Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ShadowSot

The issue I'm seeing here, is this is very similar to earlier rulings that banned interracial marriage.

Yes, I can see why consider it separate, however I don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

The issue I'm seeing here, is this is very similar to earlier rulings that banned interracial marriage.

Yes, I can see why consider it separate, however I don't agree.

I do not see that at all. To equate a person's race with their behavior is the oldest of racist tricks though. Racists have always made racial sterotypes that correlate to corrupt (or 'undesirable') behavior.

A person's race could easily be determined at birth by medical science. A person's future sexual behavior can not though at all. It is perverse to try and claim that a person's race is equivalant to their sexual behavior. They are not the same. It is sad that some people still think this way.

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

I do not see that at all. To equate a person's race with their behavior is the oldest of racist tricks though. Racists have always made racial sterotypes that correlate to corrupt (or 'undesirable') behavior.

A person's race could easily be determined at birth by medical science. A person's future sexual behavior can not though at all. It is perverse to try and claim that a person's race is equivalant to their sexual behavior. They are not the same. It is sad that some people still think this way.

The only reason it is undesirable behavior is based on your opinion and all the rest of the Bible Thumpers using religious beliefs and proclaiming it to be the only correct moral values. Then using the excuse of equal representation in order to vote away the rights and oppress others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

A person's race could easily be determined at birth by medical science. A person's future sexual behavior can not though at all. It is perverse to try and claim that a person's race is equivalant to their sexual behavior. They are not the same. It is sad that some people still think this way.

That is not entirely true.

Studies have been done showing that the brain structure of heterosexual males is different than that of a homosexual male. Some studies have also showed suggestions that homosexuality can be extrapolated, though not conclusively from a person's physical differences.

So, there are and can be key differences linked to sexuality that, though not necessarily identified at birth, are present. In the future, it is entirely possible that such key differences will be able to be noted at birth, or before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

That is not entirely true.

Studies have been done showing that the brain structure of heterosexual males is different than that of a homosexual male. Some studies have also showed suggestions that homosexuality can be extrapolated, though not conclusively from a person's physical differences.

So, there are and can be key differences linked to sexuality that, though not necessarily identified at birth, are present. In the future, it is entirely possible that such key differences will be able to be noted at birth, or before.

You beat me to it ShadowSot. There was something that I learned in my Human Sexuality class that indeed showed that the brain structure of heterosexual males is different than that of a homosexual male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

That is not entirely true.

Studies have been done showing that the brain structure of heterosexual males is different than that of a homosexual male. Some studies have also showed suggestions that homosexuality can be extrapolated, though not conclusively from a person's physical differences.

So, there are and can be key differences linked to sexuality that, though not necessarily identified at birth, are present. In the future, it is entirely possible that such key differences will be able to be noted at birth, or before.

orry but there are many studies that say things completley opposite to each other even. Some studies say that it may be partly biological and others say it is very much enviromental, etc...

There though is NO doctor who can determine the future sexual behavior of any child born. Not what gender they will have sex with or what farm animal or anything the liberal mind could try and defend. That is a fact. There is no medical science that could predict that.

Race can 100% be determined at birth by medical science and is an insult to try and claim that sexual behavior and a person's race are equivalant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
So you would push someone into a hurricane suggesting that a hurricane has no basis in human morality?

Or inject someone with a disease claiming that no one could view a disease as being "morally objectional"???

These questions are unrelated to my own feelings on the desirability of stronger storms and more widespread diseases. For example, if I say "I'd support policy actions to reduce crime in my neighborhood" based not on moral objections to crime but on a desire to protect my property, it doesn't follow that I'm going to try and subject my neighbors to more crime. The fact that my interest in the subject isn't moral doesn't reflect on related actions I may or may not take in that area.

That said, the analogy with the topic of this thread is being lost. You apparently believe gay marriages have some moral difference from heterosexual marriages. As I asked above: make the argument for why this is so. Preferably without relying on hazily defined and self-referential statements about naturalness and corruption.

"Undesireable" = ok to regulate

But also for You:

"Corruption" = falsehood because everything is natural

I think for my part I've asked for a concrete definition of what "corruption" is supposed to mean in this context. Because I don't understand what an unnatural product of nature is or how one would recognize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

These questions are unrelated to my own feelings on the desirability of stronger storms and more widespread diseases. For example, if I say "I'd support policy actions to reduce crime in my neighborhood" based not on moral objections to crime but on a desire to protect my property, it doesn't follow that I'm going to try and subject my neighbors to more crime. The fact that my interest in the subject isn't moral doesn't reflect on related actions I may or may not take in that area.

That said, the analogy with the topic of this thread is being lost. You apparently believe gay marriages have some moral difference from heterosexual marriages. As I asked above: make the argument for why this is so. Preferably without relying on hazily defined and self-referential statements about naturalness and corruption.

I think for my part I've asked for a concrete definition of what "corruption" is supposed to mean in this context. Because I don't understand what an unnatural product of nature is or how one would recognize it.

Sorry but if you find crime to be undesireable in your neighborhood then it is a moral decision on your part. You just as easily could even change your mind and find it desireable but you make a MORAL determination of what is right and wrong for you.

As long as you do not concede that you are making moral decisions (but then claim that I am) then you are not being honest in my opinion. You are being a hypocrite.

Like I said earlier you want to claim that desire is an acceptable thing for people to regulate but tat corruption is not. You are only trying to shift the argument to your terms in order to impose your own morality but I see right through your act.

I find your argument to be both 'corrupt' and 'undesirable'. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
Sorry but if you find crime to be undesireable in your neighborhood then it is a moral decision on your part. You just as easily could even change your mind and find it desireable but you make a MORAL determination of what is right and wrong for you.

But that's exactly the point. The side I end up on is circumstantial. While I have property to protect, I want crime adequately policed and discouraged in my neighborhood. But if I were to lose my job and my possessions I could easily end up casting my lot with the opposite side and resorting to crime (in which case, the less policing the better). My preferences are relative and thus I'm not convinced they're rooted in an absolute morality. But we're wandering astray here.

Like I said earlier you want to claim that desire is an acceptable thing for people to regulate but tat corruption is not.

When did I claim that? And what does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

But that's exactly the point. The side I end up on is circumstantial. While I have property to protect, I want crime adequately policed and discouraged in my neighborhood. But if I were to lose my job and my possessions I could easily end up casting my lot with the opposite side and resorting to crime (in which case, the less policing the better). My preferences are relative and thus I'm not convinced they're rooted in an absolute morality. But we're wandering astray here.

When did I claim that? And what does that mean?

You made the argument earlier that opposition to gay marraige was based upon a percieved corruption that was also in turn based upon human morality. You then implied that these were flimsy reasoning for regulation or lack thereof.

Then you claimed that global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever it is called today) regulation wouold be based upon 'desire' and that then it is not based upon human morality but is instead based upon human reason.

Your argument is a huge crock. You think that you can define the terms used even. You accept "desire" as a basis for regulating everything we do because we are killing the natural earth because it is an issue that you agree with -

but then you feel that "corruption" is not an acceptable basis to regulate or not regulate because you feel that everything we humans do sexually is natural.

It is totally a hypocritical stance and is a joke. I say let everyone have EQUAL representation on both issues but of course your side thinks the science is settled on both. Pathetic. But have a good night anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

We're having some substantial communication difficulties here.

You made the argument earlier that opposition to gay marraige was based upon a percieved corruption that was also in turn based upon human morality. You then implied that these were flimsy reasoning for regulation or lack thereof.

I'm asking (and have been asking) if you have any argument to back up what you're saying. "X is corrupt" can be an acceptable reason for regulating something (for example, actual corruption in which an official abuses the public trust) if you have an argument to support the assertion. If the argument consists only of "X is corrupt because it's immoral" then, yes, that's pretty flimsy. And, if I understand the way you use the word "corruption," tautological.

Then you claimed that global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever it is called today) regulation wouold be based upon 'desire' and that then it is not based upon human morality but is instead based upon human reason.

I explained why it's acceptable to me. There exist any number of alternate justifications someone else could come up with and I don't claim to offer the definitive philosophical basis for pricing carbon.

Your argument is a huge crock. You think that you can define the terms used even.

I tried to allow for a mutual defining of these words but you opted not to help me out. So that leaves me to work out the contextual definitions myself.

You accept "desire" as a basis for regulating everything we do because we are killing the natural earth because it is an issue that you agree with -

"We're killing the natural earth" is not the justification I did (or would) offer for pricing carbon--in fact, I think I specifically rejected that line of thinking above. That's something you project onto those who hold a certain policy viewpoint on the subject.

but then you feel that "corruption" is not an acceptable basis to regulate or not regulate because you feel that everything we humans do sexually is natural.

Again, this isn't an acceptable basis for action because it's circular. You're using "corruption" to mean "in opposition to nature." But when pressed, you defined "natural" to be that which a majority agrees upon. So in essence you're saying "that ought to be regulated because it's regulated" or "that shouldn't be regulated because it's not regulated." You've given no basis--aside from current regulatory standards--on which to base a judgment on regulation. That's why your empty words are disconcerting. They offer no actual guidance on how to approach or address an issue. Which, incidentally, is also why it's so difficult to make heads or tails of your comments. I don't know whether the opacity is intentional or accidental but it's there.

I say let everyone have EQUAL representation on both issues but of course your side thinks the science is settled on both.

I get it. You want majority rule.

But you haven't yet addressed the actual question, which is how you as an individual voter would approach the issue and make up your mind. What basis you have for coming to your decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

I find troubling about this issue is that the majority believe so passionately that Homosexuality is such a sin a lot of this coming from religious groups. And they will spend millions to make sure that marriage between two same sex partners does not happen.

But what troubles me the most is that there are sins out there that you rarely hear a peep out of from these religious groups. Sins such as premarital sex, children having children, Promiscuity, pornography and child pornography, Church's sex scandals, and etc. Many of these are part of our daily lives but are also against many religious beliefs though you rarely hear about it much from these religious groups. Then the issue of Homosexuality comes along and all of a sudden it is one helluva an issue.

All I can see from this is one big Hypocrisy. What is worse yet is having a majority suppressing a group who does not share their similar views of marriage and has come so far as to using religious beliefs and legislation to do so. It's a sad day when "the separation of church and state" doesn't mean anything anymore these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

I get it. You want majority rule.

But you haven't yet addressed the actual question, which is how you as an individual voter would approach the issue and make up your mind. What basis you have for coming to your decision.

Startraveler, he want's majority rule, but the problem with that is that it suppresses a minority group rights and liberties which I believe is immoral. It's like ShadowSot, one of the previous poster said, it can be equated to not allowing interracial couples marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

I am really getting ready to head off-line but I'll bite. Do you have any specific examples where the right-wing is or has claimed that ALL people shoud not have EQUAL representation on an issue?

Dont just give me an example of them expressing their viewpoint on an issue. Give me an example of where they are actively trying to say that EVERYONE should not be allowed to have representation on an issue.

Oh let's see. Prop 8 ring a bell? How about Bush (who is right wing) wanting to make a constitutional amendment that would fully outright same sex marrage? That sound familiar too or are you just going to pass these off as not surpressing equal rights? Because damn.. putting it into the constitution banning that right to get married for a select group of people is pretty suppressive. DONE BY THE RIGHT WING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

But what troubles me the most is that there are sins out there that you rarely hear a peep out of from these religious groups. Sins such as premarital sex, children having children, Promiscuity, pornography and child pornography, Church's sex scandals, and etc. Many of these are part of our daily lives but are also against many religious beliefs though you rarely hear about it much from these religious groups. Then the issue of Homosexuality comes along and all of a sudden it is one helluva an issue.

The last time I noticed, underage sex, child pornography and church sex abuse were crimes. If someone tried to pass a law saying those were OK, you would see the same response from the Christian activists.

What if Gay marriage becomes Offical and then people start coming forward and saying they want to marry their dog, or marry their sister, or marry their mother, or marry a child, or marry two, or three, or more other people at once. Then what? Oh that is not going to happen? Right. It will be called their natural feelings, a deneighed civil right. And they will be right, because here then there will be pressident.

I say we should force the Homosexuals to settle for all the same rights, whatever rights they want, and simply call it Civil Union. Re-describe marriage as religious and civil union as government and leave it at that. Then 100 or 200 years down the road, they can change it again. At least this way they can get the rights they want if not the Title.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

You do understand that almost all these Christian groups are against the word "Marriage", right? They don't give a rip about what legal rights are involved.

Whoever is leading this fight is doing a damn poor Sales job. If it was repackaged, it would have passed back in the 90's.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

OH BOY! We can't have a same sex marrage depate without the tride and true slippery slope argument!

If we allow gays to marry then then... PEOPLE WILL WANT TO MARRY DOGS AND CHILDREN!!

There's a huge difference between two adult gays marrying and a dude who wants to marry a child or an animal. It's call concent. A dog or a child can not obviously concent to marrage while two ADULTS can. So please.. spare us that slippery slope argument for why same sex marrage shouldn't be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

OH BOY! We can't have a same sex marrage depate without the tride and true slippery slope argument!

If we allow gays to marry then then... PEOPLE WILL WANT TO MARRY DOGS AND CHILDREN!!

There's a huge difference between two adult gays marrying and a dude who wants to marry a child or an animal. It's call concent. A dog or a child can not obviously concent to marrage while two ADULTS can. So please.. spare us that slippery slope argument for why same sex marrage shouldn't be allowed.

Of course, what's truly appauling is that my christian church marries same sex couples... the STATE won't recognize it, but the church does. LOL. Irony.

And SC is correct, there is a difference and that difference is consent. A child nor a dog can give consent, therefore, it's a problem. And, marrying siblings or parents is a public health issue to a certain extent, and, could be psychologically considered coersion on some level. Those kinds of unions don't generally exist unless there's been some kind of past abuse.

If same sex unions come up for a vote in my state, I'll vote a hearty YES for it. I want same sex couples to have the advantages a married couple does. And I'm hetrosexual and unmarried. (just do there's no confusion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

Of course, what's truly appauling is that my christian church marries same sex couples... the STATE won't recognize it, but the church does. LOL. Irony.

And SC is correct, there is a difference and that difference is consent. A child nor a dog can give consent, therefore, it's a problem. And, marrying siblings or parents is a public health issue to a certain extent, and, could be psychologically considered coersion on some level. Those kinds of unions don't generally exist unless there's been some kind of past abuse.

If same sex unions come up for a vote in my state, I'll vote a hearty YES for it. I want same sex couples to have the advantages a married couple does. And I'm hetrosexual and unmarried. (just do there's no confusion)

MMW, I applaud your Christian church for marrying same sex couples and because I believe that no one should be deprived of their right to happiness. Your church is in the very very small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Of course, what's truly appauling is that my christian church marries same sex couples... the STATE won't recognize it, but the church does. LOL. Irony.

And SC is correct, there is a difference and that difference is consent. A child nor a dog can give consent, therefore, it's a problem. And, marrying siblings or parents is a public health issue to a certain extent, and, could be psychologically considered coersion on some level. Those kinds of unions don't generally exist unless there's been some kind of past abuse.

If same sex unions come up for a vote in my state, I'll vote a hearty YES for it. I want same sex couples to have the advantages a married couple does. And I'm hetrosexual and unmarried. (just do there's no confusion)

I've always loved Quakers. Aside making a mean oatmeal (LOL Sorry.. sorry... I couldn't resist.. don't hurt me Mels!) they are one of the most openminded, gentle and loveing sect. I'd say they live the word of their christ more then any other sect..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I wasn't trying to imply anything about your sexuality at all. Sorry you thought that even.

I just find your way of equating human morality to animal morality to be funny. It seems as if you want to be something that you are not. I just wanted to you let go and be free.

Free

Free as the Wind Blows

You know the song.

Ahh, heated arguments and all that. Apology accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaka5

"EQUAL representation under the law."

Am i the only one getting tired of that soundbite that TRUEYOU keeps using??...the point is that it shouldnt have to be voted for, it should just be allowed...its should just be a human right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

OH BOY! We can't have a same sex marrage depate without the tride and true slippery slope argument!

If we allow gays to marry then then... PEOPLE WILL WANT TO MARRY DOGS AND CHILDREN!!

There's a huge difference between two adult gays marrying and a dude who wants to marry a child or an animal. It's call concent. A dog or a child can not obviously concent to marrage while two ADULTS can. So please.. spare us that slippery slope argument for why same sex marrage shouldn't be allowed.

That is right. Eventually someone will use that arguement and win. What constitutes concent can be as nebulous as what constitutes marriage. It would be a simply thing to get concent changed to include 14 year olds and, say, dolphins and chimps.

Anyway what is wrong with improving Civil Unions? That was my main point.

Of course, what's truly appauling is that my christian church marries same sex couples... the STATE won't recognize it, but the church does. LOL. Irony.

And SC is correct, there is a difference and that difference is consent. A child nor a dog can give consent, therefore, it's a problem. And, marrying siblings or parents is a public health issue to a certain extent, and, could be psychologically considered coersion on some level. Those kinds of unions don't generally exist unless there's been some kind of past abuse.

If same sex unions come up for a vote in my state, I'll vote a hearty YES for it. I want same sex couples to have the advantages a married couple does. And I'm hetrosexual and unmarried. (just do there's no confusion)

And are you against Civil Union? Because I think Washington was working to improve the Civil Union option. And the Pro-Gay-Marriage people desided not to push in Washington for a few years, at least according to the Oregonian Newspaper. (Want me to look it up?)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/05/politics/main5543317.shtml

Washington voters have approved the state's new “everything but marriage” law, expanding rights for domestic partners and marking the first time any state's voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot box.

Here is an article with a strategy the Pro people could use.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article7109.html

Suggestions for Strategy Going Forward

1. Shelve the Defensiveness. Sales Training 101 gives the answer to the fear mongering favored by anti-equality forces concerning schools and kids.

If there is an objection a salesperson is certain to hear, all sales trainers will advise them to bring it up themselves, defuse it, brag about it, and turn it into an advantage. In other words: Frame It Yourself First.

With respect to schools, perhaps the framing is to talk about what modern society asks the schools to do. Educate, yes. But also prepare the leaders of tomorrow to function collaboratively in a diverse society. The reality of life is, yes, there are gay people and they are not going away.

Furthermore, marriage equality advocates should make clear that their opponents' full agendas will be up for discussion, the next time insinuations are made regarding hypothetical "radical gay agendas". Putting them on notice will probably be sufficient to remove that arrow from their quiver. Glass houses, stones, etc.

2. Go for the Second Quartile. Results from Maine, California and Washington state all show that marriage equality already has comfortable majority support among the elites. The next challenge is building support in the next tier -- people who are more middle class and middle educated.

Marriage equality leaders need to construct messages that speak to that demographic, using spokespeople and situations with which this cohort identifies. It is a mistake to feature educated affluent gay men and lesbians in the quest for more downscale votes. And as mentioned above, evasiveness about the real issue compounds the problem.

The "negative rights" formulation suggested earlier may be an effective approach, especially if it can be tied to other negative rights concerns of people in the second quartile (e.g., Second Amendment issues perhaps).

3. Win California. With a score of 74 (i.e., a 74 percent likelihood of success in the next 5-10 years) California should be winnable for the marriage equality forces in the near future, if they run the right kind of campaign.

The campaign needs to be focused on the middle class, middle income, "ordinary folks" tier of the demographic, not on the elites.

4. Tactical approaches to selected other states. As mentioned above, Colorado, New Jersey and a handful of other states would probably be ready today to pass marriage equality, given the right kind of campaign.

Whether activists wish to continue the fight on a state by state basis, in advance of a final result from California, is not clear.

5. A Federal "Civil Unions" Law? For now, it is possible the LGBT community could get something substantially equivalent to marriage at the Federal as opposed to the individual state level. There are enough votes in Congress today to pass a Federal civil unions law. This would be extraordinarily beneficial to the millions of gay men and lesbians now living in states with constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage.

There are many who would consider this a half a loaf, separate but equal solution. However, if the choice is all or nothing, many states will for the foreseeable future choose nothing. The model discussed earlier in the report suggests at least half the states are unlikely to pass marriage equality in the next 10 years. The list of states unlikely to approve marriage equality any time soon includes Texas and Florida, the second and third largest states.

6. Wait 5-10 Years. Some compare the fight for marriage equality to the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. There are some parallels, but also some important differences. The great advances in African-American civil rights came during a time of considerable economic growth, which, it could be argued, made the societal changes more palatable to some cohorts of the electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell
And are you against Civil Union? Because I think Washington was working to improve the Civil Union option. And the Pro-Gay-Marriage people desided not to push in Washington for a few years, at least according to the Oregonian Newspaper. (Want me to look it up?)

I'm not necessarily against Civil Union, I think it's a good starting place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

It's BS Diechecker and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.