 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2033
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | ... |
1) If you take the latter argument then the US is missing out from making money by not trading with the Axis of Evil. What trades do you have in mind, however? Business opportunities or trades in social movements and contributions?
2) We support discrimination. There is discrimination everywhere from how many people of different backgrounds should be accepted into a firm or school, to the taxes that discriminate heavily on the poor. What of medical aid and financial aid?
There is more of a reason to allow polygamy than there is to allow homosexual unions.
I do see a society. It is what we assimilate into. I believe very strongly in a State and feel that the Government should play a bigger role in it while addressing the needs of its people.
3) Government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage, but I can see why it does. To "protect" the family is the most obvious reason to me. To settle legal matters is another.
4) Legal packages. If the government doesn't become involved who will? Religion? Anyone? If the government becomes involved it must be able to define what they are making law. From what I understand It already did by signing and passing the DOMA.
5) Tyrant? My definition says cruel. There is nothing cruel in not allowing a practice become what was not intended.
6)
You posted "traditionally people of different races did not marry." You did not specify which tradition. How broad or narrow is your definition of miscegenation? I don't believe in different races so I always consider the term race to mean ethnicity.
Well, again, you didn't specify US. In Hispanic cultures the Spaniards intermixed with the locals and Africans. It was even supported and encouraged. Seriously, look into Central and South Asia, especially the Nepali people who are VERY diverse. In the Middle East, so are the Iranians. The US and Brazil are ones that forbade mixed-color marriages. No, gay marriage was not a tradition practiced everywhere. There were some nations that practiced rituals similar to Unions but same-sex marriage was dominantly discouraged throughout history.
The argument on Tradition is a quasi-important issue. Why? Because if we keep changing our definitions of practices, then such a change in definition can occur to anything from our laws to our constitution. I am certain that there might be a turn-around on my argument stating "Well, it was tradition to segregate blacks..." That was a deviation from tradition, and built upon racial superiority--the same with the miscegenation practices in America. There is nothing superior or "discriminating" in not allowing homosexual marriages.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7393
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
Well, it's not that it's "simple distate". It's a very complex, deeply-rooted, well-informed and powerful objection.
That objection will not cease from society any sooner than gay behavior will.
Therefore, gay marriage just creates more divisiveness than it's worth.
1. Marriage was always defined as a union between a man and a woman.
2. That is now being changed.
3. Which opens the door for organizations like Nambla (www.nambla.org)
to start seriously lobbying for a yet-more-flexible definition of marriage. |
And that is where the insertion of a religious dogma comes in.
|
Not in my post. What I stated is simple logic, so deal with my logic, not some red-herring religious response.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7393
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
Well, it's not that it's "simple distate". It's a very complex, deeply-rooted, well-informed and powerful objection.
That objection will not cease from society any sooner than gay behavior will.
Therefore, gay marriage just creates more divisiveness than it's worth.
1. Marriage was always defined as a union between a man and a woman.
2. That is now being changed.
3. Which opens the door for organizations like Nambla (www.nambla.org)
to start seriously lobbying for a yet-more-flexible definition of marriage. |
And that is where the insertion of a religious dogma comes in. We have societies that override this very "complex, deeply-rooted, well-informed, and powerful objection", in fact, we are based largely upon the societies that did override it.
I don't see how it is necessarily divisive, as has already been stated, other nations have successfully implemented gay marriage. In fact, the US is rather late on implementing it.
Ragtime, that is a slippery slope argument that does not seem to hold much water because NAMBLA stands against a number of other very important legal set-ups such as the protected nature of childhood, the lack of legal rights of childhood, and the parental controls over childhood. It just wouldn't work, and from what I've heard, NAMBLA is now so disliked that barely exists as an organization.
|
You missed my recent edit, but I added incestuous adults who wish to legally marry and thereby receive marital benefits.
AG, my point is such a basic one: that the definition of marriage will change over time, to a nonsensical degree, and legalizing and legitimizing gay marriage is the first step in that perversion of what marriage actually is.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2033
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teoka wrote: |
"Secular bigotry"?  Yeah, because religion was never used to justify genocide, prejudice, racism, oppression, violence, etc. |
Please, find a religion that advocates these things. Don't quote things out of contexts. Atheists love doing this. There is nothing in religion that advocates this, but the people are too stupid to understand this (just like we are too thickheaded to accept same-sex marriages)
| skafather84 wrote: |
and just because seeing two guys kiss grosses you out, it doesn't mean that's legitimate reason for a law banning gay marriage. laws are not made for convenience but for the maintenance and upkeep of society and to protect the people...protecting your queezy stomach is not a high priority to anyone other than yourself. |
| srriv345 wrote: |
And the legitimate argument for banning gay PDA is what, exactly? In this country, we do have freedom of expression. Freedom to not be grossed out, conversely, is not recognized by law. The idea that a gay couple expressing affection for each other in public "disturbs the public order" is nonsense. I'm not sure how often that's actually happened--though I do know of instances where gay people have received violence because of daring to appear "gay" in public. In any case, "gay PDA" hardly warrants significant public disturbance. If such a thing were to occur, it is not the gay couple's fault that people grossly overreacted. If you want to live somewhere where you can guarantee you won't witness any PDA, move to Iran. |
There might not be a "Freedom to Not be Grossed out" but there are laws equivalent to them. No citizen should be subjected to witness disgusting events (I won't specify what).
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7393
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
what rights are you having taken away? |
First tell me why you'd care, because all indications have been that you don't.
And that's the crux of the matter: No one cares about Christians' right to religious expression.
The now-politically-charged term "tolerance" was invented in order to be intolerant to Christians.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7634
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
well, I'm for secular principles over religious bigotry. 
not saying there are no religious principles.
not saying there are no secular bigotry.
But I know we all here would not perfectly agree on what constitutes bigotry and what constitutes principle, and to say it better, the use and misuse of any of them.
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7634
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
what rights are you having taken away? |
First tell me why you'd care, because all indications have been that you don't.
And that's the crux of the matter: No one cares about Christians' right to religious expression.
The now-politically-charged term "tolerance" was invented in order to be intolerant to Christians. |
Not really, but I have to follow some logic in this, this is how you feel because secularism does not fit to your view on how the world must be according to your point of view, is there fanatism and extremism from both sides? yes, there is, from any side.
I can't help to think of similar arguments like that coming from other denomination you seem to dislike or at least disagree strongly, the argument of being persecuted because society not conforming according to their beliefs.
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm
Last edited by greenblue on Mon May 19, 2008 6:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2033
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
well, I'm for secular principles over religious bigotry.
not saying there are no religious principles.
not saying there are no secular bigotry.
But I know we all here would not perfectly agree on what constitutes bigotry and what constitutes principle, and to say it better, the use and misuse of any of them. |
I always had this discussion with my mind: Considering that the majority in America profess on being of a religion, why not allow laws that are respectable to both religion (all religions) and secularism? After all, we are not a truly secular nation.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 24
Posts: 4686
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
what rights are you having taken away? |
First tell me why you'd care, because all indications have been that you don't.
And that's the crux of the matter: No one cares about Christians' right to religious expression.
The now-politically-charged term "tolerance" was invented in order to be intolerant to Christians. |
you're dodging the question.
i repeat: what rights are you having taken away? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5720
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: |
1) If you take the latter argument then the US is missing out from making money by not trading with the Axis of Evil. What trades do you have in mind, however? Business opportunities or trades in social movements and contributions? |
Any of 'em and all. Really though, the Axis of Evil, if you haven't noticed, isn't a group with a lot to trade. NK is just crap, and Iran and Iraq both have oil, which is a pretty generic product anyway, if we don't buy it then somebody else would. Heck, I would say that we would be and the Axis of Evil would both be better if we traded as people don't go around killing their trade partners, as noted by early French economist Frederic Bastiat in the slogan "If goods don't cross borders, armies will"
| Quote: | | 2) We support discrimination. There is discrimination everywhere from how many people of different backgrounds should be accepted into a firm or school, to the taxes that discriminate heavily on the poor. What of medical aid and financial aid? |
Who is this we? I don't support most public means of discrimination, and the institutes you speak of are not ones that I put much justice into. Not only that, but how much discrimination do you support? After all, I thought that most people considered discrimination to be a necessary evil, but now you go about talking about broad societal support? I mean, heck, that sounds a bit fascistic to me.
| Quote: | | There is more of a reason to allow polygamy than there is to allow homosexual unions. |
Ok, so why not both?
| Quote: | | I do see a society. It is what we assimilate into. I believe very strongly in a State and feel that the Government should play a bigger role in it while addressing the needs of its people. |
Ok. And some people have religion.
| Quote: |
3) Government shouldn't have anything to do with Marriage, but I can see why it does. To "protect" the family is the most obvious reason to me. To settle legal matters is another. |
Protect the family? Doesn't need protection. Legal matters could be dealt with better if we had a more contractarian society.
| Quote: | | 4) Legal packages. If the government doesn't become involved who will? Religion? Anyone? If the government becomes involved it must be able to define what they are making law. From what I understand It already did by signing and passing the DOMA. |
Private contracts can work. In fact, many companies use private legal systems for handling their own disputes and some legal analysts use private mechanisms as the measure for the efficacy of public law.
| Quote: | | 5) Tyrant? My definition says cruel. There is nothing cruel in not allowing a practice become what was not intended. |
ty-rant (tirnt)n. 1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Well, I don't see any necessary restrictions. 2, "was not intended"? well, how do we define "what is intended" or "what is not intended"? Heck, the terminology sounds oddly theological. Now, because cruelty is still going to be subjective, I could call the casual harm to the interests of others to be cruel.
| Quote: |
6)
The argument on Tradition is a quasi-important issue. Why? Because if we keep changing our definitions of practices, then such a change in definition can occur to anything from our laws to our constitution. I am certain that there might be a turn-around on my argument stating "Well, it was tradition to segregate blacks..." That was a deviation from tradition, and built upon racial superiority--the same with the miscegenation practices in America. There is nothing superior or "discriminating" in not allowing homosexual marriages. |
Why? Traditions are not the same as rules and the 2 can be separated. Rules are enforced by society and by mutual self-interest, traditions are just the ideas of certain people or groups of people, and should only be as valid as the association with those people. If your grandma wants you not to get married in a gay marriage and withholds an inheritance, then ok, I am not a part of that so I don't care. But if my government has to enforce a tradition that is not my own, then I am not going to support that, and if you want the government to maintain traditions, then you want a government who will control culture, and if you want a government to control the culture then you want a government that controls that basic part of human interaction, then it seems to me that you *do* want a totalitarian society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5720
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Not in my post. What I stated is simple logic, so deal with my logic, not some red-herring religious response. |
Certainly so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy
Fits in the former too.
| Ragtime wrote: |
You missed my recent edit, but I added incestuous adults who wish to legally marry and thereby receive marital benefits.
AG, my point is such a basic one: that the definition of marriage will change over time, to a nonsensical degree, and legalizing and legitimizing gay marriage is the first step in that perversion of what marriage actually is. |
Oh, ok. So?
So? What is wrong with a change in the definition of marriage. Either the change in it is wrong in and of itself, or it is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 425
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The whole "changing marriage" idea is such a red herring. Deciding that people had to be of a certain age before getting married changed marriage. Allowing women to own property changed marriage. Illegalizing marital rape changed marriage. The move towards free-choice marriage was a change. Etc, etc.
If the argument is rested on traditionalism, that doesn't necessarily rule out incest and polygamy, since both have a long history of practice. Some might say that the Bible is even permissive towards polygamy. Marriage between first cousins is legal in many states. Clearly, banning gay marriage clearly has not stopped this from happening. (Just look at Utah, an anti-gay marriage state.)
Personally, I think we need to make arguments for and against these practices which don't rely on the pure "ick" factor. Polygamy can be considered breech of contract, for instance. I believe the most germane argument against incest is that such relationships are nearly always coercive and involve some kind of power differential. "That's gross, it should be illegal" is not an argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2033
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | ... |
1) We as in We the People. There will always be discrimination, we just are accepting of the discrimination we have, and unaccepting towards others. I don't really have the same definitions that people have when they use things like discrimination, racism, hatred, etc. Keep that in mind, it's usually semantics.
2) Eh. I won't argue for polygamy because I don't see a point in it aside from certain factors.
3) What do you mean by some people have religion? I'm trying to see this context. Do you mean that they have religion and prefer not to be told what to do because of it? Yes. But there are ways you can make laws with consideration towards the People, the Religion, and the Tradition. I don't pay much mind to the latest waves and shits in trend because it can change to anything.
4) A marriage is a contract. I would like people to be more penalized when a marriage is disrespected.
5) I am aware of that definition, but usually the title Tyrant is given as an emotional outburst. Especially when it is against a person who expresses his beliefs.
6) The tradition argument comes in play and you know it does. This is why there are the two major branches in politics labeled Conservative and Liberal. As a conservative I have to take into account the tradition (both local, national, and international), see how it fits with my personal beliefs, and if the conflict between other's interest is worth taking into consideration.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Odin
Supreme Genius
Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Age: 22
Posts: 1885
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | Secular bigotry is very real, and very oppressive.
It's why I can't read my Bible aloud outside in peace, even if I'm reading it
quietly and to myself. Because the mere sight is offensive to many secular people.
(I often read aloud, because it helps me concentrate.)
Secular bigotry is why the long-present display of the Ten Commandments
in that courthouse in Alabama had to be removed.
It wasn't causing any harm, it just offended secular bigots.
Secular bigotry is absolutely everywhere in this country and in Europe.
Its presence is stifling to the point that no person -- religious or otherwise -- fails to
witness it regularly. You may have become numb or callous towards it,
but that would be about you, not about the reality of the situation around you. |
Big Fat Lie.
Nobody is stopping you from reading the bible out loud as long as you aren't disturbing the peace. Are you sure you were just ticking people off because you were reciting it too loudly? Because you religious types seem to think being stopped from annoying people means you are being oppressed. 
The 10 Commandments monument violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment because it is a de facto endorsement of an aspect of Judeo-Christian religious tradition. It has nothing to do with "secular bigotry" except in the minds of fundies, who seem to think that they are oppressed as long as Christianity isn't the state religion. The monument WAS causing harm because it sent the message that Christians are more "American" then non-Christians.
_________________
My Blog: http://selzshaven.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2033
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | The whole "changing marriage" idea is such a red herring. Deciding that people had to be of a certain age before getting married changed marriage. Allowing women to own property changed marriage. Illegalizing marital rape changed marriage. The move towards free-choice marriage was a change. Etc, etc.
If the argument is rested on traditionalism, that doesn't necessarily rule out incest and polygamy, since both have a long history of practice. Some might say that the Bible is even permissive towards polygamy. Marriage between first cousins is legal in many states. Clearly, banning gay marriage clearly has not stopped this from happening. (Just look at Utah, an anti-gay marriage state.)
Personally, I think we need to make arguments for and against these practices which don't rely on the pure "ick" factor. Polygamy can be considered breech of contract, for instance. I believe the most germane argument against incest is that such relationships are nearly always coercive and involve some kind of power differential. "That's gross, it should be illegal" is not an argument. |
1) It is not much a red herring because it does change marriage. Really, the four examples were something that American laws "corrected." I know of cultures that have always been against that.
2) Yes, although they are not something I quite approve of, they are still between a man and a woman. 
3) You can argue these issues. I could even defend them but like I posted, there's no need for those kinds of marriages.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
