Originally posted by Dace AceI do not consider myself a bigot. I just don't believe that "those people" should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
Now thats not nice. I do not concider myself a bigot. I do not treat homosexuals with any disrespect on the individual level. I would give you a hug and share a milkshake with you, if you allowed it. 🙂 I am just agaist providing those outside of a marraige of a man and a woman with any special rights. That is the beauty of America, just like the millions in California, I oppose a homosexual marrige.
Classic. Bigots rarely do consider themselves as such.
In the past, you could have substituted "those people" with women, various races, various ethicities, various religions, etc.
When push comes to shove, politics is nothing more than trying to force your point of view down the throats of others.
You may not think that marriage is a sacred institution created by God as a union between a man and a woman, but others do. There were enough of those who do that they were able to force their point of view into law.
You can call those who disagree with you anything you want, but that does not change the facts in this case.
Originally posted by Dace Ace
I guess that I do feel as if I am standing on the slippery slope (I am interested on your thoughts on this). I have drawn my line in the sand at a different place that others do.
The question is 'Is it just to draw the line where I draw it?'
What are we protecting by drawing the line at denying same-sex couples civil privileges? Do I
lose any of my privileges? No. Does it make me love my wife less? No. Does it make my son
any less a part of my family? No.
Remember: that's what we are talking about -- Civil Privileges. Same-sex couples can still
have sex, bear/adopt children, live in a house together, hold hands and kiss in public and so on.
Those things are legal and protected by the right to pursue happiness.
However, because of the way we have structured our society (which has not hitherto been a
problem), we don't acknowledge their reciprocal power of attorney or medical proxies. Why?
Why should we not? What reason do we have to deny it?
We have good reasons to deny pedophiles the opportunity to have sex with children, for example,
because children lack the capacity for consent, lack the capacity to understand what they are
consenting to, lack the capacity to appreciate sexuality and all of its complicated feelings, physical
and emotional.
We recognize the lack of these capacities in other non-sexual arenas, such as whether or not
they can make their own medical decisions, or whether they are legally responsible for their
actions, and so forth. So it is not just in a sexual arena that we acknowledge these undeveloped
capacities.
We do not deny these same capacities on the part of two consensual adults who decide to embark
upon a union with each other.
50 years ago to come out of the closet as a homosexual was risking your life. Today its parades. What will be next?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of 'pride parades,' whether it's black pride, or gay pride,
or things that might be more applicable to me like 'latino pride.' I think it's sad, frankly, that
any group of people have been so historically oppressed that they feel the need to have parades.
I also think that such parades ultimately end up promoting a 'victim mentality' rather than one
of empowerment.
That's not to say that groups of people haven't cultivated certain unique cultural aspects worth
celebrating, either. Certain music, foods, forms of dance, artwork, &c have their history within
certain ethnic or social groups. I think we have a duty to be aware of this fact -- that jazz, for
example, was started by black folk -- but at the end of the day, it's humans' music, not blacks'
music, as far as I'm concerned.
But this is significantly off the topic.
What is lurking in the shadows today, will be demanding their rights and having parades. A feel that a society must define boundries of what is acceptable and what is not, and you not please everybody. If we do not, we will digress into many of the third world countries I have been too. They are not pretty.
Yes. And the standard for what is and is not acceptable must be about what is just, not simply
what we currently find tasteful. Sometimes, things are lurking in the shadows that ought not to
be there: 50 years ago, a couple comprising a black and white person had to hide their love in
the shadows. Was that just? Of course not. 100 years ago, women who wanted to cast a
vote for their representation had to hide in the shadows. Was that just? Of course not. 150
years ago, a black man who wanted to be counted as a person with rights to property and freedom
had to hide in the shadows. Was that just? Of course not.
However, 150, 100, or 50 years ago, today, and 50 years from now, it will still not be just to allow
an adult to have sex with a child. There is no argument available, no rationale, no reason, no
justification in permitting it. And, while NAMBLA may petition all it wants (they have the right
to disagree), it will always remain impermissible because it violates the rights of individuals (in
this case children).
Look: I get that you might be 'weirded out' by the idea that a man might enjoy a sex with another
man. I totally do. I don't want to have sex with another man, either. But I also don't like
square dancing or chocolate-covered ants or chick flicks. My unfavorable opinion on these things
has no relevance on whether they should be permitted or not, or whether or not other people
should be permitted to enjoy them.
If 'majority opinion' is really the standard by which things should or should not be permitted,
or by which groups of people should be accorded civil privileges, then we are not living in a
rights-based society. We are living in a 'might-makes-right' society.
What this means is we don't really have a legitimate objection to those countries you're talking
about; if it's the majority opinion that women have no rights, or that Christians can't practice
their religion without fear of being stoned, or that people who happen to be of a certain tribe
ought to have their ears and hands lopped off -- if these things are part of the majority opinion,
then what objection can you have?
So, as appalling as one might find something, as immoral as one might find it to be, as deviant,
unnatural, and abnormal as anything you can fathom. (Frankly, I think country music is all of
these things.) However, unless one can provide a justification for preventing it -- that allowing
it restricts the rights of others, or that preventing it doesn't restrict the rights of just a few --
then it should be permitted. That's how a rights-based system works. Anything else skirts
with fascist ideology (that is, the prevention of actions or restriction of privileges simply on the
basis of whether the majority likes them or not).
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarThis is entirely true. And it's disgusting.
When push comes to shove, politics is nothing more than trying to force your point of view down the throats of others.
However, sometimes one point of view is just and another point of view is unjust.
Sometimes, differing points of view are merely matters of opinion.
In this case, the issue is about justice: should the granting of civil privileges for unions be restricted
to unions involving those of the opposite sex? Why or why not? What reasons other than opinion
inform this view?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Eladar"You may not think that marriage is a sacred institution created by God as a union between a man and a woman, but others do."
When push comes to shove, politics is nothing more than trying to force your point of view down the throats of others.
You may not think that marriage is a sacred institution created by God as a union between a man and a woman, but others do. There were enough of those who do that they were able to force their point of view into law.
You can call those who disagree with you anything you want, but that does not change the facts in this case.
What are your views on divorce?
What are your views on greed, gluttony, etc.?
People often use religion as a weapon to further their bigotry, but are not so rigid when it's something that might effect themselves or those they identify with.
Originally posted by Eladarthis same logic applies to freedom of choice, as abortion must be an institution created by god.
When push comes to shove, politics is nothing more than trying to force your point of view down the throats of others.
You may not think that marriage is a sacred institution created by God as a union between a man and a woman, but others do. There were enough of those who do that they were able to force their point of view into law.
You can call those who disagree with you anything you want, but that does not change the facts in this case.
What are your views on divorce?
What are your views on greed, gluttony, etc.?
Have these things been traditionally illegal in the US? Sure, you can do what you want in your own bedroom, but that does not mean that Society has to accept evil as something to be accepted as good. Greed, gluttony and such are not institutionalized, while marriage is. Divorce is evil, but it is a necessary evil because sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
But that's all besides the point. No one has to explain their moral decisions to you. I don't have to convince you that my morality is consistant enough for you. All I have to do is have enough people voting for the same things that I'm voting for inorder to pass laws that are in agreement with my beliefs. That was the point of my original post.
You, on the other hand, are caught up in trying to prove that one set of beliefs is somehow inferior. When it comes to politics, right and wrong is totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by Eladar
Have these things been traditionally illegal in the US? Sure, you can do what you want in your own bedroom, but that does not mean that Society has to accept evil as something to be accepted as good. Gree, gluttony and such are not institutionalized, while marriage is. Divorce is evil, but it is a necessary evil because sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Nobody has to accept what anyone else does. They do have to recognize the right for people
to pursue that which pleases them as long as it doesn't impinge upon other people's rights.
Further, simply because something has been traditionally illegal doesn't make it just or unjust.
It's totally irrelevant to whether something is a long-standing tradition.
People interested in justice should recognize that.
You, on the other hand, are caught up in trying to prove that one set of beliefs is somehow inferior. When it comes to politics, right and wrong is totally irrelevant.
Unjust beliefs are indeed inferior. Certainly you agree. Beliefs that entail the disproportionate
restriction of rights from a group of people while granting them to another group for no justifiable
reason are inferior to those who accord rights to all people equally. Certainly, you agree with
those statements, right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Dace AceBut can you explain why you have drawn that line? I know I can explain why I believe in my morals because I have thought about them. Same sex marriage was legalized here in 2001, but I have seen no slippery slope effects.
Nemesio, you are very articulate, and I enjoy reading your argument. Thank you!
I guess that I do feel as if I am standing on the slippery slope (I am interested on your thoughts on this). I have drawn my line in the sand at a different place that others do. 50 years ago to come out of the closet as a homosexual was risking your life. Today its parad ...[text shortened]... ot, we will digress into many of the third world countries I have been too. They are not pretty.
Together with same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples, parenting by same-sex couples is a major lesbian and gay rights issue in many countries around the world. The controversy generally concerns whether or not there will be consequences for the development of children raised by same-sex couples. Specific questions include the potential for gender confusion, biased sexual orientation, or the general well-being of such children.
same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, because of possible damage to the child.
Originally posted by generalissimoIs there any empirical evidence for damage to the child?
Together with same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples, parenting by same-sex couples is a major lesbian and gay rights issue in many countries around the world. The controversy generally concerns whether or not there will be consequences for the development of children raised by same-sex couples. Specific questions include the potential for ...[text shortened]...
same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, because of possible damage to the child.
Also, this argument is eerily similar to the argument used against legalizing white-black marriages.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathere's nothing wrong with white-black marriage.
Is there any empirical evidence for damage to the child?
Also, this argument is eerily similar to the argument used against legalizing white-black marriages.
do you think it would be normal for a kid to have two daddies or two mommies?