Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Gay marriage in California

Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What is this outrage! Gay marriage has now been banned in California, This has absolutely infuriated me, what right do you Americans have to deny marriage between same sex couples? The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical! What are your arguments against same sex marriage? Against god and the bible? then f_cking throw every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and any other non Christian religion out of your country. Not natural? Then ban Mac Donald's, ban pharmacological companies, ban chemical companies, ban everything that isn't grown out of the natural organic earth. Oh wait, you wont..., why? because it will affect your GDP, how predictable, I don't know why I even bothered to voice my opinion.

I'm sure there are many decent Americans but your complacency with this issue has caused me great concern, our government may be crap, but its not as distasteful as yours.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Um, your government bans walking on the soil with the wrong opinions.

A little matter of a marriage license pales in comparison with free speech ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 11:42:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM, Nik wrote:
What is this outrage! Gay marriage has now been banned in California, This has absolutely infuriated me, what right do you Americans have to deny marriage between same sex couples? The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical! What are your arguments against same sex marriage? Against god and the bible? then f_cking throw every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and any other non Christian religion out of your country. Not natural? Then ban Mac Donald's, ban pharmacological companies, ban chemical companies, ban everything that isn't grown out of the natural organic earth. Oh wait, you wont..., why? because it will affect your GDP, how predictable, I don't know why I even bothered to voice my opinion.

I'm sure there are many decent Americans but your complacency with this issue has caused me great concern, our government may be crap, but its not as distasteful as yours.

Not all of us are in agreement with the recent actions taken by California... Also, I doubt that this will last long in CA, a generally liberal state.

Besides, why are you so upset about it now? Several other states have taken similar actions in the past, while others have done precisely the opposite.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2009 11:57:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
True, but I'm a real punter, I get influenced by the media! But basically its sparked a powder keg in my conscious about the hypocrisy of America. Personally I don't feel that freedom of speech equals freedom to love, and freedom to marriage. And anyway we don't ban freedom of speech, true our policies on it are dodgy but we don't ban it outright! And we don't claim to have complete freedom as America does.

America can ban what it wants, but just stop claiming your a benchmark for democracy and freedom, because y'all sure aint.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 8:06:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:57:25 PM, Nik wrote:
True, but I'm a real punter, I get influenced by the media! But basically its sparked a powder keg in my conscious about the hypocrisy of America. Personally I don't feel that freedom of speech equals freedom to love, and freedom to marriage. And anyway we don't ban freedom of speech, true our policies on it are dodgy but we don't ban it outright!
By definition, freedom of speech is essentially binary. Either the government permits free speech, or it picks and chooses types of speech, not bound up in an action, to disallow-- it removes freedom from speech and replaces it with mere privilege.

Marriage does not = love. Marriage, to the government, is a set of tax subsidies, powers of attorney, that jazz. They should not discriminate in providing it (I prefer the "strike the term marriage from every law ever written" solution), but it is in no way a basic freedom, and lacking it does not prevent gays significantly from living freely-- they can still live together, still be intimate, still love each other, still announce that love-- heck, they can even have a wedding ceremony, it just won't involve a legal contract.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 2:57:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM, Nik wrote:
What is this outrage! Gay marriage has now been banned in California, This has absolutely infuriated me, what right do you Americans have to deny marriage between same sex couples? The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical! What are your arguments against same sex marriage? Against god and the bible? then f_cking throw every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and any other non Christian religion out of your country. Not natural? Then ban Mac Donald's, ban pharmacological companies, ban chemical companies, ban everything that isn't grown out of the natural organic earth. Oh wait, you wont..., why? because it will affect your GDP, how predictable, I don't know why I even bothered to voice my opinion.

I'm sure there are many decent Americans but your complacency with this issue has caused me great concern, our government may be crap, but its not as distasteful as yours.

That's democracy for you. When people want to be brilliant, they can be, and when they don't care if they're stupid, they will be. But you seem to be confusing state government with federal government. Our governing bodies exist on two levels, and this was only on the state level of California (where only Californians can vote). The federal government is the government that all Americans are responsible for. So while you have a legitimate complaint against all Americans for George W. Bush's presidency, and that the federal government still doesn't provide many legal benefits to same sex couples, you must blame Californians alone for this recent decision. In some states, like Maine, gay marriage has just been institutionalized (not legalized, that's something you do for a thing that has been made illegal, like marijuana. No one gets thrown in jail if they claim to be married and are of the same gender). So you could also take a moment to laud the accomplishments of the people of Maine.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
FemaleGamer
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 9:35:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Its all over the news here. I spotted 4 stories in tuesdays newspaper. I made a crappy shirt for when I go to San Francisco that read "Stop the hate: Over turn prop 8" And I intend to wear it around.
TODAY IS CAPS LOCK DAY. yes
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2009 6:14:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 8:06:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Marriage does not = love. Marriage, to the government, is a set of tax subsidies, powers of attorney, that jazz. They should not discriminate in providing it (I prefer the "strike the term marriage from every law ever written" solution), but it is in no way a basic freedom, and lacking it does not prevent gays significantly from living freely-- they can still live together, still be intimate, still love each other, still announce that love-- heck, they can even have a wedding ceremony, it just won't involve a legal contract.

Believe it or not, there are some gay people who would like to be LEGALLY married -- it isn't all about the wedding ceremony. Also, I love how you say "it just won't involve a legal contract" as if that's one insignificant little aspect of the whole debate. Isn't the *legal aspect* the entire point? Striking the word marriage from every legal document ever written will not fix the issue. Suppose this were done, and yet the government still did not provide the same tax subsidies, powers of attorney rights, insurance benefits, etc. to same-sex couples or 'partners' in a legal contract. That would mean your argument regarding the word marriage is completely irrelevant. The etymology isn't the problem here (a civil union would be just as effective as gay marriage). The problem is that the same legal rights are not applied to everybody based on their sexuality, which is overtly discriminatory. Advocates of gay marriage aren't seeking to redefine the term, especially in terms of religion. Rather what they are pursuing is to modify civil marriage to include them. Nobody is saying that gay people aren't living "significantly free." Instead, I'm proposing that people's legal rights are being restricted with no moral or legal foundation based on insignificant factors such as whom one enjoys having sex with. Sure, homosexuals can live their lives having a gay ol' time (pun intended) day in and day out without the confines of a legal partnership. But... why should they not have the choice to receive the same legal benefits as their fellow heterosexual citizens?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2009 6:25:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/31/2009 6:14:36 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/27/2009 8:06:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Marriage does not = love. Marriage, to the government, is a set of tax subsidies, powers of attorney, that jazz. They should not discriminate in providing it (I prefer the "strike the term marriage from every law ever written" solution), but it is in no way a basic freedom, and lacking it does not prevent gays significantly from living freely-- they can still live together, still be intimate, still love each other, still announce that love-- heck, they can even have a wedding ceremony, it just won't involve a legal contract.

Believe it or not, there are some gay people who would like to be LEGALLY married -- it isn't all about the wedding ceremony. Also, I love how you say "it just won't involve a legal contract" as if that's one insignificant little aspect of the whole debate. Isn't the *legal aspect* the entire point? Striking the word marriage from every legal document ever written will not fix the issue. Suppose this were done, and yet the government still did not provide the same tax subsidies, powers of attorney rights, insurance benefits, etc. to same-sex couples or 'partners' in a legal contract.
When you strike the word marriage, the poowers of attorney etc are likely to be extended indiscriminately (except the tax subsidies, which shouldn't and probably won't exist).

In any case, my point here was not to justify the discrimination. My point was to put the issue in perspective, and note that this issue doesn't turn us into Iran or something like the OP seems to think.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2009 12:05:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Marriage is a religious institution. It's the Churches choice if they should be allowed wed, and then each Religion's choice. Separation of Church and State dictates so. I am of course in favour of civil unions, which are the exact same, except they aren't under God. And if you are a gay member of a religion which does not accommodate gays, then you shouldn't get married under that God. But you should be married under a religions God that gives you rights as a Homosexual.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 5:29:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM, Nik wrote:
What is this outrage! Gay marriage has now been banned in California, This has absolutely infuriated me, what right do you Americans have to deny marriage between same sex couples? The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical! What are your arguments against same sex marriage? Against god and the bible? then f_cking throw every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and any other non Christian religion out of your country. Not natural? Then ban Mac Donald's, ban pharmacological companies, ban chemical companies, ban everything that isn't grown out of the natural organic earth. Oh wait, you wont..., why? because it will affect your GDP, how predictable, I don't know why I even bothered to voice my opinion.

I'm sure there are many decent Americans but your complacency with this issue has caused me great concern, our government may be crap, but its not as distasteful as yours.

---------------------------------------------
"You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty."

I found this to be interesting....did you realize that when the Founding Fathers set up this country under Anglo-Saxon Common Law (aka. People's Law) that the system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four "crimes" or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and HOMOSEXUALITY. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged.

That appears to be one of the founding principles that the Founders were adamant about! (banning homosexuality)...I found the irony in your posting to be amusing/ interesting...

-The 5,000 Year Leap (Principles of Freedom 101), Skousen
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 7:52:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/4/2009 12:05:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Marriage is a religious institution. It's the Churches choice if they should be allowed wed, and then each Religion's choice. Separation of Church and State dictates so. I am of course in favour of civil unions, which are the exact same, except they aren't under God. And if you are a gay member of a religion which does not accommodate gays, then you shouldn't get married under that God. But you should be married under a religions God that gives you rights as a Homosexual.

Marriage is not only a religious institution, but a legal one as well. The term applies not only to a ceremony blessed by a priest, rabbi, etc., but also serves as legal contract that carries with it over 1,050 state AND federal benefits. Meanwhile, a Civil Union only endures 300 state level benefits, with no federal protection. In other words, while heterosexual marriage must be recognized nationally, each individual state can decide whether or not they want to adhere to gay unions.

Moreover, a heterosexual married couple can do things like file both state and federal tax returns jointly, make medical decisions for their partner regardless of the state that they're in, receive their partner's Social Security benefits after one has died, expect child support for any children the couple may have, etc. None of these things can be achieved with Civil Unions.

So, you're wrong. Marriage and Civil Unions are NOT the same thing, Panda. The simple word 'marriage' carries with it a plethora of legal rights that are not granted to those in civil unions.

As far as religion and homosexuality goes, I'll have to agree with you there, I suppose. There are plenty of gay friendly churches.
President of DDO
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 8:43:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 5:29:05 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I found this to be interesting....did you realize that when the Founding Fathers set up this country under Anglo-Saxon Common Law (aka. People's Law) that the system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four "crimes" or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and HOMOSEXUALITY. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged.

That appears to be one of the founding principles that the Founders were adamant about! (banning homosexuality)...I found the irony in your posting to be amusing/ interesting...

They also set forth laws regarding the rights of slaves, the use of castration and other cruel and unusual punishments, and a bunch of other stupid, archaic rules ... they certainly never predicted that women could vote either.

It is their principles, as incorporated into the Constitution, not their personal moral predilections, that we aspire to keep alive in our law.

But putting that aside for a moment ... you raise a valid point. Perhaps our knowledge and understanding has outstripped that of our founders. If that is the case, then the time has come to amend the constitution to better reflect our enlightened understanding of reality. I propose three amendments:

Amendment 28: That the right to marry, being a religious rite not the proper subject of secular governance, shall be the sole purview of those people of faith who hold such rite valid, and no governing body, of any of the States or of the Union, shall have power to restrict, regulate or reward such rites as they conduct.

[Effect: Permanent legal separation of marriage and government]

Amendment 29: That all individuals within the Union are guaranteed the right to autonomy, recognized as the right of any individual to do to his or her body, or with his or her body, any such thing as he or she may consent to do, provided such use does not bring another to be physically harmed.

[Ends drug war, validates homosexuality, documented euthanasia, ends crimes of self/nature]

Amendment 30: That no individual within the Union may be discriminated against in law or business for exercising or having exercised his or her 29th Amendment rights.

[Creates right of action for discrimination based on a number of factors]
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2009 11:46:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lexicaholic, srsly? Outlawing discrimination by employers against people who are on meth?

Sorry, it's right there in your proposed amendments. :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 12:29:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 11:46:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lexicaholic, srsly? Outlawing discrimination by employers against people who are on meth?

Sorry, it's right there in your proposed amendments. :P

Lol. Technically the general phrasing of all amendments leaves them open to interpretation. In this case, the employer couldn't fire you for being on meth. He could, however, fire you for acting like you were on meth, while on business, to the detriment of the business.

Yes, that would mean that if meth somehow enhanced your performance, he couldn't fire you ... but then again, why would he?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
lil_Oreo
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 4:06:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM, Nik wrote:
What is this outrage! ...The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

I hate to break it to you, but we, if you honestly think about it, are not NEARLY as free as we like to think. We simply have more freedoms than most countries.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical!

I completely agree with you. And honestly, sometimes, I'm ashamed to admit I'm an american because we are so stuck up thinking we're better than everyone else. And we are also (as you rightfully put) 'so damned hypocritical' but i won't complain about the freedoms that title gives me. I think the rest of the world only tolerates us because we have money and power. Where this power comes from, however, I couldn't tell you.
When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 7:37:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 11:46:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lexicaholic, srsly? Outlawing discrimination by employers against people who are on meth?

Sorry, it's right there in your proposed amendments. :P

I have to go with R_R on this. Unless you mean people who have used meth or other drugs in the past, and not presently, Lexicaholic. Employers have the right to discriminate in their hiring policy when it is something that could possibly put their other employees in harms way, or will jack up their insurance rates tenfold, etc.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 8:57:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/20/2009 8:43:09 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/18/2009 5:29:05 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I found this to be interesting....did you realize that when the Founding Fathers set up this country under Anglo-Saxon Common Law (aka. People's Law) that the system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four "crimes" or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and HOMOSEXUALITY. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged.

That appears to be one of the founding principles that the Founders were adamant about! (banning homosexuality)...I found the irony in your posting to be amusing/ interesting...

They also set forth laws regarding the rights of slaves, the use of castration and other cruel and unusual punishments, and a bunch of other stupid, archaic rules ... they certainly never predicted that women could vote either.

It is their principles, as incorporated into the Constitution, not their personal moral predilections, that we aspire to keep alive in our law.

But putting that aside for a moment ... you raise a valid point. Perhaps our knowledge and understanding has outstripped that of our founders. If that is the case, then the time has come to amend the constitution to better reflect our enlightened understanding of reality. I propose three amendments:

Amendment 28: That the right to marry, being a religious rite not the proper subject of secular governance, shall be the sole purview of those people of faith who hold such rite valid, and no governing body, of any of the States or of the Union, shall have power to restrict, regulate or reward such rites as they conduct.

[Effect: Permanent legal separation of marriage and government]

Amendment 29: That all individuals within the Union are guaranteed the right to autonomy, recognized as the right of any individual to do to his or her body, or with his or her body, any such thing as he or she may consent to do, provided such use does not bring another to be physically harmed.

[Ends drug war, validates homosexuality, documented euthanasia, ends crimes of self/nature]

Amendment 30: That no individual within the Union may be discriminated against in law or business for exercising or having exercised his or her 29th Amendment rights.

[Creates right of action for discrimination based on a number of factors]

Thank you for the reply. I am wondering though how you justify making the jump to push for legalization of it (homosex. marriage)...It started off forbidden (by the Founders) and it is still opposed by the majority of the people...

It is not the same as racism...a person can't change the color of their skin. But a person CAN change their sexual practices.

Just because a person has a tendency to be tempted by certain problems does not mean that it is ok to indulge those problems. For example: it seems that Native Americans have a tendency to develop alcoholism more than the general population, but that doesn't not make it ok for them to drink and drive (under the influence) and just blame it on their genetics.

The fact that some people have recovered from being gay shows that it is possible to control those urges (or perhaps those urges were even changed into not desiring it as much or at all) anyway... something happens in those instances and it is obvious that the actions are simply a matter of choices a person makes.

Likewise, if a person just has strong tendencies and cravings to commit adultery, it still does not make it right!! the right thing to do is to RESIST the natural urges...yes self control is a necessary part of life...the natural man doesn't want to, but it is required for the best interest of the person and for society as well.

Society has the right to say what is or isn't decent regarding these things...for example the majority has decided that it is not OK to allow pornography in public.

(Inquire Truth did a debate on many of these points, not sure if you read it...but I agreed with his take on many things). http://www.debate.org...
(he did 2 other debates on it too (at least))
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 2:04:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 7:37:11 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/20/2009 11:46:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lexicaholic, srsly? Outlawing discrimination by employers against people who are on meth?

Sorry, it's right there in your proposed amendments. :P

I have to go with R_R on this. Unless you mean people who have used meth or other drugs in the past, and not presently, Lexicaholic. Employers have the right to discriminate in their hiring policy when it is something that could possibly put their other employees in harms way, or will jack up their insurance rates tenfold, etc.

Well, like I said I'm not adverse to amending. "having exercised" alone can be substituted for the joint clause, I guess. Better?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 2:17:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 2:04:51 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Well, like I said I'm not adverse to amending. "having exercised" alone can be substituted for the joint clause, I guess. Better?

Makes better sense, though possibly needs a little bit more tweaking. As I'm not a constitutional expert, I wouldn't know quite how to word this, but generally you would want to make it clear that a citizen has a right not to be discriminated against by government or employer, based upon whether their current state of affairs (ie., meth addict) can cause physical or economic damage to the employer. Such a wording would have to take account of the statement that "my employee is gay and people don't like it" isn't a suitable argument.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 2:24:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 8:57:47 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

Thank you for the reply. I am wondering though how you justify making the jump to push for legalization of it (homosex. marriage)...It started off forbidden (by the Founders) and it is still opposed by the majority of the people...

Amendments are for when the founders got it wrong. So, if I propose an amendment, I'm telling the founders to bite me. That's how I can justify it.

It is not the same as racism...a person can't change the color of their skin. But a person CAN change their sexual practices.

Sure. Why should they?
If rapists - someone is harmed without consent.
If child molesters - someone is harmed without consent.
If gay - uh ... uhhhhh ...

Just because a person has a tendency to be tempted by certain problems does not mean that it is ok to indulge those problems.

I don't believe in temptation. I believe in rational self control.

For example: it seems that Native Americans have a tendency to develop alcoholism more than the general population, but that doesn't not make it ok for them to drink and drive (under the influence) and just blame it on their genetics.

If people could drink and drive without risking an accident, then they could. But, you see, there's too great a possibility of harm. Laws against drunk driving aren't there to protect the drivers, but rather the people the drivers drive into ...

A better comparison would be seat-belt laws. Even then, there is a risk that your body could be jettisoned from the vehicle, causing harm if it smashes through the windshield of a colliding vehicle. There's still some justification, if not much.

Basically, condemning homosexuality is less rational than enforcing seat belt laws.

The fact that some people have recovered from being gay shows that it is possible to control those urges (or perhaps those urges were even changed into not desiring it as much or at all) anyway... something happens in those instances and it is obvious that the actions are simply a matter of choices a person makes.


Define 'recover.' Do they like the opposite sex? Once again, why should anyone care? No harm, no foul.

Likewise, if a person just has strong tendencies and cravings to commit adultery, it still does not make it right!! the right thing to do is to RESIST the natural urges...yes self control is a necessary part of life...the natural man doesn't want to, but it is required for the best interest of the person and for society as well.


Yeah, because they hurt their partner's feelings. Not because "adultery" is wrong in and of itself. If two people have an open marriage, where they inform each other of their relationship plans, then you can hardly argue that "adultery" is bad.

Society has the right to say what is or isn't decent regarding these things...for example the majority has decided that it is not OK to allow pornography in public.

Society only has the rights individuals give it, to rationally protect their interests. People have decided they don't care about homosexuality. If they're right about porn, I guess they're right about that as well. See what I did there?

In case you go and argue "no they haven't cause ..." I'll just throw in if society's saying it is right makes it right, then I guess this was right: http://en.wikipedia.org...

(Inquire Truth did a debate on many of these points, not sure if you read it...but I agreed with his take on many things). http://www.debate.org...
(he did 2 other debates on it too (at least))

I'll look at it. IT and I disagree on epistemological grounds, so I highly doubt I'll agree.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2009 2:32:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 2:17:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/21/2009 2:04:51 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Well, like I said I'm not adverse to amending. "having exercised" alone can be substituted for the joint clause, I guess. Better?

Makes better sense, though possibly needs a little bit more tweaking. As I'm not a constitutional expert, I wouldn't know quite how to word this, but generally you would want to make it clear that a citizen has a right not to be discriminated against by government or employer, based upon whether their current state of affairs (ie., meth addict) can cause physical or economic damage to the employer. Such a wording would have to take account of the statement that "my employee is gay and people don't like it" isn't a suitable argument.

Well, I think that's the type of hashing out that can be fixed by committee notes and court cases. For a long time no one knew if a public easement constituted a taking or not (eminent domain) or whether or not restrictive covenants based on race amounted to discrimination (they did), but the courts cleared that up. I'm sure they'd understand the intent in this instance as well.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 1:47:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/21/2009 2:24:35 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 6/21/2009 8:57:47 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

Thank you for the reply. I am wondering though how you justify making the jump to push for legalization of it (homosex. marriage)...It started off forbidden (by the Founders) and it is still opposed by the majority of the people...

Amendments are for when the founders got it wrong. So, if I propose an amendment, I'm telling the founders to bite me. That's how I can justify it.

Most people approach the founders with a respect. I am sorry if I upset you, you may have just been mad at me and not the founders. I am not trying to upset you just so you know.

It is not the same as racism...a person can't change the color of their skin. But a person CAN change their sexual practices.

Sure. Why should they?
If rapists - someone is harmed without consent.
If child molesters - someone is harmed without consent.
If gay - uh ... uhhhhh ...
If gay - people die of sexual disease, AIDS particularly. Did you know that AIDS was originally called "GRID" (gay-related immune deficiency)?

Just because a person has a tendency to be tempted by certain problems does not mean that it is ok to indulge those problems.

I don't believe in temptation. I believe in rational self control.
would you believe that people have "pulls" towards things that are destructive (to themselves or others)? I think you would...(?maybe not), but that is kind of what I meant by "temptation"

For example: it seems that Native Americans have a tendency to develop alcoholism more than the general population, but that doesn't not make it ok for them to drink and drive (under the influence) and just blame it on their genetics.

If people could drink and drive without risking an accident, then they could. But, you see, there's too great a possibility of harm. Laws against drunk driving aren't there to protect the drivers, but rather the people the drivers drive into ...

A better comparison would be seat-belt laws. Even then, there is a risk that your body could be jettisoned from the vehicle, causing harm if it smashes through the windshield of a colliding vehicle. There's still some justification, if not much.

Basically, condemning homosexuality is less rational than enforcing seat belt laws.
If gays didn't practice homosexuality they could have (and still can) prevent STD's this would help themself and others....just like a Native American by not drinking would help himself (and keep other drivers safe as well)

The fact that some people have recovered from being gay shows that it is possible to control those urges (or perhaps those urges were even changed into not desiring it as much or at all) anyway... something happens in those instances and it is obvious that the actions are simply a matter of choices a person makes.


Define 'recover.' Do they like the opposite sex? Once again, why should anyone care? No harm, no foul.
recover = they stop doing it, they control themselves (even if they get a "pull" towards it) they choose to resist the "pull".

Likewise, if a person just has strong tendencies and cravings to commit adultery, it still does not make it right!! the right thing to do is to RESIST the natural urges...yes self control is a necessary part of life...the natural man doesn't want to, but it is required for the best interest of the person and for society as well.


Yeah, because they hurt their partner's feelings. Not because "adultery" is wrong in and of itself. If two people have an open marriage, where they inform each other of their relationship plans, then you can hardly argue that "adultery" is bad.

Well that is one reason it is illegal anyway, but if kids are involved it can hardly be said that adultery would not have a negative effect on them....and what is marriage for anyway? To have kids!

Society has the right to say what is or isn't decent regarding these things...for example the majority has decided that it is not OK to allow pornography in public.

Society only has the rights individuals give it, to rationally protect their interests. People have decided they don't care about homosexuality. If they're right about porn, I guess they're right about that as well. See what I did there?
People have decided that they DO care about homosexuality...that they don't want it around (at least in CA.)
In case you go and argue "no they haven't cause ..." I'll just throw in if society's saying it is right makes it right, then I guess this was right: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I think you may be upset with me to post a link like that. I hope you will realize that I mean no ill will towards you.
(Inquire Truth did a debate on many of these points, not sure if you read it...but I agreed with his take on many things). http://www.debate.org...
(he did 2 other debates on it too (at least))

I'll look at it. IT and I disagree on epistemological grounds, so I highly doubt I'll agree.

he does have 3 now at least and 1 in challenge stage he may accept. The one vs. Tarzan was very good....for both sides!
http://www.debate.org...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 6:22:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/23/2009 1:47:30 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

Most people approach the founders with a respect. I am sorry if I upset you, you may have just been mad at me and not the founders. I am not trying to upset you just so you know.

Oh, I respect the founders, I just think they got some stuff wrong, being humans as they were. Don't worry about upsetting me. The internet is not personally upsetting to me. ;)

If gay - people die of sexual disease, AIDS particularly. Did you know that AIDS was originally called "GRID" (gay-related immune deficiency)?

The spread of pathogens through a society by sexual practice actually is a valid concern ... when the homosexual community was a fringe group of social outcasts, tied into the free love movement, the AIDS virus spread rather fast, yes ... but it spread faster somewhere else amongst a heterosexual majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.avert.org...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Now, sexual practices amongst homosexuals in most of the US have changed back towards supporting monogamy (or polyfidelity, at least) to prevent the spread of pathogens, reasonably well, although not in hotbeds of sexual irresponsibility. The key to preventing pathogen transmission appears to be safer sex where the disease is most prevalent, not a particular type of sex.

would you believe that people have "pulls" towards things that are destructive (to themselves or others)? I think you would...(?maybe not), but that is kind of what I meant by "temptation"

No. I would not. I believe that people consider rational and irrational alternatives, and that the irrational alternatives are discarded, although instinct and short sighted self interest clearly takes control now and again.

If gays didn't practice homosexuality they could have (and still can) prevent STD's this would help themself and others....just like a Native American by not drinking would help himself (and keep other drivers safe as well)

If straight people didn't practice heterosexuality they could have (and still can) prevent STD's, this would help themselves and others. It's not the gender of the sexual participants, it's the type of sex they are participating in. Responsible sex with few partners using proper protection, with knowledge of that partner's health reduces the spread of diseases. Free-for-all having-at-it increases it.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov...

recover = they stop doing it, they control themselves (even if they get a "pull" towards it) they choose to resist the "pull".

Only valid if the behavior itself is destructive. I agree that whether or not a person should do something is rationally related to the consequences. The fact that homosexual male contact is a risk factor in HIV transmission should lead people of conscience to have themselves and their partners tested before engaging in sexual activity.

Likewise, if a person just has strong tendencies and cravings to commit adultery, it still does not make it right!! the right thing to do is to RESIST the natural urges...yes self control is a necessary part of life...the natural man doesn't want to, but it is required for the best interest of the person and for society as well.

It's not 'resist the natural urges' it's 'weigh the harms.' You need self control either way.

Well that is one reason it is illegal anyway, but if kids are involved it can hardly be said that adultery would not have a negative effect on them....and what is marriage for anyway? To have kids!

Adultery is not illegal. Marriage is not to have kids or sterile people wouldn't marry. The affects of cheating on kids are bad, but that's a call for child bearing couples to act more responsibly. I agree with you that personal accountability is lacking in our society.

People have decided that they DO care about homosexuality...that they don't want it around (at least in CA.)

Nope, they don't want marriage redefined. And since when does any sane person base their rationality off of California?

I think you may be upset with me to post a link like that. I hope you will realize that I mean no ill will towards you.

No, not at all. Just using the most direct case relevant to yourself. Well, maybe you hurt a little with the drunk Indian example. That stereotype would be more funny if one side of my family didn't fit it.

Still, keep in mind that society is a tool. Individuals are wrong or right, if what they do is rationally related to what they seek to accomplish, and minimizes harm.

he does have 3 now at least and 1 in challenge stage he may accept. The one vs. Tarzan was very good....for both sides!
http://www.debate.org...

I'll check it out, after work. Thanks!
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 8:50:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2009 11:32:45 PM, Nik wrote:
What is this outrage! Gay marriage has now been banned in California, This has absolutely infuriated me, what right do you Americans have to deny marriage between same sex couples? The little respect I have for you has been destroyed. You claim to have freedom, you have traditionally upheld the ideals of your forefathers to overthrow us Brits and create a nation of freedom and liberty.

This just absolutely defines why you are the most hated nation on earth, you are so damned hypocritical! What are your arguments against same sex marriage? Against god and the bible? then f_cking throw every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and any other non Christian religion out of your country. Not natural? Then ban Mac Donald's, ban pharmacological companies, ban chemical companies, ban everything that isn't grown out of the natural organic earth. Oh wait, you wont..., why? because it will affect your GDP, how predictable, I don't know why I even bothered to voice my opinion.

I'm sure there are many decent Americans but your complacency with this issue has caused me great concern, our government may be crap, but its not as distasteful as yours.

Don't be calling us out when we kicked your a** repeatedly in several wars. You Brits and your snobbish attitudes. Think you're better than us? I don't think you understand the spiral effects that would come from gay marriage. So go ahead and start a war with us, we'll beat the crap out of you again.

P.S. California does not concern you. Also, I do not dislike Brits, just the snobbish and arrogant ones (which I've seen a lot of lol)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2009 11:35:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/23/2009 8:50:54 AM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Don't be calling us out when we kicked your a** repeatedly in several wars.

"Several wars"? By my count, it has only been one.

You Brits and your snobbish attitudes. Think you're better than us? I don't think you understand the spiral effects that would come from gay marriage. So go ahead and start a war with us, we'll beat the crap out of you again.

Nik never said anything about "starting a war." He just stated his opinion, and it makes sense to be honest. You're the one that is using the bravado in order to, what, threaten? Intimidate? Feel better because a British person, who noted that Americans do wish to uphold what their original documents say, has lost respect for your country?

Possibly, by throwing a temper tantrum, you're not helping the United States improve its image among the minds of the rest of the world.