 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
No, I am not assuming that all people hold my attitudes.
I am stating that most people do, which is backed up by poll after poll. |
Well, ok, but that still brings up the issue of whether or not simple distaste merits disallowing something and to what extent. Frankly, I would not want my life run by the masses for they are dumbasses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teoka wrote: | Marriage really isn't a religious institution. Even if religions all have their little feet in the market, it's now a primarily civil institution. Married couples gain thousands of legal rights, and to deny that to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
|
It's your phrase "deny that to" which misrepresents the situation.
Gay couples are not man and wife; they're a couple o' dudes or a couple o' gals
having fun together.
Therefore, it's a case of impersonation when they seek legal marital benefits.
Neither should people get free bread by self-identifying as birds. 
| Teoka wrote: |
Laws should be based on secular principles for secular purposes, not based on religious bigotry. |
Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.)
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 19, 2008 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8977
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure there are lots of things in society which you find distasteful and wish to abolish. This goes both ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | I'm sure there are lots of things in society which you find distasteful and wish to abolish. This goes both ways. |
Umm.... yeah, I only argue to abolish impositions on others or myself actually, not so much to limit the capability for people to act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
No, I am not assuming that all people hold my attitudes.
I am stating that most people do, which is backed up by poll after poll. |
Well, ok, but that still brings up the issue of whether or not simple distaste merits disallowing something and to what extent. |
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)
and also people seeking incestuous marital status to start seriously lobbying
the government for a yet-more-flexible definition of marriage.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.)
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 19, 2008 4:57 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8977
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That would work if there weren't so many different ways to interpret the word "imposition." |
|
| Back to top |
|
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Perhaps. It depends on how much it disturbs the public order.
Both sides to the argument have legitimate points. |
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.
| Quote: |
It grosses more people out. |
Ah, an appeal to majority, huh? First off, polls have shown that America is getting more and more accepting of gay people, and I doubt this theoretical "gay PDA" ban would pass nationwide, especially in highly populated areas. Second off, unpopular expression is still protected by law. (i.e. Nazis in Stokie.)
| Quote: | Well, it depends on whether homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
Arbitrarily assuming they are equivalent doesn't automatically make them so. |
You're free to think whatever you like about this equivalency. The question is whether the government needs to look at these relationships equally, and I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it doesn't. Any distinction one could draw between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages collapses upon further examination. (i.e. Many heterosexual couples can't or won't have kids; many homosexual couples do.) If the government (not an individual religious institution) is going to discriminate on the bases of sex/gender or sexual orientation, it needs a strong secular justification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | That would work if there weren't so many different ways to interpret the word "imposition." |
Exactly. AG, liberals lobby to take rights away from people
through fabricating claims of "impositions" and "offenses" against other people.
It's a tactic. Everything liberals don't like is labeled an egregious and lamentable
imposition on someone else, until the squeeky wheel gets the oil,
and the law is changed to remove the "offending" item or display.
It's all about dramatizing their own suffering, and claiming it comes at the hands
of those whom they do not like.
_________________
I shaved off my goatee so that my wife could read my facial expressions better. She feels much happier and closer to me now. (Just thought I'd share this advice for any other bearded members.)
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 19, 2008 4:40 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Teoka
Snowy Owl
Joined: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 131
Location: Northern VA
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Teoka wrote: | Marriage really isn't a religious institution. Even if religions all have their little feet in the market, it's now a primarily civil institution. Married couples gain thousands of legal rights, and to deny that to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
|
It's your phrase "deny that to" which misrepresents the situation.
Gay couples are not man and wife; they're a couple o' dudes or a couple o' gals
having fun together.
Therefore, it's a case of impersonation when they seek legal marital benefits.
Neither should people get free bread by self-identifying as birds.
| Teoka wrote: |
Laws should be based on secular principles for secular purposes, not based on religious bigotry. |
Sounds you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
Gay couples are a man and man. Or woman and woman. Doesn't matter.
"Secular bigotry"? Yeah, because religion was never used to justify genocide, prejudice, racism, oppression, violence, etc.
_________________
| C | O | S | P | L | A | Y |
My Anti-Drug
Aspie score: 159 out of 200 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7897
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teoka wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | Teoka wrote: | Marriage really isn't a religious institution. Even if religions all have their little feet in the market, it's now a primarily civil institution. Married couples gain thousands of legal rights, and to deny that to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
|
It's your phrase "deny that to" which misrepresents the situation.
Gay couples are not man and wife; they're a couple o' dudes or a couple o' gals
having fun together.
Therefore, it's a case of impersonation when they seek legal marital benefits.
Neither should people get free bread by self-identifying as birds.
| Teoka wrote: |
Laws should be based on secular principles for secular purposes, not based on religious bigotry. |
Sounds you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
Gay couples are a man and man. Or woman and woman. Doesn't matter.
"Secular bigotry"? Yeah, because religion was never used to justify genocide, prejudice, racism, oppression, violence, etc. |
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.
Last edited by Ragtime on Mon May 19, 2008 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
| slowmutant wrote: | | That would work if there weren't so many different ways to interpret the word "imposition." |
No, not really. Imposition only has 3 definitions related to human social organization and all 3 have very similar definitions, to the point where if one really tried, they could provide more solid definitions, and well, some scholars have actually tried to go down the same intellectual route I have with definitions of terms such as coercion and such that are defined to give them more analytical content. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 24
Posts: 5246
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Sounds like you're advocating secular bigotry over religious principles. |
what rights are you having taken away? |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kalister1 wrote: |
Im going to start putting Nietzsche quotes in public.
"Christianity is the religion of pity" |
I think the Freedom From Religion Foundation has beaten you to that. 
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6145
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Exactly. AG, liberals lobby to take rights away from people
through fabricating claims of "impositions" and "offenses" against other people.
It's a tactic. Everything liberals don't like is labeled an egregious and lamentable
imposition on someone else, until the squeeky wheel gets the oil,
and the law is changed to remove the "offending" item or display.
It's all about dramatizing their own suffering, and claiming it comes at the hands
of those whom they do not like. |
And that is why I am not a liberal because liberals do impose things upon people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
D1nk0
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 12, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 1589
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WHY is gay marriage such a controversial issue here on WP? To those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage I say this: WHAT ABOUT THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS?? Opposing gay marriage AFAIC is ANTI-INDIVIDUAL! It says that individuals who seek to do something in the persuit of their own happiness should NOT be legally allowed to do it because it defies the social norms...Thats ASSININE!  |
|
| 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
|
|
|
