Proposition 8: Good or Bad?

[CommanderQ]

Achilles, I was simply voicing my belief. I'm standing by it, but as I said earlier there will always be someone who disagrees.

[Achilles]

Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not.

[CommanderQ]

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

[mimartin]

Indeed you were, but some people aren't being permitted to have equal rights due to the beliefs that you and others like you hold. That isn't something that should be treated casually. There are either good reasons behind your beliefs or there are not.

Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma:

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.[/Quote]

 

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop.

[Achilles]

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

This would seem to assume that all reasons are equally valid.

 

If that's the case, then the people that think that they have good reasons for abusing children are on equal footing with those that think they have good reasons for opposing it. Therefore, since both sets of reason are equal, passing laws that prevent child abuse would be unfairly oppressive, no?

 

I arbitrarily used "child abuse" here. Feel free to replace it with any other topic of your choosing.

 

Shall we abandon the "all reasons are equal" premise now or would you like to attempt to argue it some more?

 

Either we have good reasons for preventing others from having equal rights or we do not. Frankly, I find the casualness with which you dismiss the rights of others more than a little offensive.

[CommanderQ]

You know, I don't really like arguing but the point of what I said was not that all beliefs are valid in their reasons. But that would fall under your opinion onto which reasons are more or less valid. And I am not tossing away the "rights" of others. I meant no offense on that {of course, though, you took offence}. I believe that these things we argue about are wrong, you have a different opinion and we're both trying to make the other see our reasons that both are right. I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier. I side with many others on their choices {as you've probably already read}.

 

Edit:

Reminds me of my favorite line from Dogma:

 

No, I don’t listen to much any hip-hop.

 

There's good Hip-Hop and the not-so-good Hip-Hop. Same here. Cool Saying, though.

 

If you need to add to a previous post, please use the you may: edit,... link in the lower right hand side of your post. Please don't double post. --Jae

[Arcesious]

Sometimes doing what you think is best for someone is the worst thing you could do for them, as is the case of Prop 8, IMHO.

[Achilles]

I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I stated my reasons earlier.

No, you shared your beliefs. I pointed out that we either have good reasons for our beliefs or we do not.

 

Some people are permitted the right to marry. Some people are not. Do we have a good reason for this distinction?

 

Forget for a moment that the distinction is homosexual vs. heterosexual. Imagine that it is blond vs brunette, right-handed vs left-handed, near-sighted vs far-sighted or whatever. Are you still able to maintain the argument that some people should not be allowed to marry while others can (i.e. blond people can get married but people with brown hair cannot)?

 

Do you have a good reason for maintaining the argument? Is there a moral (not religious) basis for your argument?

 

If the answer is no, then you really should reconsider your stance on the issue.

[Tommycat]

Nnnnot really. Allowing gay marriage does not force heterosexuals to be gay, or partake in gay marriage. In fact, allowing gay marriage has absolutely no impact on the lives of heterosexuals. None. Zero. Which is why it should be such a non-issue, but heterosexuals feel like it is necessary to impose their beliefs onto others.

 

Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

[EnderWiggin]

I believe that my reasons are good, but then again, you think the same of yours. It's probably just all a matter of thinking and votes. That's certainly been the case for awhile.

 

Let me point something out to you then:

 

 

True, IMPOSING a belief is probably a very evil cause{ that goes way back before Nazi Germany} but as Christians we don't impose on others beliefs, imposing is forcing.

 

So are you trying to maintain the argument that Prop 8 is not an imposition on the homosexuality population? It's not an imposition to keep them from having the same protections and rights granted to them as a married couple?

 

Under your defintion, now, "imposing is forcing." Aren't you trying to force them to not marry, using this law? (Let me make sure you get this one - the answer is that's exactly what you're doing.)

 

In history, imposing a belief would be like the Spanish Inquisition of the 1600s saying "do this or we chop something off," that isn't what Christians or other religous groups do, at least not anymore{I hope}. But there are certain things that are just, wrong, not meant to be. Not that that will stop anyone from doing them, which brings action from forms of Government.

 

Why is the marrying of homosexuals not meant to be? Who says you get to make that call?

Yes really. It forces those with beliefs that it is wrong to accept something as normal that they find reprehensible. It forces them to have to explain to their families about how a man and another man can be married. You don't see it as a problem because you already accept it. I don't have a problem with it personally because I feel that all persons should be treated equally under the law, which is not happening under the system. You can deny the effects it has on the heterosexual community all you want, but there are effects. Even if you feel those effects are trivial, they are effects.

 

No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

 

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.

 

_EW_

 

 

tags for this thread:

bigotry, civil rights, drama, flaming, gay marriage, gay marriage rights, idiotic spam, moderator frustration, proposition 8, slaves

[Corinthian]

The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

[RedHawke]

My state passed what is in essence a discriminatory bill... very depressing indeed. Way to go California!!!

 

Also there is something people are missing here, marriage is not merely a religious ceremony bonding people together by vows... it is also a legal status that carries with it certain rights to your chosen spouse. That is what Homosexuals want here, and why do they have to even ask for it anyway?

 

Why can't a Homosexual you don't know, and who cares not for the bible or its 'teachings', have to do things "the Bible way or the highway" here, that is what confuses me when people bring their religion in on what is in essence not their religions concern.

 

It is about attaining the 'legal' status of marriage nothing more. Why is that so scary to people?

 

Why should two people in love (regardless of gender) and having been together for decades not all have the same rights? Can anyone answer this simple question without using the bible or their religious beliefs to back their statements up?

 

I honestly don't believe so, people are so entrenched in their own beliefs that they no longer see beyond them at all... and that frightens me to no end.

 

Anyway that is my I'm out.

[EnderWiggin]

The Bible does. We've been over that, Wiggin.

 

The bible does what? Does not dictate morality?

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

No, what it really does is not concern them. Whether or not they find it reprehensible, for them to block it because they feel uncomfortable is unjust and immoral.

 

I don't care if you sweat a little more because you have to think about two women marrying. The rights of a minority group should not be reduced because you don't feel safe with it. Under your logic, we should take away the rights of blacks because we're making the racists uncomfortable. We shouldn't let those pesky women hold jobs either - makes the sexists mad. And while we're at it, we shouldn't give the gays any rights, because it makes prejudiced people - who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices; especially: those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - uncomfortable.

They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them. Look, I'm not arguing for the "Sanctity of Marriage" folks. In fact I find the whole thing pretty well disturbing that our society hasn't progressed enough to be tolerant of others' sexuality. It is rather interesting that you automatically jump on ME as being opposed to gay marriage. I am not in the least. You can read through my posts in this very thread to see that I am not. We had prop 102 that I voted against here in AZ. It passed. I'm explaining that either way it is imposing beliefs on another group. You just feel that your beliefs are not immoral. They believe that allowing gay marriage is immoral. Either way you are stepping on someone's morals. WE(as in you and I, just so you understand I am not against your position) just happen to believe that it is immoral to treat one group differently than another group.

[Corinthian]

Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?

[Rogue Nine]

It dictates morality that is inconsistently followed today by Christians. They cherry-pick what to follow and what not to follow as is convenient for them.

[EnderWiggin]

They also have to as business owners give more respect to that union. Even if they personally feel that such a union is immoral. So by your own words you want to impose a new set of morals on them.

 

See: blacks and the civil rights movement.

 

Actually, Wiggin, the Bible DOES dictate morality. Maybe you should read it again?

First of all, I like it how you didn't answer my question. It leads me to wonder if you ever answer questions when they're directly asked of you, since I recall you doing it last night as well.

 

As per your comment: I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like an illiterate child. I'm quite aware of what the bible says, thank you very much. I don't enjoy insults at 430 am.

 

_EW_

[Corinthian]

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

 

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

[Rogue Nine]

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ.

Says who? Hell, if we ain't followin' the OT laws, why bother putting them there.

[Corinthian]

Says the Bible. Romans 10:4

4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

Galatians 3:22

23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christb that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

 

Ephesians 2:15

15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

 

You may want to sit down.

[EnderWiggin]

Such as? The old laws got set aside after the Coming of Christ. People like to point that out in these debates, although usually, it's not the 'Hey, Homosexuality isn't A-OK with the Bible' crowd, it's the opposition. People like to ignore Corinthians and Romans for some reason.

 

Also, maybe you shouldn't claim to be a Christian if you blatantly ignore sections of even the New Testament?

 

Have you noticed the author of Romans and Corinthians?

 

It was the apostle Paul. I hope you're not implying that Paul was the end-all-be-all authority on homosexuality?

 

I'm pretty sure he was human.

 

_EW_

[Corinthian]

Oh, good. Now it's the "Paul was a False Apostle" argument.

 

I take it you do not believe the Bible is actually Divinely Inspired?

[Rogue Nine]

Says the Bible.

The New Testament also says it's a-ok to have slaves, yet modern society has thankfully come to its senses over that pile of crap.

[Corinthian]

No, it doesn't. Why is it a problem that the Bible does not condemn slavery?

[Rogue Nine]

Because then you can't use it as justification for your prejudice against homosexuality. Having slaves is inhumane and immoral. The Bible says it's okay to have slaves. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.