Louisiana now an Offical Gay Hating State - Approve Same-Sex Marriage Ban 9-18-04

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I, as a heterosexual American male, can marry any girl who agrees to marry me - she doesn't even have to be American. And no amount of protest can stop it, no amount of votes, nothing but her or my refusal. That is what it means to have the right to be married.

So can a homosexual. He can be married in any church that will permit it. You're not asking for the right to marry - you're asking for the government, and therefore the people whom the government represents, to give blessing to said union.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is how your quote is really meant - it is a defense of rights, like the right to marry. Self-evident means so obvious that it is beyond argument, created equal means that you cannot discriminate against certain groups, and unalienable means that they cannot be revoked or denied simply because you would like to - they are permanent and inviolate.[/quote]
However, the point of government is to protect these rights. Since the government only exists to protect these rights, as deemed appropriate by society, then society ultimately makes the rules. You can't outweigh the opinion of 80% of the population, regardless of how bigoted or wrong their opinion might be. Society will not stand by and see the courts throw away their opinion, particularly when it is so strongly held by so many. There are certain things that a society will not tolerate. I will also quote the same paragraph of the Declaration:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A vast majority of this nation is Christian. This nation is founded on the philosophy of generic Protestantism. Repeatedly ruling against that tradition and the will of the people calls the people to their duty "to throw off such Government." We have been accustomed to the courts dictating the pace of life in America, regardless of the will of the people. If it continues, the people will reach a point where they will no longer support the 'long train of abuses and usurpations.'

Here is a story that is very recent and is directly related to the government's ability and even duty to restrict rights of individuals: 'Choose Life' Plates Ruled Unconstitutional. The court rules that it's unconstitutional to promote just one viewpoint in the abortion debate. As you're all aware, I am a strong opponent of abortion. Do I declare everyone who thinks having these license plates is bad a bigot? No. Don't the people of Tennessee have a right to pursue happiness by promoting a charity and getting a pro-life license plate? Shouldn't this be part of their personal liberty? As I've said, the role of government is to restrict liberties to protect the greater good. This is why government exists: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Bigoted, ignorant, call it what you like, but the will of the people reigns supreme.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I, as a heterosexual American male, can marry any girl who agrees to marry me - she doesn't even have to be American. And no amount of protest can stop it, no amount of votes, nothing but her or my refusal. That is what it means to have the right to be married.

So can a homosexual. He can be married in any church that will permit it. You're not asking for the right to marry - you're asking for the government, and therefore the people whom the government represents, to give blessing to said union.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is how your quote is really meant - it is a defense of rights, like the right to marry. Self-evident means so obvious that it is beyond argument, created equal means that you cannot discriminate against certain groups, and unalienable means that they cannot be revoked or denied simply because you would like to - they are permanent and inviolate.

However, the point of government is to protect these rights. Since the government only exists to protect these rights, as deemed appropriate by society, then society ultimately makes the rules. You can't outweigh the opinion of 80% of the population, regardless of how bigoted or wrong their opinion might be. Society will not stand by and see the courts throw away their opinion, particularly when it is so strongly held by so many. There are certain things that a society will not tolerate. I will also quote the same paragraph of the Declaration:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

A vast majority of this nation is Christian. This nation is founded on the philosophy of generic Protestantism. Repeatedly ruling against that tradition and the will of the people calls the people to their duty "to throw off such Government." We have been accustomed to the courts dictating the pace of life in America, regardless of the will of the people. If it continues, the people will reach a point where they will no longer support the 'long train of abuses and usurpations.'

Here is a story that is very recent and is directly related to the government's ability and even duty to restrict rights of individuals: 'Choose Life' Plates Ruled Unconstitutional. The court rules that it's unconstitutional to promote just one viewpoint in the abortion debate. As you're all aware, I am a strong opponent of abortion. Do I declare everyone who thinks having these license plates is bad a bigot? No. Don't the people of Tennessee have a right to pursue happiness by promoting a charity and getting a pro-life license plate? Shouldn't this be part of their personal liberty? As I've said, the role of government is to restrict liberties to protect the greater good. This is why government exists: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Bigoted, ignorant, call it what you like, but the will of the people reigns supreme.[/quote]

Go back and learn something about how the law works. Go back to that analysis I wrote that you couldn't bother to read.

Learn about the concept of rights and then you can spout about the will of the people. But if you are right I'd like you to explain the following Supreme Court decisions:

1) Brown v. Board of Ed (1954)
2) Lawrence v. Texas (2004)
3) Gideon v. Wainwright
4) Gitlow v. People (1925)

What you will notice is that these all have 1 thing in common - the rights of an individual were held to more important than a vast majority of people who objected to their conduct or whatever.

It's about rights - unalienable ones - and the right to marry is going to be determined just as surely as Brown was.

You are on the losing end because you are working to deny people their rights based on a majority disagreement. Our government does not and has never functioned that way.

Society has stood by and seen the vast majority of people angered by court decisions. Look at the 1950s if you need any more proof.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Go back and learn something about how the law works. Go back to that analysis I wrote that you couldn't bother to read.

I did read it, and posted a point-by-point response, which you apparently couldn't bother to read.

What you will notice is that these all have 1 thing in common - the rights of an individual were held to more important than a vast majority of people who objected to their conduct or whatever.

It's about rights - unalienable ones - and the right to marry is going to be determined just as surely as Brown was.

You are on the losing end because you are working to deny people their rights based on a majority disagreement. Our government does not and has never functioned that way.

Society has stood by and seen the vast majority of people angered by court decisions. Look at the 1950s if you need any more proof.

You fail to realize the glaring truth: that the reason these rulings were made is because they were supported by the generic Protestantism that our nation is founded on. Christianity doesn't support segragation, slavery, or other issues. Thus, public outcry wasn't so great. Roe v Wade - public outcry over a court decision reached a new high, as it directly contradicts Christian philosophy. Discontent over this decision is growing, despite the repeated attempts of courts to beat it down. The majority will rule, whether you agree with it or not. The values of the vast majority will not be repeatedly trodden on at the behest of a great minority, whether or not those values are right. Maybe homosexual marriage won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but repeatedly ignoring the philosophy that we have been following for centuries and is supported by the vast majority will eventually lead to revolution.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You fail to realize the glaring truth: that the reason these rulings were made is because they were supported by the generic Protestantism that our nation is founded on. Christianity doesn't support segragation, slavery, or other issues. Thus, public outcry wasn't so great. Roe v Wade - public outcry over a court decision reached a new high, as it directly contradicts Christian philosophy. Discontent over this decision is growing, despite the repeated attempts of courts to beat it down. The majority will rule, whether you agree with it or not. The values of the vast majority will not be repeatedly trodden on at the behest of a great minority, whether or not those values are right. Maybe homosexual marriage won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but repeatedly ignoring the philosophy that we have been following for centuries and is supported by the vast majority will eventually lead to revolution.

Um, you are an idiot. I tried to find a better way to phrase it but you are simply ignoring all evidence that doesn't support your position.

It was so widely decried that the Army was sent in to make sure that the decision was upheld.

In 1957, in the wake of the Brown decision, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower enforced the Supreme Court's 1954 school desegregation order by sending troops to Little Rock, Arkansas when the Governor of the state resisted allowing black students (known as the Little Rock Nine) to attend the previously all-white Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower used United States Army troops, when Governor Orval Faubus had mobilized troops from the Arkansas National Guard to prevent it, setting a precedent for the enforcement of court orders relating to racial integration by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. (See also: Little Rock Integration Crisis.)

The greatest growth of racial integration occurred as a result of the Civil Rights movement. The best-known spokesman for racial integration during the Civil Rights era was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. As a result of the movement, almost all of the legal basis for racial segregation was removed and the primary barriers to racial integration remained social and customary ones, which could not be repealed as could laws. As legal barriers came down and members of the races began to interact more freely, the dream of racial integration began to be more of a reality. Still, the United States remains somewhat segregated in housing patterns, although far less so than previously, and very segregated religiously; nearly all of the leading Protestant denominations still have predominantly white and predominantly black bodies.

The same will happen when the right to marry by gay people is decided by the Supreme Court - the executive branch will act to ensure that it is complied with, just as they did before.

The people will never triumph the rights of the individual. That is the entire message of our Bill of Rights - nobody can deny your freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Your rights are inviolate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Um, you are an idiot. I tried to find a better way to phrase it but you are simply ignoring all evidence that doesn't support your position.

It was so widely decried that the Army was sent in to make sure that the decision was upheld.

I'm an idiot? Great, and here I thought we were having a rational discussion for a change. for the newb who can't see the difference between the vocal minority and the 80% majority. Moral justification is usually on the side of the majority, usually because those wise enough to know the logic behind the justification pass that along, through any means necessary, to that majority. The majority doesn't necessarily understand why it's wrong, but they don't necessarily need to, either.

The same will happen when the right to marry by gay people is decided by the Supreme Court - the executive branch will act to ensure that it is complied with, just as they did before.

The people will never triumph the rights of the individual. That is the entire message of our Bill of Rights - nobody can deny your freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Your rights are inviolate.

Unfortunately, there is no right for homosexuals to marry. You're assuming protection for a right that exists nowhere, in the Constitution or elsewhere. The whole argument you've waged is a case of begging the question, assuming away the problem. The problem is, in fact, that there is no established right to homosexual marriage. The Bill of Rights enumerates rights that are to be shared by all. Marriage doesn't appear, nor does it appear elsewhere in the Constitution. You simply suppose that such a right exists and, therefore, that it is inherently protected and that anyone who opposes it is an idiotic bigot.

 

[DealMonkey]

I believe a large part of the problem is that we have our priorities in this country mixed up. We're so permissive with violence and yet so prudish and restrictive about our sexuality. That puritanical religious streak that runs through the middle of this country causes some of us to make sex out to be a dirty thing not to be seen or discussed. Meanwhile, we permit tremendous violence all the way from how we raise our kids to imagery in our media to the incredible violence we allow our government to perpetrate in our names.

And by extension this prudishness and religious objection to gay marriage is just as mixed up and wrong. Two gay people getting married is not going to cause our society to crumble. It's not going to devalue the institution of marriage already tarnished by escalating divorce rates. It's not going to have any effect on anyone whatsoever except for the two people making the committment to each other. It no more requires society's approval as does any regular marriage. I know I don't make it a habit to stick my nose in other people's relationships and question whether they should be getting married or not. Why is there this assumption that the whole planet has to approve of your relationship before two people are wed?

I say we get our government out of the marriage business. By having the government put its stamp of approval on marriages, you're in effect asking the society it represents to give its approval. If the government simply observed all marriages as civil unions, it would ultimately remove everyone from the equation and the act of marriage would revert back to the churches or to the context of whatever ceremony was performed.

 

[nageov3t]

social change. it's a wonderful thing.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm an idiot? Great, and here I thought we were having a rational discussion for a change. for the newb who can't see the difference between the vocal minority and the 80% majority. Moral justification is usually on the side of the majority, usually because those wise enough to know the logic behind the justification pass that along, through any means necessary, to that majority. The majority doesn't necessarily understand why it's wrong, but they don't necessarily need to, either.

I get it - you're right, even when you're wrong. Silly me. I thought you said "public outcry wasn't so great" when it clearly was great enough to bring the Alabama National Guard and the Army into near conflict. I think waging near war over a decision would be the same as great public outcry; as would any reasonable person.

What exactly do they teach you guys in history? Did you never learn about the Civil Rights Movement, slavery, Jim Crow, etc...? Are you really that ignorant?

Unfortunately, there is no right for homosexuals to marry. You're assuming protection for a right that exists nowhere, in the Constitution or elsewhere. The whole argument you've waged is a case of begging the question, assuming away the problem. The problem is, in fact, that there is no established right to homosexual marriage. The Bill of Rights enumerates rights that are to be shared by all. Marriage doesn't appear, nor does it appear elsewhere in the Constitution. You simply suppose that such a right exists and, therefore, that it is inherently protected and that anyone who opposes it is an idiotic bigot.

There is no right for heterosexuals to marry either. That is beside the point. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That would be the 9th Amendment - it says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not enumerate every single right, but only certain rights, and more to the point there are many other rights which can be inferred ("read into" in legalese) the Bill of Rights.

So what other points could support gay marriage?

14th Amendment - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Is restricting people from marrying whom they choose a restriction of their liberty?
Is allowing some people to be married and not others denying them the equal protection of the laws?

Notice how it targets states who may silly discriminatory laws.

And you have distorted my argument. Mine has been very consistent - there is no legal basis for descriminating against gays by denying them the right to be married (and be entitled to all of the protections and priviliges which it entails). This clearly leads to the position that gay marriage should be legalized - as it will be - because otherwise we are denying people their Constitutional rights (depriving them of both liberty and the equal protection of the laws, as we would protect the right of straight people to engage in a marriage contract).

Let's examine this slightly differently. Let's say that I was right and - in the tradition of the US and our legal system I knew that any restriction against gay marriage would ultimately die in the Supreme Court - what, exactly, could I do?

Checks and balances. How do I make sure that something can never be ruled un-Constitutional? Make it a part of the Constitution. So let's examine that whole Constitutional amendment about gay marriage...

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Now why would they do that? Because it is the only way that gay marriage could fail, it is clearly designed to discriminate. They wrote it that way because they knew that the Supreme Court would have to uphold the rights of gays to marry.

Oh, and the majority that you speak about? That amendment died a quick death. And while we are on the subject the majority of people are pro-choice - does that mean you are now going to submit to the voice of the majority?

 

[imported_Condor]

Man, people really like to get verbose on this thread!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And by extension this prudishness and religious objection to gay marriage is just as mixed up and wrong. Two gay people getting married is not going to cause our society to crumble. It's not going to devalue the institution of marriage already tarnished by escalating divorce rates. It's not going to have any effect on anyone whatsoever except for the two people making the committment to each other. It no more requires society's approval as does any regular marriage. I know I don't make it a habit to stick my nose in other people's relationships and question whether they should be getting married or not. Why is there this assumption that the whole planet has to approve of your relationship before two people are wed?

This is all your opinion. You're arguing the exact opposite of my own. I think marriage is already weakened by divorce, and adding another indiscretion on top of this problem will worsen the situation. "It no more requires society's approval as does any regular marriage", but society isn't willing to give it, while society readily gives it for regular marriage.

I say we get our government out of the marriage business. By having the government put its stamp of approval on marriages, you're in effect asking the society it represents to give its approval. If the government simply observed all marriages as civil unions, it would ultimately remove everyone from the equation and the act of marriage would revert back to the churches or to the context of whatever ceremony was performed.

Agreed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I get it - you're right, even when you're wrong. Silly me. I thought you said "public outcry wasn't so great" when it clearly was great enough to bring the Alabama National Guard and the Army into near conflict. I think waging near war over a decision would be the same as great public outcry; as would any reasonable person.

It's more likely due to the fact that a violent/expressive minority than a great public outcry by the majority.

14th Amendment - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor, especially: such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office. So, such rights may be withheld, but not without "without due process of law". This is a statement that means I can't singlehandedly go and stop two gay men from marrying. However, passing a constitutional amendment is such an act in the due process of law.

Is allowing some people to be married and not others denying them the equal protection of the laws?

No one is denied the right to marry. What is denied is the alterred definition of marriage. The definition is clearly laid out in the Defense of Marriage Act, and also likely within every state, as union between one man and one woman.

What it comes down to is that I think we can agree: the government shouldn't be in the business of marrying people.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: I think the whole idea of society is that there is strength in numbers and wisdom in spreading tasks across different capacities. And in order to function a society needs rules against single minded selfishness. It is that which society seeks to control. Breathing is instinctual and nobody wants to control that. Instinct allows us to survive. I think you are confusing negative emotion, the urge to kill out of some emotional hurt, with our innate capacity to love. We are instinctively good, not evil. It is pain and put downs that turns the mind inward to feed and feed on endless unsatisfied need, the need for unconditional love that was our birth right. And animals do not kill without regard almost universally.

CW: Then I'll argue social contract theory - a well accepted philosophical theory. You give up certain rights to live in a society to gain protection for those rights which you hold to be more important. Thus, it is the strength in numbers of society which dictates what rights shall be held while others are stripped. The common good is placed ahead of the good of one. If the one doesn't like it, then he can exempt himself by leaving the society. The society is not beholden to accomodate the one. However, the one has other recourse - he can attempt to convince society why his right to X is more important than society's right to Y. If successful, then the social contract is altered to accomodate this shift in policy.

M: Well first off I know nothing about philosophy, really, and accept absolutely nothing well know or not by reputation. In the first place these intellectual theories are grafted onto a reality that preexists that men with brains come to analyze to try to explain. This urge to explain is often at source, some emotional feeling, perhaps a prejudice that impellers men to see a particular way. I have no idea it what milieu this social contract theory arose or what sort of BS it was intended to hide, so I can't speak to what most likely is there. But lets look at what you said: "You give up certain rights to live in a society to gain protection for those rights which you hold to be more important." Personally I would say that humans and apes are social animals. They practice a behavior, the behavior of living in groups. An intellectual analysis of this allows one to say many things, to frame this is various ways or to box it thus and so. But the basic fact is that we live in groups. Group dynamics apply to primates. Nobody gives up anything to get something else, it all just is. We are a group animal and not an island unto self. All this so called giving and getting happens and happened the minute we were born and a million years before and is both an expression of and an inevitable outflow of our genetic makeup as a social animal. It would be like saying we give up hunger in order to eat.
---------------------------------------
M: I do not see this at all. We must attempt to not act each of us exclusively in his own interests without regard to the interests of others, it seems to me, in order to survive. That which we do selfishly or instinctively or even debauchedly in our own interests are fine so long as we harm no one else.

CW: But when you act this way, you are harming others, whether you realize it or not. Selfishness is the root of evil - seeking only what is good for yourself will inherently inflict harm on others, though you may not be able to directly perceive this harm. For example, you might have sex with a condom, thinking no one else will be harmed. Unfortunately, right away you're making several huge mistakes: you or your partner could contract an STD, or the female might become pregnant. This also might lead to an abortion. These consequences cannot be removed from sexuality, therefore the potential to harm others is inherent in the actions taken out of the context of marriage. To be willing to risk harming others is to be willing to harm others - the famous presumption argument.

M: Well this argument strikes me as some sort of paranoia, I'm sorry to say. I do not believe that selfishness is the root of all evil. I believe that the root of all evil is using a thing meant for one purpose for another, ie to use ones natural intelligence for cunning. It is the concept of good and evil that makes this possible. For millions and millions of years of our evolution as animals we possessed a single unified consciousness in which the concept of self could never exist. We were the entire universe with no separation at our skin. Without language we could not self reflect or give ourselves a name. But with the intervention of language we split. We invented good and evil and called ourselves one and the other in order to control. The result it that each of us has been taught that we are the worst person in the world. This feeling, because or the tremendous loss of love and self respect that it implies is so tremendously painful that its memory cannot be consciously retained as children. It is deeply suppressed and the feeling of it's truth is the source of all evil. It is, in fact a lie.

A group depends on the fitness of its members. Social groups evolve within several strictures it seems to me. How successful is the group and how successful the individuals, and how successful the individual within the group. This would mean that the environment will select individuals and groups that are optimally selfish and selfless and that these things will be flexible and dynamic depending on the environment. Our genetic evolution will also lag thousands of years behind our present situation.
--------------------
M: I see no logic in reigning in instinct. I see no loss of responsibility. I do not get your point. And society is in a constant state of controlled anarchy with people doing whatever they want. It depends on the numbers and quantity, but I think you are confused as to what lies at the root of our ills. I think our instincts are fine. We have been perverted by other perverts. We are all born into a sick society and we all catch the illness.

CW: The call of logic is to rise above these perversions. Giving in to them is to let your animal instinct take control of that which makes you human. Certain instincts are necessary, but these are controlled by your body without your conscious thought - breathing, heartbeat. Others, sexual urges, are able to be mastered. We are born into a society which is as we allow it to be - the sickness that persists is only allowed to persist by those who condone it.

M: Logic can never rise above these perversions because they are deeply buried in the unconscious. Only Grace or psychotherapy or some form of meditative transcendence will carry us to freedom, ie some irrationally and ineffable form of mysticism. What we normally do is repress them which causes them to leak out as put-downs to our kids. We are born into a society that is asleep to the mechanisms of its inner reality caught on the karmic wheel of endless repetitions. We suppress and leak causing our children to suppress and leak in endless succession. Only the dissolution of the controller, the ego, can set us free and that can happen only for the individual. There is no hope for humanity.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And by extension this prudishness and religious objection to gay marriage is just as mixed up and wrong. Two gay people getting married is not going to cause our society to crumble. It's not going to devalue the institution of marriage already tarnished by escalating divorce rates. It's not going to have any effect on anyone whatsoever except for the two people making the committment to each other. It no more requires society's approval as does any regular marriage. I know I don't make it a habit to stick my nose in other people's relationships and question whether they should be getting married or not. Why is there this assumption that the whole planet has to approve of your relationship before two people are wed?

This is all your opinion. You're arguing the exact opposite of my own. I think marriage is already weakened by divorce, and adding another indiscretion on top of this problem will worsen the situation. "It no more requires society's approval as does any regular marriage", but society isn't willing to give it, while society readily gives it for regular marriage.

Isn't this entire thread an exercise in opinion? From how you feel about gay marriage (pro or con) right up to how you interpret the U.S. Constitution and its amendments is pure opinion. That's why I consider gay marriage just one of the many "eternal conflict" threads here that pop up quite often. I'd lump the gay marriage threads in with the "abortion" threads and the "religion in government" threads. I'd do so because neither side on these issues ever "wins" and nobody ever changes their minds. It's an exercise in futility akin to knocking a hole through a brick wall with your noggin -- only more painful.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
What it comes down to is that I think we can agree: the government shouldn't be in the business of marrying people.

Correction: Neocons shouldn't be in the Business of Discrimination.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: Well this argument strikes me as some sort of paranoia, I'm sorry to say. I do not believe that selfishness is the root of all evil. I believe that the root of all evil is using a thing meant for one purpose for another, ie to use ones natural intelligence for cunning. It is the concept of good and evil that makes this possible.

CW: The job of philosophers is to develop constructs that accurately represent reality such that the 'reality' may be better understood by the common man. The argument for and against good and evil is beyond the scope of this discussion, IMO, though it's an interesting perspective, certainly.

M: Logic can never rise above these perversions because they are deeply buried in the unconscious. Only Grace or psychotherapy or some form of meditative transcendence will carry us to freedom, ie some irrationally and ineffable form of mysticism. What we normally do is repress them which causes them to leak out as put-downs to our kids. We are born into a society that is asleep to the mechanisms of its inner reality caught on the karmic wheel of endless repetitions. We suppress and leak causing our children to suppress and leak in endless succession. Only the dissolution of the controller, the ego, can set us free and that can happen only for the individual. There is no hope for humanity.

CW: Then I believe the fundamental difference between us is what we perceive these perversions to be. I also once questioned whether or not there was hope for humanity. After quite a considerable amount of thought and time, I arrived at the conclusion that there is no hope without faith. If you believe in nothing, then you have no hope. My faith in certain ideals gives me hope, just as those who oppose ideals have no hope. Therefore, I strive to uphold these ideals and teach them to others to give them hope.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Isn't this entire thread an exercise in opinion? From how you feel about gay marriage (pro or con) right up to how you interpret the U.S. Constitution and its amendments is pure opinion. That's why I consider gay marriage just one of the many "eternal conflict" threads here that pop up quite often. I'd lump the gay marriage threads in with the "abortion" threads and the "religion in government" threads. I'd do so because neither side on these issues ever "wins" and nobody ever changes their minds. It's an exercise in futility akin to knocking a hole through a brick wall with your noggin -- only more painful.

The difference between you and I, then, is that I believe society will and even must eventually resolve these issues, one way or the other. If it cannot, then there will inevitably be a schism in which all those falling on one side of the issue can no longer coexist with those on the other, since their views are separated by some irreconcilable difference. Those that fall on one side of these arguments will also tend to fall on the same side in others (i.e. someone against abortion is likely to also be against same sex marriage and for religion in government, due to the similarity in values explicit in each issue). It will be similar to the north and south in the civil war, only without clear geographical boundaries. How it will be resolved I can't say, only that it will be resolved.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I predict in the next decade or two there will be a major backlash against the religious right in this country. Already we are seeing the beginnings of it, and I predict things will only get worse in the years to come. It seems as if the religious right is struggling to hold onto what they know and hold dearly, when the country itself is going down the sh!tter in terms of morals and values.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
M: Well this argument strikes me as some sort of paranoia, I'm sorry to say. I do not believe that selfishness is the root of all evil. I believe that the root of all evil is using a thing meant for one purpose for another, ie to use ones natural intelligence for cunning. It is the concept of good and evil that makes this possible.

CW: The job of philosophers is to develop constructs that accurately represent reality such that the 'reality' may be better understood by the common man. The argument for and against good and evil is beyond the scope of this discussion, IMO, though it's an interesting perspective, certainly.

M: Logic can never rise above these perversions because they are deeply buried in the unconscious. Only Grace or psychotherapy or some form of meditative transcendence will carry us to freedom, ie some irrationally and ineffable form of mysticism. What we normally do is repress them which causes them to leak out as put-downs to our kids. We are born into a society that is asleep to the mechanisms of its inner reality caught on the karmic wheel of endless repetitions. We suppress and leak causing our children to suppress and leak in endless succession. Only the dissolution of the controller, the ego, can set us free and that can happen only for the individual. There is no hope for humanity.

CW: Then I believe the fundamental difference between us is what we perceive these perversions to be. I also once questioned whether or not there was hope for humanity. After quite a considerable amount of thought and time, I arrived at the conclusion that there is no hope without faith. If you believe in nothing, then you have no hope. My faith in certain ideals gives me hope, just as those who oppose ideals have no hope. Therefore, I strive to uphold these ideals and teach them to others to give them hope.

I think you have instinctively gone to the nub. It's all in this matter of hope and what it says about us. I believe neither in hope nor in hopelessness really because I believe that at our deepest core there is a perfect mirror of the universe. And when we look whether we recoil in horror or are consumed by joy depends on whether we bring our heart along. One way to find that mirror is to totally abandon all hope, for hope is a form of clinging and freedom is free fall. Hope is the hope that starves off hopelessness, and hopelessness is the state of surrender. He who empties his cup can have it filled again. It is a paradox that requires a mystical touch, a puzzle and deep koan. There is no rational way to talk about this.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you have instinctively gone to the nub. It's all in this matter of hope and what it says about us. I believe neither in hope nor in hopelessness really because I believe that at our deepest core there is a perfect mirror of the universe. And when we look whether we recoil in horror or are consumed by joy depends on whether we bring our heart along. One way to find that mirror is to totally abandon all hope, for hope is a form of clinging and freedom is free fall. Hope is the hope that starves off hopelessness, and hopelessness is the state of surrender. He who empties his cup can have it filled again. It is a paradox that requires a mystical touch, a puzzle and deep koan. There is no rational way to talk about this.

:beer:
Only by transcending (or casting aside) reason can we see why we were endowed with reason.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
For example, you might have sex with a condom, thinking no one else will be harmed. Unfortunately, right away you're making several huge mistakes: you or your partner could contract an STD, or the female might become pregnant. This also might lead to an abortion.

That made little sense. It would have made more sense without the condom part.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The call of logic is to rise above these perversions. Giving in to them is to let your animal instinct take control of that which makes you human. Certain instincts are necessary, but these are controlled by your body without your conscious thought - breathing, heartbeat. Others, sexual urges, are able to be mastered. We are born into a society which is as we allow it to be - the sickness that persists is only allowed to persist by those who condone it.

If I'm reading this the way I think I'm reading it, asking a gay man to love a women would be the same as asking you to love a man as you would love a women. It just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
However, the point of government is to protect these rights. Since the government only exists to protect these rights, as deemed appropriate by society, then society ultimately makes the rules. You can't outweigh the opinion of 80% of the population, regardless of how bigoted or wrong their opinion might be.

Segregation was popular too. That doesn't mean it was right.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
for the newb who can't see the difference between the vocal minority and the 80% majority.

Where do you keep pulling this 80% number from? Source? 80% of the country may be christian, but certainly 80% aren't against gay marriage. If it were, gay marriage would already be on its way to being outlawed. The number is closer to 50-50 than 80-20

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think you have instinctively gone to the nub. It's all in this matter of hope and what it says about us. I believe neither in hope nor in hopelessness really because I believe that at our deepest core there is a perfect mirror of the universe. And when we look whether we recoil in horror or are consumed by joy depends on whether we bring our heart along. One way to find that mirror is to totally abandon all hope, for hope is a form of clinging and freedom is free fall. Hope is the hope that starves off hopelessness, and hopelessness is the state of surrender. He who empties his cup can have it filled again. It is a paradox that requires a mystical touch, a puzzle and deep koan. There is no rational way to talk about this.

Wow. That was deep.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
That made little sense. It would have made more sense without the condom part.

No, the condom part is integral, as it demonstrates how someone can have good intentions (i.e. attempting to not harm someone else, despite the fact that they still might) yet still harm someone else.

If I'm reading this the way I think I'm reading it, asking a gay man to love a women would be the same as asking you to love a man as you would love a women. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm not asking anyone to love anyone else. I'm asking people to master themselves, control their urges, and govern themselves with logic rather than instinct. All emotions can be controlled through a sufficient exertion of self-control.

Where do you keep pulling this 80% number from? Source? 80% of the country may be christian, but certainly 80% aren't against gay marriage. If it were, gay marriage would already be on its way to being outlawed. The number is closer to 50-50 than 80-20

78% of the people in Louisiana voted for a ban to same sex marriages. That's the entire point of this thread, remember? That's why it is on its way to being outlawed via constitutional amendments on a per state basis.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm asking people to master themselves, control their urges, and govern themselves with logic rather than instinct. All emotions can be controlled through a sufficient exertion of self-control.

Do reread this. Replace instinct with emotion though.

78% of the people in Louisiana voted for a ban to same sex marriages. That's the entire point of this thread, remember? That's why it is on its way to being outlawed via constitutional amendments on a per state basis.

I forgot we were focusing strictly on Louisiana. I was under the impression that we were arguing the idea on a national level.

That's why it is on its way to being outlawed via constitutional amendments on a per state basis.

As I recall, the amendment didn't pass, and that's why it's left for the states states to decide.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Do reread this. Replace instinct with emotion though.

Emotion is an instinct. Governing your existence with pure emotion is obviously a bad idea, just as governing your existence strictly with other instincts is a bad idea.

I forgot we were focusing strictly on Louisiana. I was under the impression that we were arguing the idea on a national level.

I forgot when we took a national poll from which I should draw my numbers. 78% of voters in LA were against it. Take it as you will.

As I recall, the amendment didn't pass, and that's why it's left for the states states to decide.

The LA amendment did pass easily, as did Missouri's, the only two attempts on a state level that I'm aware of. You're being combative rather than constructive. Not too surprising.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Do reread this. Replace instinct with emotion though.

Emotion is an instinct. Governing your existence with pure emotion is obviously a bad idea, just as governing your existence strictly with other instincts is a bad idea.

I forgot we were focusing strictly on Louisiana. I was under the impression that we were arguing the idea on a national level.

I forgot when we took a national poll from which I should draw my numbers. 78% of voters in LA were against it. Take it as you will.

As I recall, the amendment didn't pass, and that's why it's left for the states states to decide.

The LA amendment did pass easily, as did Missouri's, the only two attempts on a state level that I'm aware of. You're being combative rather than constructive. Not too surprising.

We have no idea what it would mean to live by pure emotion because we do not know what we feel. We are cut off from our emotions and that is why we are over intellectualizing dummies. What we call emotion is what keeps us from feeling deeper pain.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have no idea what it would mean to live by pure emotion because we do not know what we feel. We are cut off from our emotions and that is why we are over intellectualizing dummies. What we call emotion is what keeps us from feeling deeper pain.

Is that a bad thing? Pure emotion and instinct drive the living of wild animals. Even domesticated animals must keep pure emotion in check, or they'll be cast aside or relegated.