Post Reply
Page 45 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 3:21AM #441
karbie
Posts: 3,329

I enjoyed the preacher--and he is totally correct about Jesus not preaching against homosexuality.


I also agree that whenever certain facts aren't palatable, they suddenly come from "soft science". Science isn't soft, just because you disagree with it.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 1:15PM #442
TPaine
Posts: 9,299

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 2:58PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


A: We're splitting hairs. Gay people will continue to have, or adopt, children and raise them, regardless of what you, me or anybody thinks.


I've already told you, as a matter of specifics, as an alternative family structure, I have no beef with that.


B: Once more, citing soft-science "studies" done on sample populations does not impress me. It's a pretty steep call to suggest those four points either simply don't exist, or don't really matter.


In the absence of rational, reasoned arguments and long term, universal proof, simply citing the results of softball studies isn't going to convince many reasonable people of such a sweeping, radical claim.


Again, that strikes me as a quite naive appeal to dubious authority.



All you have to do to get me to agree with you is to present actual valid peer-reviewed studies that prove that what you call the "soft science" studies are wrong. Since when is pediatric medicine considered a "soft science?"




In other words, you're still willing to rest everything on faith in an appeal to authority.


Oh well, a point of disagreement. No big deal.



No, I'm saying that in order to justify prohibiting a given group equal human or civil rights it must be proven that doing so will cause harm to society or members of that society. Opinion is not proof. Proof requires actual factual evidence to support the claim. The authority I claim is the Constitution of the United States.

"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine: Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:04PM #443
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 13, 2012 -- 1:15PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:36PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 2:58PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


A: We're splitting hairs. Gay people will continue to have, or adopt, children and raise them, regardless of what you, me or anybody thinks.


I've already told you, as a matter of specifics, as an alternative family structure, I have no beef with that.


B: Once more, citing soft-science "studies" done on sample populations does not impress me. It's a pretty steep call to suggest those four points either simply don't exist, or don't really matter.


In the absence of rational, reasoned arguments and long term, universal proof, simply citing the results of softball studies isn't going to convince many reasonable people of such a sweeping, radical claim.


Again, that strikes me as a quite naive appeal to dubious authority.



All you have to do to get me to agree with you is to present actual valid peer-reviewed studies that prove that what you call the "soft science" studies are wrong. Since when is pediatric medicine considered a "soft science?"




In other words, you're still willing to rest everything on faith in an appeal to authority.


Oh well, a point of disagreement. No big deal.



No, I'm saying that in order to justify prohibiting a given group equal human or civil rights it must be proven that doing so will cause harm to society or members of that society. Opinion is not proof. Proof requires actual factual evidence to support the claim. The authority I claim is the Constitution of the United States.





You're hitting a few different points.


Legally, I have no opinon -- nor do I think I should have any say -- either way regarding gay marriage.


Therefore, "prohibiting" it, isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's for the courts to sort out. I've merely been offering a critical view of what I see as some of the philosphical points relating to it. Specifically, the whole "equality" thing -- which I consider to be purely imaginary.


On the principle of rights, I absolutely disagree with the notion that gay marriage is a human right, and again, I think an essentially dishonest and irrational narrative has been employed to try framing it in those terms.  


As far as it being a civil right, due inclusion and protection under secular law, again, the courts will have to sort that out. So far, the courts have tended to lean in favor of it.


As for it causing harm? Time will tell. On the macro level -- the one that primarily matters in terms of civil rights under secular law -- I don't see it causing widespread harm, or, as some have wildly tried to claim, causing society to collapse.


As far as the Constitution, again, ultimately SCOTUS will probably have to decide if gay marriage falls under the parameters of the Loving case, and the parameters of the 14th Amendment.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:15PM #444
REteach
Posts: 14,450

A couple years ago, I listened to a lecture in between war Germany and the rise of the Nazis.  It is easy to view Nazi Germany as somehow evil or deviant, but of course, Germany was full of people no better and no worse than the rest of us.  The problem was that economically, they were in very dire straits. 


When someone came along telling them that it was not their fault their pride had been hurt and they were suffering, it was easy to listen. When they were told that "that group" was responsible for their woes, it was easy to listen. It then became even easier to believe that "that group" should be punished for the evils they had perpetuated and lose the rights of citizenship.  It became easier to believe that "that group" was not really human at all and that killing them was perfectly fine.


The problem with allusions to the Nazis is that we can never see ourselves like them. The problem with that is that when we are acting like them, we see no reason to stop it.


I think this thread is a good example.  Gays have been blamed for undermining marriage, and morality, and by the fringe for God's punishments such as 9/11 and Katrina.  


Since they are so immoral and causing so much harm to the rest of us, why not take away/prevent them from having complete civil rights. They are not like "us" after all. 


To continue, we have preachers calling for gays to be locked up in pens and killed, and websites claiming that gays will burn in hell.  



The parallels are there.  The question is who do we want to be as a nation.  


I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:20PM #445
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 13, 2012 -- 3:21AM, karbie wrote:


I enjoyed the preacher--and he is totally correct about Jesus not preaching against homosexuality.


I also agree that whenever certain facts aren't palatable, they suddenly come from "soft science". Science isn't soft, just because you disagree with it.





The preacher made some good points regarding religion -- or marriage as a sacrament -- being a completely different arena than marriage as a legal matter -- and the President being the President, not the national "Pastor."


Other than that, about all he did was hit on the typical politically correct buzz terms and talking points -- I wasn't particularly impressed.


Jesus never specifically mentioned many things, but His stance on many things can be easily gleaned from what He did say. I think any Christian preacher who tries to imply Jesus ever intended for homosexuality to be affirmed by the Church, or that the Church should see marriage as anything other than one man, one woman -- is seriously trying to twist and rationalize things.


Regarding science, I have no problem with facts. The fact is, gay couples can and do raise children. We certainly did not need any "studies" to show us that, as the evidence is readily available to anybody paying attention, and who has ever known a gay family. (I've known a few.)


What my issue is, putting totally naive trust in a few studies done on sample groups, against a pre-determined set of criteria -- insofar as taking that to completely dismiss four basic axioms as either not being real, or simply not really mattering.


1: The differences between men and women, and how they compliment and reinforce one another in parenting.


2: The importance of having both a mother and father.


3: The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.


4: The biological parent-child bond.


It should be self-evident -- children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- in general terms -- will have advantages other children simply do not.


And once again, I say that as an adoptive/step parent myself, living an alternative family structure -- a blended family.


Alternative familes, including gay families, work. And, in many cases work well.


But that does not change basic facts or realities either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:23PM #446
mountain_man
Posts: 39,126

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

...On the principle of rights, I absolutely disagree with the notion that gay marriage is a human right, and again, I think an essentially dishonest and irrational narrative has been employed to try framing it in those terms. 


Yet you have been unable to support your belief with any rational arguments. Marriage is a human right. That's been established. Are gays inhuman and therefore do not get the same rights as other humans?


As far as it being a civil right, due inclusion and protection under secular law, again, the courts will have to sort that out. So far, the courts have tended to lean in favor of it.


The Constitution says that laws must effect everyone equally. Saying someone cannot get married because their genitals match is not covering everyone equally.


As for it causing harm? Time will tell....


Time has already spoken. In all the countries and US states that have recognized marriage equality - NOTHING, absolutely nothing, has happened.

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
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:28PM #447
mountain_man
Posts: 39,126

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:20PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

1: The differences between men and women, and how they compliment and reinforce one another in parenting.


That was a great fantasy that was the basis for many 1950's TV shows.


2: The importance of having both a mother and father.


3: The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.


Neither of those are important.


4: The biological parent-child bond.


Then end all adoptions? Such a bond is another fantasy. A child will bond just fine, with no problems later in life, with any loving caretaker.


It should be self-evident -- children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- in general terms -- will have advantages other children simply do not.


That is your belief that you have been unable to support with anything other than more opinions. Got any facts that are backed up by science?


Alternative familes[sic], including gay families, work. And, in many cases work well.


You just destroyed your 4 points with that one little sentence.

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
2 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 3:18AM #448
karbie
Posts: 3,329

the importance in parenting is a united front. I'm not saying that even that has to be iron-clad, because a child may feel closer or safer going to one parent over the other. I was that parent, but that was because I was a stay-at-home mom, followed by home-schooling mom and pediatric specialist transportation. His father worked 7 days a week, sometimes for more than a month straight. The tides turned years ago, now I get "Is Dad around?" if he gets me. I'm glad to see them so tight.


We knew one woman who bragged about being a Nazi mother--the computer and game systems were all kept locked until the children did a list of chores to her satisfaction. She also drug tested her kids regularly and was shocked I didn't. Again, two parents, male and female.Widely divergent views on child-rearing...and all of her kids moved out as soon as they were legally able to do so.


But we were married for 10 years before becoming parents and knew several couples who had no children by choice.


Societies either grow and evolve or die.


One of the points the preacher made that I liked was pointing out that people are very fond of judging and pointing fingers at others so no one will be looking at them. He also noted that the two main things he saw behind all the furor over gay marriage were ignorance and fear.


I don't agree a bunch of Bible thumpers trying to legislate their version of morality on the rest of us. It took the Roman Catholic Church centuries to finally "forgive" the Jews for "Killing Christ". I'm in my 50s and that declaration came during my lifetime.


Groups like the neo-Nazis, skinheads, KKK and many fundamentalist churches haven't gotten around to it yet. They hate homosexuals as well.


If we are lucky, we have at least one person we love and want to share a lifetime with. I don't think having the right to legally marry that person should be curtailed if their plumbing matches.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 2:43PM #449
TPaine
Posts: 9,299

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


You're hitting a few different points.


Legally, I have no opinon -- nor do I think I should have any say -- either way regarding gay marriage.


Therefore, "prohibiting" it, isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's for the courts to sort out. I've merely been offering a critical view of what I see as some of the philosphical points relating to it. Specifically, the whole "equality" thing -- which I consider to be purely imaginary.



Prohibiting is an issue because Section 3 of DOMA explicitly states that:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’
‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’
means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’


Such wording denies the federal government to consider same-sex unions to be considered "marriage" thereby denying them the rights to the 1,138 federal statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges."


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

On the principle of rights, I absolutely disagree with the notion that gay marriage is a human right, and again, I think an essentially dishonest and irrational narrative has been employed to try framing it in those terms.



I agree with John Stuart Mill who wrote:

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, Chapter 1 (1859)



Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As far as it being a civil right, due inclusion and protection under secular law, again, the courts will have to sort that out. So far, the courts have tended to lean in favor of it.



So far in the only Appeals Court decision to directly address DOMA was made in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In both cases the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Joseph L. Tauro's decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As for it causing harm? Time will tell. On the macro level -- the one that primarily matters in terms of civil rights under secular law -- I don't see it causing widespread harm, or, as some have wildly tried to claim, causing society to collapse.



I agree.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As far as the Constitution, again, ultimately SCOTUS will probably have to decide if gay marriage falls under the parameters of the Loving case, and the parameters of the 14th Amendment.



SCOTUS has basically two choices. They can grant cert. and rule on the First Circuit decision, or they can refuse cert. and let the First Circuit decision stand and avoid getting involved. If they take the case and Justice Kennedy holds the same position he held when he wrote the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas, SCOUS will affirm the First Circuit in a 5-4 decision.

"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine: Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 5:13PM #450
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,154

mytmouse57:  Jesus never specifically mentioned many things, but His stance on many things can be easily gleaned from what He did say.


If we want to be picky, Jesus would rather skip family life altogether.  Not only does He not respect His parents, but He also encourages His disciples to leave their families.  When Sadducees go up to Him with their little marriage + reincarnation question, Jesus specifically says that marriage is irrelevant in heaven.  So much for "holy sacrament".  According to Jesus, I pwn every married person 'cause I'm single and celibate.  :)

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 45 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook