians who advance an argument because they feel compelled to do so for religious reasons.

This is a glaring inconsistency, and I cannot in the interests of honest discourse allow anyone to merely sidestep it with a handwave and "it's been said many times, we're not the ones forcing stuff down peoples throats."

Say it as many times as you want, it's still what I'm seeing everywhere.

Face the issue.


Well, as a labeled liberal, I apologize if I have said that I didn't want to hear their opinion if their opinion wasn't just based on "I'm right, you're wrong". Furthermore, I'd like to say that I have only attempted to show that the law is wrong. This law, by the way, is actually christians telling homosexuals to shut up and go home. So, I guess it may not be as clear cut as what you say the liberals always do, and the christians do not (which is far from the truth, mori), but it is still there regardless.

The fact is that each side of this debate, whether it be here or elsewhere in the country, has told the other to shut up and that they are wrong. It would only be self-servring to believe otherwise. To falsely blame the liberals for doing this and not acknowledging that the christians do it as well is just irresponsible. Seriously, I can think of no better example of one side giving the other the big "shut up, I'm right" by denying somebody of their freedoms and basing a law soley on THEIR beliefs.

You know I respect you mori, but I think you're being just a bit one-sided here.
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!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:37 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
rer wrote:6. In Ancient Greek and Roman societies, sex for pleasure was almost NEVER done with the opposite sex.

...

Read and enlighten yourself before speaking.


I'm sorry, but you are the one who needs enlightening.

Caligula (37-41)
Caligula revived the treason trials of his predecessor, Tiberius, opened a brothel in the palace, raped whomever he wished, reported on the woman's performance to her husband, committed incest, killed for greed, and thought he should be treated as a god.

Elagabalus (218-224)
Elagabalus did not act in a manner befitting an emperor, stopping short of self-castration in his pursuit of alien religions. This transvestite emperor raped a vestal virgin and in his unsatiable sexuality, set up a brothel at the palace. He imprisoned and executed those who criticized him.

Domitian (81-96)
Domitian was paranoid about conspiracies. He developed new tortures and harassed philosophers and Jews. He had vestal virgins executed or buried alive on charges of immorality. After he impregnated his niece, he insisted she have an abortion and then, when she died as a result, he deified her. He executed officials who opposed his policies and confiscated their property.

It also appears that you know nothing about Roman emperors either.

Ignorant and Irresponsible. The republic that expends federal funding on stem cell reseearch awaits your answer. (As well as the Roman emporers that did women for pleasure.)




He was still right about the Greeks...



In previous posts you have advanced what seems to be an argument stating that bigotry is fine and good simply because the "other side" hasn't presented a convincing argument yet. Is that truly what you believe? That everything is Good until someone persuades you that it is not?

If so, what persuaded you that homosexuality was evil?

I haven't paid full attention to this discussion really, but in other forums on the topic I have only ever ONCE seen a real argument against same-sex marriage. Most of the time the opposing side presents exactly the same style of arguments you accuse "liberals" of. It should be noted that this one real argument that I did see was a fairly weak one, noting that children raised by same-sex parents have higher stress levels than those raised by traditional parental couples. This is, of course, predicated on the notion that marriage is and should be only for the purposes of child rearing which is itself arguable considering the many traditional couples who do not have or wish to have children!

This is not a faulty example. The whole point which you have missed, is that there are different types of discrimination. Not all of which are necessarily detrimental to our societal fabric. To simply ball and term any form of discrimination as being bad is ignorant and irresponsible, and ultimately discriminant in itself.


Still faulty though. You have proven only that some forms of discrimination are accepted because of the expectation that they help society.

This does nothing to show that banning gay marriage is one of those kinds of discrimination.

Furthermore, the only reason certain discriminations are meant to help people and are accepted to make up for the egregious treatment of certain people in the past. So now you would need to tie the examples together by showing how banning gay marriage follows suit with the other forms of accepted discrimination.

Again, however, not everyone accepts that the "accepted" forms of discrimination are actually a good thing.
<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 17, 2004 8:07 am

Sarvis wrote:He was still right about the Greeks...


Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Sarvis wrote:In previous posts you have advanced what seems to be an argument stating that bigotry is fine and good simply because the "other side" hasn't presented a convincing argument yet. Is that truly what you believe? That everything is Good until someone persuades you that it is not?


More bullshit. I've no problem with gay marriage, and in fact support the right to sexuality in America. My problem is with ignorant, irresponsible posting.

This is by far the most Ignorant and Irresponsible post. The author does not understand my position on the subject at all, much less the fact that I have not yet made my argument for my position. In so far, I have merely criticized posts made on this topic.

From what I have seen here, these posts do a good job of shutting themselves down because their arguements are weak, their premesis faulty, and furthermore, their audiences disrespected.

If you would actually take the time to read each post I've made, the closest I have come to making a statement in this thread that is not merely critcism of another's post, is the one in which I quoted four versus from the bible.

Ignorant and Irresponsible. I've not posted my position. Don't put words in my mouth.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:11 am

Kifle wrote:Well, as a labeled liberal, I apologize if I have said that I didn't want to hear their opinion if their opinion wasn't just based on "I'm right, you're wrong". Furthermore, I'd like to say that I have only attempted to show that the law is wrong. This law, by the way, is actually christians telling homosexuals to shut up and go home. So, I guess it may not be as clear cut as what you say the liberals always do, and the christians do not (which is far from the truth, mori), but it is still there regardless.

The fact is that each side of this debate, whether it be here or elsewhere in the country, has told the other to shut up and that they are wrong. It would only be self-servring to believe otherwise. To falsely blame the liberals for doing this and not acknowledging that the christians do it as well is just irresponsible. Seriously, I can think of no better example of one side giving the other the big "shut up, I'm right" by denying somebody of their freedoms and basing a law soley on THEIR beliefs.

You know I respect you mori, but I think you're being just a bit one-sided here.


That's my point. Liberals claim to be above this, but they are not. Thank you, because you've just said that yourself and affirmed my point. Christians have never claimed to be above this because they openly acknowledge that they are doing it. They instead claim that they have a good reason for doing so - their deity.

Liberals are not justified in doing this, by their own standards. You want to judge Christians by liberal standards when the liberals aren't even holding to their own standards? Do you realize how silly that is? Shall I spell this out for you?

Liberal standard used: Not acting or arguing against someone on the basis of their personal beliefs and code of actions.
Liberals - failed
Christians - failed

Christian standard used: Speaking up for a rule outlined in the Bible, even when unpopular.
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded

Plausibility standard used: Internal consistency
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded

You're very intelligent, but look at that! The liberal position is wholy indefensible. The thought that liberals supported religious expression, regardless of what the religion was, was their single great claim to moral superiority. You just stated that liberals' supposed equal support for everyone's beliefs and expressions is a sham. You, who I thought would be one of the best possible defenders, has come right out and said it: you don't like respecting other peoples' beliefs when it conflicts with what you want.

What's the best justification you can offer for this? "Oh, but they do it too!" Well, they do it because they don't depend on following that code for justification. Liberals do.

You are in violation of your own beliefs, but they are not in violation of theirs. Do you see my point? I'm not arguing over whether or not you accept that the Christian deity empowers them with this message. That's what you seem to be arguing about. I am pointing out, using a neutral standard, a blatant inconsistency in the liberal message.

The liberals cannot even hold to their own standards, when all it would take is for them to stop opposing Christianity or Christian thought.

A lot of otherwise intelligent people are therefore making mockeries of themselves. Don't think that I take joy in that. I'm pointing this out so that liberals who attack religion can realize it.
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'
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:49 am

Adalek wrote:Homosexuality=Ewwwww.

Soon we'll be allowing homosexuals to get married, there is no doubt in my mind about that. And then after that we'll be letting one guy marry 5 women, because hell, its not infringing on anyones rights...right? Then we will let the peeps that are into beastiality marry the sheep they love and stuff....not infringing on any person's rights at all...

Discrimination always has and always will be here. And in this case, I'm damn glad it is. Won't be here for long, but I'm glad it is for the time being.

There are some who shout equality blah blah blah we should all get around camp fires and sing hymns and fuck each other and shit, because it is our God given right to be free! If it feels groovy, do it!

I will never call a homosexual a name, and I will treat him no worse than I would a heterosexual man. But I damn sure won't be forced to accept something I believe is morally wrong. That IS infringing on MY rights. I don't care to have gay marriages.....does that make me prejudice? Does that make me a "bigot"? Maybe so. But I guess I'm not alone, either.

Flame on.


I hope this was all a joke
If not, may be time to get off the front porch and into life, buddy :)
Bigotry and hatred have no place in America, the land where all creeds, colors, and walks of life walk in freedom .. (sorta)
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:58 am

Btw, your initial post was pretty well written, rer, but a couple details really struck me:

rer wrote:Have we learned nothing from history? Where would England be without the Magna Carta? The French without the Bastille riots? America without the Declaration of Independence?


The Magna Carta was signed as a result of a threat of force, so it's more or less a product of extortion. You may want to retract this example, unless you want to show support for that sort of behavior.

The Bastille riots led to the Reign of Terror (funny how nobody remembers that).
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'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:39 am

Actually, looking back further, I find this quote:

Kifle wrote:
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.


Which indicates that you've given up on it entirely. You just responded to a reference to "any religious person" by using the labels "bigots and idiots."

Hurrah for open-mindedness! Hurrah for not judging people you don't know on the basis of race, creed . . . oh wait.
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 17, 2004 5:07 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


"There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, <i>while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated</i> (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990)." - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/


I have read that Greeks were said to prefer boys to women elsewhere, that women were considered dirty and only to be used for mating. Howeve rthis article goes into a bit more detail on things, and seems to be saying that homosexuality was more or less just considered normal sex in much of Greece. Granted there are regional differences, so as always when someone says "all" of something they are automatically wrong. All three of us are currently guilty of that with this issue.


Sarvis wrote:
More bullshit. I've no problem with gay marriage, and in fact support the right to sexuality in America. My problem is with ignorant, irresponsible posting.

This is by far the most Ignorant and Irresponsible post. The author does not understand my position on the subject at all, much less the fact that I have not yet made my argument for my position. In so far, I have merely criticized posts made on this topic.

From what I have seen here, these posts do a good job of shutting themselves down because their arguements are weak, their premesis faulty, and furthermore, their audiences disrespected.

If you would actually take the time to read each post I've made, the closest I have come to making a statement in this thread that is not merely critcism of another's post, is the one in which I quoted four versus from the bible.

Ignorant and Irresponsible. I've not posted my position. Don't put words in my mouth.


I didn't say, or at least mean to, that you were putting forth tat argument. You do seem to be however, because of your constant attacks on the arguments of those who are against gay marriage.

What is one to assume when you keep your own opinion silent and merely attack one group of people consistantly, other than that you are taking up the opposite position?

I mean, your latest example with me was a shallow attempt to prove discrimination based on sexual preference was ok because we allow discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action! How is that NOT arguing against gay marriage?

For all your talk of proper arguments, it seems as though your point here is simply that liberals are not worth listening to. Well guess what, conservatives aren't worth listening to either.
<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
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:41 pm

Sarvis, I appreciate your candor and your willingness to explain your position, as it has helped me realize the errors that I posted in at least one argument of mine.

The Roman empire, at least in Rome and the regions surrounding it, followed the same pattern of sexuality as the Greeks until the Severan Dynasty, headed by Septimus Severus and his wife Julia Domna, the high priestess of Baal. They were from the Eastern part of the Empire, where homosexuality had fallen out of favor, but was not completely forgotten.

As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not. In this age of Science and Technology, strict "Religious Right" practices are losing their place. Having faith in a higher power is a great thing and using religion to determine the difference between right and wrong in your own life is great! Using your religion to determine what is right for others? Well, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Not being a homosexual, I cannot commiserate with discrimination on that aspect. However, I am Jewish, and have a very strong sense of Jewish identity and have experienced intolerance and bigotry first hand. I have been called a "Fucking Kike", a "ZioNazi", been attacked, and been discriminated against because of my religion. I have had numerous people try to convince me to convert to their religion because mine is "Wrong". Yet, from my own personal experiences, rather than making me shun my religion, my identity, it made me cling to it stronger, display it prouder.

Is the Bible outdated? What about Religion? I think that yes, in some aspects, they are. That's just my opinion. In our own country, Creationism vs. Evolution is still a big battle. I'm not sure that it necessarily has to be one or the other. But the major proponents of each insist that their way is the only way. Getting back to the point of this, religion, like anything else, must be flexible in order to survive. Anyone who argues that the Catholic church and it's policies today are the same as they were during the reign of the first Pope, let alone during the times of Machiavelli or the Crusades will hopefully provide some good evidence... I know that the Catholic Church has changed over time in order to keep up with modern affairs - Pope John Paul II made some great steps towards toleration in the Church in modern times. Constantine, the first Emporer to convert to Christianity, convened the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century in order to reform the church to suit his needs. After the Council's decisions, he arrested Church officials and destroyed areas that continued to dissent from the "unification".

To adapt, to evolve, is the key to life. If we remain rigid in our personal lives, we risk stagnating and going nowhere. Where in those 2 statements about change does it say that God doesnt exist, or that God isn't helping? To interject the suppositions that Liberals are not Religious and that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive is reprehensible. I am a Liberal. I am Religious. I think that Darwin is right, and that Evolution is true. And I know that God is out there, watching over all of us.

Do I want a Gay Lover? No. (sorry Gormal!) Do I want gay people to be able to express themselves? Yes. I see no reason why my beliefs cannot tolerate someone else enjoying their life in the manner that they see fit, assuming it is not harming anyone else. Personally, I do not see a person's sexual preference as harming anyone else. In fact, if I were to say that Tim and Tom having sex was harming me in anyway, then I would have to assume that by making love to a woman, I would be harming them. Seems a bit hipocritical to me...
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:14 pm

rer wrote:As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not.


I'm going to comment on this not because I want to take a side in that particular element of the debate, but because I think I understand what Teflor is trying to suggest, and I wonder if it would be more comprehensible if someone else were to explain it as well.

He's saying, firstly, that the religious right presents the largest obstacle to widespread acceptance of homosexual marriage. While this is an assumption, it is echoed by many people. Now, acting on that assumption, he is further saying that to the religious right, the only way to support homosexual marriage is to prove that it is compatible with the Bible.

Therefore, his conclusion is that to effect real change, people should start studying the Bible, with the ultimate goal of talking to the religious right. It's actually sort of like the 'religions change' portion of your post that followed that.

Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood either the position of people with regard to the political landscape or the statements of Teflor.
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'
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:57 pm

The only part I find humourous the fact many people don't know the meaning of marriage.

Marriage:

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Webster Dictionary.

Please, stop using the word incorrectly. I am all for civil unions but marriage isn't even the right word. Stop the spread of ignorance!
Meatshield
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:32 pm

moritheil wrote:Actually, looking back further, I find this quote:

Kifle wrote:
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.


Hurrah for open-mindedness! Hurrah for not judging people you don't know on the basis of race, creed . . . oh wait.



Hurrah for reading what you want to read!

Mori, I was talking about fanatic christians...specifically the ones who are, and always will be, against homosexual marriage. I even stated this by saying "hardcore christians." If you, for some odd reason, don't believe that there are those people out there, I pitty your poor grasp of reality. I didn't say "christian" or "all christians". Put into the context of what I was talking about at the time, that quote unfortunately doesn't support your theory at all.

What's sad is that I can say "damn those fanatic islamists for being terrorists" and I get mostly agreeance and am called a patriot. I call a fanatic christian a bigot (which they usually do fall into that definition, look it up...also, bigotry is idiocy) and I am met with agression and false accusations.

I replied to your post because I figured you where above petty flames and condescension, but I guess I was wrong.
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 » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:48 pm

moritheil wrote:
rer wrote:As to the arguments being made that the only way to support homosexual relationships is to provide evidence from the bible, well, quite frankly, I am baffled by this claim. I consider myself to be fairly religious, and certainly more so than my family, however, I do not need the Bible or Torah or Quran to tell me what is discrimination and what is not.


I'm going to comment on this not because I want to take a side in that particular element of the debate, but because I think I understand what Teflor is trying to suggest, and I wonder if it would be more comprehensible if someone else were to explain it as well.

He's saying, firstly, that the religious right presents the largest obstacle to widespread acceptance of homosexual marriage. While this is an assumption, it is echoed by many people. Now, acting on that assumption, he is further saying that to the religious right, the only way to support homosexual marriage is to prove that it is compatible with the Bible.

Therefore, his conclusion is that to effect real change, people should start studying the Bible, with the ultimate goal of talking to the religious right. It's actually sort of like the 'religions change' portion of your post that followed that.

Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood either the position of people with regard to the political landscape or the statements of Teflor.


While that may be his point, it is not the only course of action. It would be a better idea, some would say, to bypass all of that and go directly to the initial intent of the constitution. You can't argue much on the basis of religion because it is based upon subjective material and can always be twisted in a way to which suits whomever at the time. It can be just as easily argued that there is no god, so why even dictate humanity's actions from a book that only gains validity when a god is involved? What needs to be understood here is that morality is not law, however much people would like it to be. In many cases law is only concidered morality for the fact that breaking a law is immoral. Intrinsicly, law is a stand-alone entity. Take speeding for example. We have speed limits, which are laws, but I wouldn't find it immoral to drive < 55 on my local highway if there where no speed limits in place.

Also, to say that the only way, or the best way, to argue this topic is with religion is to say that it is possible to always change the mind of the religious person. In many cases, this will not happen. If this where the case, wouldn't scientific evidence of the creation of the world, evolution, etc. be more widely accepted by that community? Take Einstien for example. He was religious and he also created the theories of relativity. Afterwards, he spend most of his time, until the end of his life, trying to prove his own theories wrong because he didn't want to accept the implications that God "played dice". So, basically, he denied his own theories because of his religion.

The alternative to arguing religion would be to argue history. Present your arguments in an easily understood and logical manner. You aren't going to change many minds...but you may be able to change the ones that matter. The courts are not supposed to make decisions based on religion (except when it deals with the issues of freedom of religion and expression). This being the case, it should be the same in the legislative branch. What the homosexual community needs for this issue is strong leaders like the african-american's had (i.e., MLK, Malcom X, etc...) Do that, and you will have a great chance at getting action taken...who cares about winning a debate with some random christian.
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!!"
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:25 am

Vahok wrote:The only part I find humourous the fact many people don't know the meaning of marriage.

Marriage:

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Webster Dictionary.

Please, stop using the word incorrectly. I am all for civil unions but marriage isn't even the right word. Stop the spread of ignorance!


Vahok, that is half of the problem with the current "status quo". Marriage is currently defined, as you mentioned, as an institution between a Man and a Woman. The problem with this definition rests in the legal sense. Because a Civil Union is not a Marriage, the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities are not carried over to it. Using Marriage through this thread is purposeful - it is not Civil Unions that we are proponents of, although, that is a step in the right direction, but rather doing one of the following:

1. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it reads a "Legal union of two people for life."

-or-

2. Changing the legislature regarding marriages to make Marriages and Civil Unions equivalent from a legal standpoint, conferring the same rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the homosexual Union.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:27 am

rer wrote:
Vahok wrote:The only part I find humourous the fact many people don't know the meaning of marriage.

Marriage:

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Webster Dictionary.

Please, stop using the word incorrectly. I am all for civil unions but marriage isn't even the right word. Stop the spread of ignorance!


Vahok, that is half of the problem with the current "status quo". Marriage is currently defined, as you mentioned, as an institution between a Man and a Woman. The problem with this definition rests in the legal sense. Because a Civil Union is not a Marriage, the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities are not carried over to it. Using Marriage through this thread is purposeful - it is not Civil Unions that we are proponents of, although, that is a step in the right direction, but rather doing one of the following:

1. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it reads a "Legal union of two people for life."

-or-

2. Changing the legislature regarding marriages to make Marriages and Civil Unions equivalent from a legal standpoint, conferring the same rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the homosexual Union.


I think option #2 would be the only fair way to go on both sides. If you rewrite marriage, which is, as far as I can tell, and always has been a religious institution, you would be infringing upon the rights of those who are a part of religions who do not allow or find homosexuality to be immoral. However, once that institution was granted benefits by the government, I believe it is their responsibility to offer those rights to all who wish to have such a union. The only way to do this is to create such a union seperate from religious conotations...civil union.
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!!"
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:33 am

Kifle wrote:
rer wrote:
Vahok wrote:The only part I find humourous the fact many people don't know the meaning of marriage.

Marriage:

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Webster Dictionary.

Please, stop using the word incorrectly. I am all for civil unions but marriage isn't even the right word. Stop the spread of ignorance!


Vahok, that is half of the problem with the current "status quo". Marriage is currently defined, as you mentioned, as an institution between a Man and a Woman. The problem with this definition rests in the legal sense. Because a Civil Union is not a Marriage, the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities are not carried over to it. Using Marriage through this thread is purposeful - it is not Civil Unions that we are proponents of, although, that is a step in the right direction, but rather doing one of the following:

1. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it reads a "Legal union of two people for life."

-or-

2. Changing the legislature regarding marriages to make Marriages and Civil Unions equivalent from a legal standpoint, conferring the same rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the homosexual Union.


I think option #2 would be the only fair way to go on both sides. If you rewrite marriage, which is, as far as I can tell, and always has been a religious institution, you would be infringing upon the rights of those who are a part of religions who do not allow or find homosexuality to be immoral. However, once that institution was granted benefits by the government, I believe it is their responsibility to offer those rights to all who wish to have such a union. The only way to do this is to create such a union seperate from religious conotations...civil union.


110% agree. The problem isn't the name, it is the legal rights that go with it. I may be wrong, but I'm sure it is different up here in Canada. Heck, you can have a ton of rights and not even be married! (common-law)
Meatshield
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:52 am

I agree Kifle - option 2 is the better option for a finalization. However, for arguments sake, since what I am arguing for is the equivalent of marriage, I am going to continue using the word marriage with the implied expansion of the definition for this thread.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:18 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Again, bullshit. I will not bother to try to prove this, as you can well enough look it up for yourselves. While the Greeks practiced a lot of phallic worship, their society was plagued by the raping of women and prostitution (of woman).


Granted there are regional differences, so as always when someone says "all" of something they are automatically wrong. All three of us are currently guilty of that with this issue.


Complete, utter, unabashed, slanderous bullshit. This false accusation is fully groundless and without base. I made no claim as to all of Greek or Roman society, but to merely point out that rape and prostitution of women were problems that their societies had. You are continuing to put words in my mouth and that sort of slander is completely unwelcome.


Sarvis wrote:For all your talk of proper arguments, it seems as though your point here is simply that liberals are not worth listening to. Well guess what, conservatives aren't worth listening to either.


What you do is slander. It is the poison that is ruining our country, and destroying our unity. The reason why I have not posted my opinion, is that I merely fight the ignorance that pervades society and these forums, and if that should make me conservative, so be it.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:48 am

rer wrote:1. Changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it reads a "Legal union of two people for life."

-or-

2. Changing the legislature regarding marriages to make Marriages and Civil Unions equivalent from a legal standpoint, conferring the same rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the homosexual Union.


Consider this, an option that doesn't involve the Government's hand to force it's people to accept what they do not want to accept.

The noble option of education, to teach people about sexuality and human desires, that which constitutes humanity and the heart.

Or even to challenge their faith, to find answers for acceptance within their own beliefs. Particularly with the Christians, there is so much in their faith that demands acceptance of others, tolerance, and the witholding of judgement upon others.

If you cannot at least consider this option, then we will know whether your mind is opened or closed.
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:52 am

Vahok wrote:As a side note, just found this today.

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - A Saskatchewan court ruling Friday made the Canadian prairie province the country's seventh jurisdiction to allow homosexuals to wed.

Justice Donna Wilson sided with courts in five other provinces and one territory, saying existing marriage laws discriminate against gay couples and were unconstitutional.

The Saskatchewan ruling came after five gay couples went to court seeking the right to wed. At least one couple have said they plan to say their vows as early as this weekend.

Courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, the Yukon, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already ruled in the same way.

There are currently two couples challenging the law in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada is in the process of evaluating a draft federal law that could make gay weddings legal from coast to coast. The high court is expected to rule next year.

The decision came after many American voters showed their disapproval over the issue as 11 states on Tuesday supported constitutional amendments rejecting legal marriage for homosexual couples.


Customs Agent at the Canadian border, "Anything to declare?"

Me, ''Yeah... CANADA RULES!!!"

Customs Agent, "Drive through..."

Hey leader of the free world! Yeah America, I'm talkin to you! You're going the wrong way! Your nation reveres celebrities, most of whome are gay!
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:23 am

Kifle wrote:Take Einstien for example. He was religious and he also created the theories of relativity. Afterwards, he spend most of his time, until the end of his life, trying to prove his own theories wrong because he didn't want to accept the implications that God "played dice". So, basically, he denied his own theories because of his religion.

... (Kifle's alternative snipped)

...who cares about winning a debate with some random christian.


1. Einstein did not try to deny his own theories of relativity with that quote - he instead scoffed at certain probabilistic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Even if he did believe in a higher power, many other physicists (most, in fact) likewise did not like the bizzare quantum interpretations of people such as Shrodinger. It is impossible for us to say for sure whether or not Einstein would have taken issue with Shrodinger's interpretation if he were athiest - but judging by the reactions of other physicists of the time, odds are he would have.

2. I note that you have started attacking me personally. (I quote you below on that.) Is it really so hard to take that I'm asking that you be logically consistent?

3. You still show disregard for people solely on the basis of their religion.

Mori, I was talking about fanatic christians...specifically the ones who are, and always will be, against homosexual marriage. I even stated this by saying "hardcore christians." If you, for some odd reason, don't believe that there are those people out there, I pitty your poor grasp of reality. I didn't say "christian" or "all christians". Put into the context of what I was talking about at the time, that quote unfortunately doesn't support your theory at all.


Oh? What about that quote above wherein you say you don't care what random Christians think? You weren't talking about only fanatic Christians there - you just flat out stated you didn't care about Christians' opinions.

And now what? Are you trying to tell me that you do care deeply that Christians are heard and that they have something to contribute to the debate? That's not really what I've been hearing according to your other posts. Which is it?

What's sad is that I can say "damn those fanatic islamists for being terrorists" and I get mostly agreeance and am called a patriot. I call a fanatic christian a bigot (which they usually do fall into that definition, look it up...also, bigotry is idiocy) and I am met with agression and false accusations.

I replied to your post because I figured you where above petty flames and condescension, but I guess I was wrong.


There is nothing petty about my demanding honest discourse. Nor is there anything condescending or false about pointing out a logical flaw. I have explained my position, and rather than answering it, it seems you have chosen to avoid the real issue and take cheap shots instead. (Edit: at my "grasp of reality" and such. "Hardcore Christians" rant handled below.)

For example, do you recall me stating it was okay to say "damn (x religion)?" I don't. So why are you suddenly talking about that? Why not answer the issue? Furthermore, if someone else did say it was okay, does that suddenly mean it's okay by your standards, too?

Is your answer that if someone shows that they truly care about their religion, it's open season on them? Can you explain to me how you have any credibility in saying you care for the rights of everyone? You mentioned "hardcore Christians," and said they were basically all bigots and idiots. I don't think I misunderstood that. It's okay with you that liberals are against the right of a specific group to speak out and be heard? Whether you claim to be condemning "hardcore Christians" or condeming all Christians, it's against the principle of not holding someone's religious beliefs against them. Again, if you espouse liberal principles, this is what you supposedly think is important.

Someone who claims to be liberal attacking a specific religion is not defensible.

I have stated before that I didn't get involved here to push an agenda, save for that of asking liberals to stick to their own stated philosophy of accepting all religions, and encouraging everyone - EVERYONE - to express themselves. To that end, I pointed out the absurdity of their actions. But apparently things like logic really don't matter to many people here.

Don't think I intend to target you personally, Kifle. The issue here is inclusive of every one who claims to espouse a liberal philosophy but vilifies a specific religion, such as fundamentalist Christianity.

The irony from my angle is that I've been rather impartial in this debate. I just pointed out that some liberals are wrecking their own cause, and you seem to be angry with me for it.
Last edited by moritheil on Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
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'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:29 am

I'm noting the absence of an answer to my point, the basics of which are quoted again below for convenient reading. Well, I guess no one would want to concede in a thread like this.

moritheil wrote:Liberals are not justified in doing this, by their own standards. You want to judge Christians by liberal standards when the liberals aren't even holding to their own standards? Do you realize how silly that is? Shall I spell this out for you?

Liberal standard used: Not acting or arguing against someone on the basis of their personal beliefs and code of actions.
Liberals - failed
Christians - failed

Christian standard used: Speaking up for a rule outlined in the Bible, even when unpopular.
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded

Plausibility standard used: Internal consistency
Liberals - failed
Christians - succeeded
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'

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests