The gay marriage/religion/big southern assholes thread
Kazhiim
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=19696&page=8
So it was written, so it shall be done.
So, individuals have the moral imperative to encourage what they believe is right. At the same time, nobody has the right to force their own beliefs upon others. How do we untangle this web of drama and suspense?
Right vs rights: does Batman have time to prepare?
So it was written, so it shall be done.
So, individuals have the moral imperative to encourage what they believe is right. At the same time, nobody has the right to force their own beliefs upon others. How do we untangle this web of drama and suspense?
Right vs rights: does Batman have time to prepare?
Kazhiim on
0
Posts
That's what we do.
If gay couples want to get married, let them.
What does this have to do with gay marriage?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not going to pretend it has anything to do with gay marriage. I just want to continue the tangent we went off of in that other thread- I never said I'd make a good first post!
Can you fault people like Cangofett for holding a belief and doing what they can to further that belief? I argue that you cannot, particularly in a democracy, where individuals are expected to express their beliefs.
But I was hardly trying to force my opinion on anyone. I was stating mine, but I dont expect or even desire others to agree with my opinion, as its based on a belief that most dont have, and no other reason.
Yeah. Lots of things God has done or said that I dont understand. I would imagine there'd a better way of redeeming mankind other than sending Your Son to die.
God told Abraham to take his son to the mountain and kill him. Abraham didnt know why, but complied. And when the truth of the issue was revealed to him, he was rewarded for his faith.
Generally blind faith is a bad idea, as God wants us to love Him with all our hearts, souls, and mind. But when you have nothing else to go on, sometimes you just have to hope that God has a really good reason for what hes about to do.
Is it the South Carolina thread?
I ignored that thread because the title Godwins itself.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
yeah- linked in the first post now.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But can you say that voting on gay marriage is forcing your belief upon a person? Or that voting for any other law is the same thing, for that matter?
That would be nice, if the competing beliefs weren't intractably opposed. Generally, there are modifications and accommodations that can be made such that things become compatible again, but that's not always possible. In that case, people face the conflict - do I do what I really feel is right, or do I do what is socially acceptable?
People who want to think of themselves as being morally upstanding will probably choose the former.
Precisely
Gee, I don't know. Can you say that voting against allowing interracial marriages is forcing your beliefs on others?
Our right to self-govern ends when we start voting rights away from other people.
Well, our system of ethics is based on the idea that certain rights are more fundamental than others, hence the necessary clauses - for example, "the right to pursue happiness, provided that this pursuit does not infringe upon the life or property of others". In this particular instance, the right of gay couples to pursue happiness outweighs the right of anti-homosexuals to force their belief upon others, the latter right being non-existent. In the case of, for example, murder, the rights of people to life outweigh the rights of murderers to the pursuit of happiness, so murder is illegal. We force a socially agreed upon ethical contract onto would-be murderers, which is somewhat different from forcing our personal beliefs upon them.
Is that absolutely true? It seems that no laws could be passed if this is the case.
The relevance being? I don't know what you're trying to say.
Okay.
I don't see why everybody was all up on your case, then. I mean, I don't agree with your religion and your position is certainly not universal among Christians, but you seem to be pretty reasonable about it.
IMO, marriage itself clearly breaks the church/state separation. I don't think we should recognize marriage as a legal institution at all.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Polygamy, incest, and loli (except for the USA) are all banned by most governments.
Agreed in all respects.
It was legal for a man to rape his wife up until recently. Laws against it took away the husband's right to do that.
Talking to me? Well, you're technically infringing on the criminal's right to pursue happiness, and then their right to liberty when you toss them in the clink. The fact is, those rights of the criminal are far less important than the rights of other people not to get murdered and raped, so the criminal gives up those rights when he or she commits the crime. At least, that's once way of looking at it.
I agree, except for that last part. I don't see the difference between law centered on ethical behavior and any other kind of law. It seems to me to be a simple exertion of force by the majority onto the minority in order to generally benefit society. It's brute force, but it's considered acceptable because (usually) it's the majority will.
I'm trying to say that your position, being outside the moral compass of a given citizen, is not the one by which they should act. A religious fanatic needs to change their mind about ethics, not merely to act differently by the weight of public opinion. If they truly feel that what they're doing is right, they should advocate that. If we truly feel that what they're doing is wrong, we should advocate against that, and decide democratically (if it must be decided).
My right to enjoy and participate in rape, theft and murder.
Edit: Gah, beaten so hard.
Pretty much how I feel. Make them all civil unions and let any two people who want them have them. Then get to work on letting any three or more people who want them have them.
EDIT: That or do away with them altogether, of course.
Thirded. But I'd rather you not do away with them, I need one for the loopholes.
Actually I was talking to Sunshine, but I think that you're saying basically the same thing as me: the criminal (or whatever anti-gay marriage lobbyist) doesn't have a right to take away other people's rights. It's especially crap to take away the right to get married from other people when that means denying them the benefits that go along with marriage, as it does in the States. Well, it's not like gay people could ever need health insurance or anything, right?
Luckily many insurance companies are offering domestic partner insurance. My girlfriend gets to be on my health insurance because we've lived together for more than six months.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I missed this initially so I'll just say:
1.) ... okay? I don't understand what this has to do with what I said.
2.) No one has the "right" to rape anyone else. Don't be a shithead.
Yeah, it's nice to see that starting to happen. Just wish it was more widespread!
We're about to have a semantics battle about the domain of the term 'rights'. I'm going to try to explain it as best as I can.
Your paradigm: People have rights that end at a certain point (other people's rights), and they can surrender them by their actions.
My paradigm: People have inherent rights that cannot be altered or changed. Using their 'right' to violate another in some way is morally wrong, but doesn't actually change what their rights are.
I don't think we're going to disagree on any matter of substance, but we will seem to be speaking crosswise. The criminal has a right to freedom, and always does, but does morally wrong things. Society punishes the criminal (also morally wrong most of the time, but just).
Homosexuals have a right to enter into contracts with each other. Anti-gay lobbyists want to punish that by law, which is a morally wrong thing regardless. You and I would argue that it isn't just, the lobbyists would argue that it is.
No, but it's an entirely reasonable position to take within Christianity, and it's entirely defensible for someone to say that he is Christian, and therefore homophobic, given the assumption that his beliefs represent the truth.
Given the assumption that one's personal beliefs represent the truth, anything they believe is defensible to themselves, I think.
I'd say that it's not a reasonable position to take within Christianity, but that's a topic for another forum.
How is this "more sophisticated"? It's equally ridiculous to say that God likes teh gay as it is to say that he doesn't.
Anyways, for gay marriage, it's entirely reasonable (given certain beliefs about the world) for a Christian (and an American) to support the banning of gay marriage. It can simply be construed as a matter of public safety. Should a gay person or, for that matter, an atheist or a Jew or a Muslim say or convince your child of the wrong things, your child could very well be doomed to hell for all eternity. When it's existentially important to be a Christian (and a certain kind of Christian, with certain beliefs), this kind of bullshit actually becomes pretty goddamn important.
Right, but it isn't reasonable to say that homophobia is representative of all Christianity.