Another one would be laws concerning restrooms. A man can't walk in and use a woman's restroom.
Thank you for posting. Another beautiful example of the utter blindness of bigots. Can any of you who oppose gay marriage for profoundly refined philosophical reasons begin to see the common truth of feelings?
You asked for examples and i gave them too you.
Relation is: the courts already make decesions concerning the sexes, there are differences.
Women are denied the same opportunity as men since men can only use men restrooms, but woman cannot use those same facilities.
And there is an allowance of different standards for those two genders, why can't the court make the same type of distinctions with relationships?
Relation is: the courts already make decesions concerning the sexes, there are differences.
Women are denied the same opportunity as men since men can only use men restrooms, but woman cannot use those same facilities.
And there is an allowance of different standards for those two genders, why can't the court make the same type of distinctions with relationships?
before I go down that road with you I'd like you to share your (hopefully not unique) definition of agape love.
yes, that is similarly morally reprehensible.
As an abstraction? or pursued as the chief end to the exclusion of all others?
As long as they remain open to the gift of offspring there is no wrong.
Morality is in that view I suppose, and in a limited sense, without further qualification, a "limitation" on act, but it's hardly "short sighted". If anything it's the contrary. Self control for the sake of a greater good is prudent.
Discouraging vice is hardly cruel.
Promoting virtue is always appropriate; this is not self-righteous.
This discussion goes nowhere because people seem totally unable to seperate what they believe with what other people should believe.
A much simpler example would be your feelings on the "morally reprehensible" act of using condoms while engaging in heterosexual sex. That's what you believe, that's fine by me, feel free not to use condoms when you have sex. But I will also feel free to tell you to blow it out your ass. I don't agree with your views on birth control, and I plan on living according to MY beliefs, which are quite the opposite of yours.
The beauty of our system is that, in theory at least, we can BOTH be right. You live your life how you want, I'll live my life how I want. You don't like condoms, don't use them. You don't like gay marriage, don't have one. I see nothing that would suggest anyone else has to care even the smallest bit about what you think.
I know, I know, you're just "discouraging vice and promoting virtue", but if you haven't figured it out by now, we all define it differently. But as I said, the beauty of our system is we don't all have to agree on a set of vice and virtues, we can live our own lives as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of other people. That also includes the right to try to convince other people your beliefs are the right ones, but don't be at all surprised when they tell you to cram it with walnuts.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
I don't think so either.
Regardless, you can't discriminate against gender arbitrarily using the reason "Some discriminatory laws exists, why not add another?" You need some substantial reason as to why. So by presenting cases of possibly discriminatory scenarios is not enough justification.
This post was a while back, but I must reply because I have many problems with this?
First off ... I dont have to cover shame.... I am not ashamed of anything .. that is just crazy to someone physco-analyze me by reading posts on an internet forum.
I am not being defence at all .... the fact that you feel you need to make headway expresses to me that you are somehow trying to change the way I think. I am intitled to my own way of thinkin even if it is wrong.
Another part which I did not quote was when you said the fact that we evolved into male and female does not tell us with whom we should have sex with. That is contradictory. If sex is a tool to procreate and you can only procreate when a male and female get together ... does that not tell you right there male and females evolved to fit together.
I did not say anything about children raised in same sex marriages but since you brought it up. I think it is dangerous to not allow a child to have both a male and female parental figure. If you do not allows this you are biasing the child right from the beginning. How is it socially responsible for a child not to be exposed to the different points of views from both males and females. It is genrally excepted that a child raised in a house of violence will grow up and proliferate the cycle. We are products of our environment. Im not saying a child will grow up to be violent in a same sex marriage but removing one sex from a family will impact a child.
Anyway ill probbaly get flammed again for having my own point of view on this subject like I have on all my other posts. Its funny how my views get flammed but yet a homosexual with a different life style values point of view is determined to be acceptable? I guess the greater question is why ? who decided my point of view was wrong ? or is it better put that both points of view are correct and you should not try to force anyone to conform to your ideas of what is right ?
I would also like to point out the definition of bigot
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"
It makes no sence to call someone a biggot because they have a different point of view then you. If you call someone a biggot because of there beliefs then does that not mean you are intolerant to there point of view, thus making you a bigot as well ??
I don't want to get too side track by the restroom issue, the point I was trying to make is the courts have defined two sexes, there are differences. Those differences allow people to have two types bathrooms. It allows the military to have to two sets of grooming standards, and still be legal.
The same way there are distinctions drawn between the two sexes can't the why can't the legal system draw distinctions between the types of relationships that the two sexes have?
Ah the Neocons enjoying the Government in their bedroom. I'm sure they would be prefectly OK with the Government telling you when and where you can do number two as well.
Why does everybody think the only purpose of marriage is to make more babies?
The children will meet more than two people during their entire life. I assume you strongly disapprove of single parent families as well?
Because their view does not impede on the rights of your life.
who decided your point of view was right? One side is fighting for a right to unite. The other is fighting to keep them from it simply because they don't want them to.
Very good answer.
No one has ever said that- this has nothing to do with bed room activites. try to keep it on topic.
First off this is totally taking out of context ... by quote explains that sex is procreation it says nothing at all about marriage only being to "make babies"
Another quote taken out of context. I say nothing about disaproving of single parent families.. The fact is if a child is living in a single parent family there are still two parents which both have the obligation to raise teh child... just not together. A child does miss out tho if one parent unfortunately dies.
Nor does mine impede on someones way of life. Read bac and my posts indicate that same sex partners should have the same rights as heterosexuals .. I just dont believe in "marriage" between same sex couples ... im not impeding rights .. just stating my point of view and not trying to force it on others
I am not trying to block peoples rights at all ... and I have explained that numerous times
This is correct and is a socially responsible way to go about things
M: I don't think that is your fault or that you are to blame. It has been my experience, however, that people in our condition can only grow by facing alot of pain. The pain comes from learing humility after a life time of building up an ego to cover our shame. We can't tell the difference between humility and feeling weak and vulnerable so we avoid both like the plague. The resulting incredible defensiveness makes people very hard to talk to. After a while you can spot almost right off those with whom you can never make the slightest headway.
B: First off ... I dont have to cover shame.... I am not ashamed of anything .. that is just crazy to someone physco-analyze me by reading posts on an internet forum.
B: I am not being defence at all .... the fact that you feel you need to make headway expresses to me that you are somehow trying to change the way I think. I am intitled to my own way of thinkin even if it is wrong.
M: Hehe, right on que. I won't try to convince you of anything. I hope only there are others who can learn from your example.
I remember some moons back telling a therapist, 'I am not defensive'. He just sat there and smiled. It was many many hours later, playing over the tape in my head that it dawned on me that I was as defensive as any ass can be. It still makes me cringe that I could be so blind. It takes a long time to get to the pain.
Good luck to you on your journey.
B: First off ... I dont have to cover shame.... I am not ashamed of anything .. that is just crazy to someone physco-analyze me by reading posts on an internet forum.
B: I am not being defence at all .... the fact that you feel you need to make headway expresses to me that you are somehow trying to change the way I think. I am intitled to my own way of thinkin even if it is wrong.
M: Hehe, right on que. I won't try to convince you of anything. I hope only there are others who can learn from your example.
I remember some moons back telling a therapist, 'I am not defensive'. He just sat there and smiled. It was many many hours later, playing over the tape in my head that it dawned on me that I was as defensive as any ass can be. It still makes me cringe that I could be so blind. It takes a long time to get to the pain.
Good luck to you on your journey.I remember some moons back telling a therapist, 'I am not defensive'. He just sat there and smiled. It was many many hours later, playing over the tape in my head that it dawned on me that I was as defensive as any ass can be. It still makes me cringe that I could be so blind. It takes a long time to get to the pain. Good luck to you on your journey.[/quote]
So in effect I cannot refute the claim that I am defensive because that is a defensive statement in itself??? This is faulty logic because there is only one answer.
And if it your experience then that is an aceptable statment. Be careful tho to not lump everyone together in a mass genralization
Good luck to you on your journey.[/quote]So in effect I cannot refute the claim that I am defensive because that is a defensive statement in itself??? This is faulty logic because there is only one answer.
And if it your experience then that is an aceptable statment. Be careful tho to not lump everyone together in a mass genralization
*cracks his knuckles*
Your comparison of my two points appears valid, but you're really comparing two different arguments and trying to overlap them. Of course they don't overlap. I tried to post several short posts regarding my position rather than one long one and was willing to cede artificial conception to ease the argument, though it is also contrary to natural law. Next time, I'll write a book too, perhaps.
"The subject of unnaturalness is homosexuality itself, not the institution of homosexual marriage. By claiming that homosexual marriage is unnatural you are arguing the conjecture of a conjecture."
Homosexual acts are unnatural, therefore the union between two is equally unnatural. How is this fallacious?
Your argument regarding utility and rights is basically correct. However, the power to amend the constitution is still given to the majority. Same sex marriage has never been established as a right, whereas the rights to education and voting had been. Utility claims do trump the claims to a purported right that does not yet exist, as they must for us to maintain a meaningful government. Otherwise, anyone who supposed a right to anything would have that anything protected, even if it were a drag on society as a whole. This argument is avoiding the biggest issue here, and that is the fact that the right to marriage has been defined as a contract between one man and one woman. Until this right has been demonstrably expanded to encompass other groups, then the utility of the majority must supercede it. This is similar to the federal government forcing Utah to accept monogamy to join the rest of the country as a state - they thought they had a right to marry as they saw fit, but the nation already had defined that right differently. In such cases, the majority does rule.
Only one thing I take issue with here.
But the argument has been put forth that people who love each other should be able to marry, regardless of other circumstances. There are already laws against same sex marriage, just as there are already laws against incest. If you open the door for the government to start basing marriage on 'love', then they would have no legal standing to say no to incest, if two people from the same family 'loved' each other and wanted to marry. You're spot on with the rest of this one though.
Man is part of nature. Therefore, products of man are also natural. Man has the faculties of logic, but this does not free him from living free of natural laws. In nature (animals), just as in man, homosexuality is an aberration. What the cause of said aberration is has yet to be determined, but it is really irrelevant. The difference between man and beast is that our faculties of logic allow us to cope with aberrations by acting to control them. This is why natural law places a burden on the homosexual. More than that is really beyond the scope of this discussion, but that's the gist of it.
Your comparison of my two points appears valid, but you're really comparing two different arguments and trying to overlap them. Of course they don't overlap. I tried to post several short posts regarding my position rather than one long one and was willing to cede artificial conception to ease the argument, though it is also contrary to natural law. Next time, I'll write a book too, perhaps.
"The subject of unnaturalness is homosexuality itself, not the institution of homosexual marriage. By claiming that homosexual marriage is unnatural you are arguing the conjecture of a conjecture."
Homosexual acts are unnatural, therefore the union between two is equally unnatural. How is this fallacious?
Agreed.
The argument for natural law has been around for centuries. It's hardly a new kid on the block intended to bring down gay marriage. I believe this moots your entire point here. Obviously, ad hoc reasoning is undesirable, but is also obviously not the case in this instance.
The very argument is whether or not government should condone same sex marriages. Therefore, the government is just such a party.
Every bigoted argument is ultimately founded on some irrational assumption that what the bigot is bigoted against is evil. This evil, because of its religious implications is converted by the clever bigot to some other form. In your case, CW, you pretend that homosexuality is unnatural. You should study our closest living relative, the Bonobo chimp. Pics of the girls getting it on.
I wish people here could stop confusing philosophy with religion. They're clearly not the same thing. Philosophy is argument based on logic. Religion is argument based on belief. None of my arguments to this point have been based on belief, but on logic. Natural law is argued very thoroughly from logic, and was actually started completely independently from religion. This is what your source says:
What a joke. Kinsey's reports have been discredited up and down by secular scientists. The sampling techniques used are a blatant source of bias in his results. He knew the position he wanted and found samples to support that. If this book is anything similar, which the source claims it is, then it's a complete travesty.
You're right I can't get involved in other people's marriages. But wait, o ya unless you're in massachusets they can't get married in the first place. I can't get involved in my hetero friends marriages because as of right now they can legally do what they want with that. Homosexuals 'as of this point' (unless in MA) cannot.
Originally posted by: Bonkrowave
I remember some moons back telling a therapist, 'I am not defensive'. He just sat there and smiled. It was many many hours later, playing over the tape in my head that it dawned on me that I was as defensive as any ass can be. It still makes me cringe that I could be so blind. It takes a long time to get to the pain.
So in effect I cannot refute the claim that I am defensive because that is a defensive statement in itself??? This is faulty logic because there is only one answer.
And if it your experience then that is an aceptable statment. Be careful tho to not lump everyone together in a mass genralization
[/quote]
You believe you are entitled to your opinion even if you are wrong. I couldn't accept that for myself. As a result, my search cost me everything I believed. You imagine that I don't know you, but I know you like I know my own hand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter