Post Reply
Page 31 of 34  •  Prev 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Appeals Court Rejects California's Gay Marriage Ban
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:21AM #301
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 23, 2012 -- 9:11AM, Ken wrote:


Feb 23, 2012 -- 1:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Ken wrote:

No, you have never offered a reasoned argument for your position. You just keep claiming that your postion is rational and other positions aren't.


The objectively rational truth has a way of standing on its own. Hence, I feel no need to force my views.


To demonstrate the truth of a proposition is not to force one's views. If you think you've got hold of an objectively rational truth, you should be able to present a rational argument for it. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe it. Are we simply to take your word? 


Feb 23, 2012 -- 1:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Ken wrote:

 There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects. 


As to your last statement -- it's one of true belief.



Well, it's true and I believe it. Why do you consider that an objection? As I said, there are many subjects upon which there is only one humane and enlightened position. There can hardly be any valid difference of opinion on the propriety of chattel slavery, for instance, or of women's suffrage.




There's no sense in belaboring the point. You're obvioulsy set in your views. I'm secure in mine -- so much so that I don't feel vexed either by your opinons, or by people being openly gay. The apparent discomfort some people have around gays baffles me. 


I think we both agree that Prop 8, DOMA and similar measures simply won't stand up in court. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:25AM #302
arielg
Posts: 9,116

We're not talking about hunting.



We cannot talk about the other subject directly. Some people get too freaked out very easily.  So we have to use analogies, or symbolism, although it seems to go over some people's heads.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:30AM #303
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:25AM, arielg wrote:


We're not talking about hunting.


We cannot talk about the other subject directly.


I don't see why not.  The "other subject" is the subject.


So we have to use analogies, or symbolism, although it seems to go over some people's heads.



They should not be trivial analogies.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:40AM #304
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 23, 2012 -- 8:11AM, arielg wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 --  9:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It happens continually any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, and somebody dares stray from the "party line" ... so to speak.


There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects.



It is all a matter of identification. We are made of a lot of things, but we identify the strongest with some characteristics. 


 Someone who  identifies  very strongly with hunting,  will believe that someone who doesn't accept or agrees  with hunting, is  rejecting   him. If one builds a  life around hunting, whatever is against hunting is against them.  Because  hunting IS them, in their mind. They ARE a hunter. Any rejection of hunting is a rejection of their whole being. They have reduced themselves to a hunter. It is the same with patriotism or any ideology.




I completely understand what you are saying. That's why I always try to make it painfully clear, I'm talking about homosexuality in objective terms. Pulling it away from any particular person's identity, and looking at it only as a bio-physical attribute.


But, of course, the second you use a term such as "disorder" or "dysfunction" some people -- and perhaps understandably -- get the impression one is calling people, as human beings, those things. Of course, some posters here, apparently with axes to grind, take that ball all the way to the end zone, and refuse to relent. But, that's their problem, I think.


As people, we live in subjective bubbles, so to speak. And from the subjective standpoint, I completely understand that being gay is perfectly normal for some people. And being in love is like, well, being in love. Hence, there's room to live and let live. 


I also understand why, as a matter of moral principle, some people actively oppose gay marriage. And it almost never has anything to do with "hating" gay people. I think some stridently pro-gay marriage people really want to build up that "bigotry" mythos, because it helps them reinforce their own views, and own sense of unquestionable rightness. Which, in some cases leans all the way over into practically insufferable, arrogant sanctimony.


But, at the end of the day, I still think the anti-gay marriage people are fighting a battle that can't be won against something that really isn't a big deal. So what if gay people get married? What will happen? My guess is, life will go on. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:40AM #305
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There's no sense in belaboring the point.


You seem very eager not to belabor a point when you can't justify it.


I think we both agree that Prop 8, DOMA and similar measures simply won't stand up in court.


I don't agree. Worse laws have stood up in court. This is primarily a moral issue, and immoral laws frequently stand up when a sufficient number of judges are morally deficient.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:48AM #306
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There's no sense in belaboring the point.


You seem very eager not to belabor a point when you can't justify it.


I think we both agree that Prop 8, DOMA and similar measures simply won't stand up in court.


I don't agree. Worse laws have stood up in court. This is primarily a moral issue, and immoral laws frequently stand up when a sufficient number of judges are morally deficient.




I don't have to justify it. I don't owe you justification. Nobody does. I'm not going to waste any effort belaboring a point to a mentality that's really no different than that of a KJV Biblical literalist insisting to have a monopoly on the truth, and the moral liscense to insist that everybody else has to agree.


As we say, politley, out here in the country -- go kick rocks.


I'm not sure I share your pessimism regarding SCOTUS. 


We'll see. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:50AM #307
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:40AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I completely understand what you are saying. That's why I always try to make it painfully clear, I'm talking about homosexuality in objective terms. Pulling it away from any particular person's identity, and looking at it only as a bio-physical attribute.


But, of course, the second you use a term such as "disorder" or "dysfunction" some people -- and perhaps understandably -- get the impression one is calling people, as human beings, those things. Of course, some posters here, apparently with axes to grind, take that ball all the way to the end zone, and refuse to relent. But, that's their problem, I think.



A person's sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of his very being. You cannot pull it away from his identity without radically changing that identity. We are, after all, nothing but the sum of our attributes. When you say that his sexuality is disordered or dysfunctional, you are saying that he is disordered or dysfunctional.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:51AM #308
mountain_man
Posts: 39,143

Feb 23, 2012 -- 1:08AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You seem to have the misconception that I have aspirations to somehow control what gay people do or do not do. Or, that I even care what they do. 


I don't. And, I don't.


Obviously we disagree on that. Your posts tell me that you do not accept the facts regarding homosexuality.


I rely on the law to settle this matter in such a way that everybody gets basic freedom of choice.


The law is not the source of our rights.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 10:53AM #309
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:48AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:40AM, Ken wrote:


Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There's no sense in belaboring the point.


You seem very eager not to belabor a point when you can't justify it.


I think we both agree that Prop 8, DOMA and similar measures simply won't stand up in court.


I don't agree. Worse laws have stood up in court. This is primarily a moral issue, and immoral laws frequently stand up when a sufficient number of judges are morally deficient.




I don't have to justify it.


When you assert it in a debate setting and somebody challenges it, yes, you do have to justify it.


Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:48AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As we say, politley, out here in the country -- go kick rocks.


As we say, less politely, here in the city, go pound salt up your ass.




Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 11:01AM #310
mountain_man
Posts: 39,143

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:40AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I completely understand what you are saying. That's why I always try to make it painfully clear, I'm talking about homosexuality in objective terms. Pulling it away from any particular person's identity, and looking at it only as a bio-physical attribute.


You can't do that since a persons sexual orientation IS part of their identity.


But, of course, the second you use a term such as "disorder" or "dysfunction" some people -- and perhaps understandably -- get the impression one is calling people, as human beings, those things. Of course, some posters here, apparently with axes to grind, take that ball all the way to the end zone, and refuse to relent. But, that's their problem, I think.


That's your problem; homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a dysfunction. You're not looking at this objectively as you claim above, but subjectively.


As people, we live in subjective bubbles, so to speak. And from the subjective standpoint, I completely understand that being gay is perfectly normal for some people. And being in love is like, well, being in love. Hence, there's room to live and let live.


Yet you call homosexuality a disorder or dysfunction. That's not being very objective.


I also understand why, as a matter of moral principle, some people actively oppose gay marriage. And it almost never has anything to do with "hating" gay people.


It sure isn't supporting them.


I think some stridently pro-gay marriage people really want to build up that "bigotry" mythos, because it helps them reinforce their own views, and own sense of unquestionable rightness. Which, in some cases leans all the way over into practically insufferable, arrogant sanctimony.


I see.... you actually believe that doing the right thing is insufferable, arrogant, and sanctimonious?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 31 of 34  •  Prev 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook