Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Whaleboy]

Exactly. It depends on the viewpoints of society whether something is considered moral or immoral. And sorry to break it to you but...

The fact that undereducated, overprejudiced idiots had a simplistic morality that allowed them to do that does not make it acceptable at the time. In a sociological context, you cannot hijack the banner of relativism to justify that such intolerance is acceptable because this is not a neutral context. You bring in the question of morality, where of course, you are correct. Whether it is moral or immoral is dependent upon the disposition of the beholder, but whether something is socially acceptable or not is another matter. You could say that having intercourse with a tree in public is morally acceptable according to you, and you'd be right, however, does that make it socially acceptable. Repeating and misusing relativistic arguments that you probably got from me in the first place does nothing for you in this debate, so I suggest you deal with the situation on its merits. The only place in this context where relativism applies is in the rights of the individual to do what he wants provided he does not impede others from doing the same. Marriage and public declaration of that relationship form part of that.

[Whoha]

The senate is going to steal the judiciary's job now?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
I suppose whenever any minority group has made progress towards equal rights in the past, they caused nothing but needless trouble, and thus deserving of callous, vicious, unjustified backlash?

It's the way history has worked in this country. One step forward, two steps back.

[Solly]

"The fact that undereducated, overprejudiced idiots had a simplistic morality that allowed them to do that does not make it acceptable at the time. In a sociological context, you cannot hijack the banner of relativism to justify that such intolerance is acceptable because this is not a neutral context. You bring in the question of morality, where of course, you are correct. Whether it is moral or immoral is dependent upon the disposition of the beholder, but whether something is socially acceptable or not is another matter. You could say that having intercourse with a tree in public is morally acceptable according to you, and you'd be right, however, does that make it socially acceptable. Repeating and misusing relativistic arguments that you probably got from me in the first place does nothing for you in this debate, so I suggest you deal with the situation on its merits. The only place in this context where relativism applies is in the rights of the individual to do what he wants provided he does not impede others from doing the same. Marriage and public declaration of that relationship form part of that."

What the hell are you saying? Using big words don't impress no-one..

[Whaleboy]

What the hell are you saying? Using big words don't impress no-one..

Nor does using poor grammar. Try reading it again, more slowly, I'm not going to repeat myself because you are intimidated by the polysyllabic .

[DinoDoc]

Hell let them marry and then tax them excessively like the rest of the married couples.

[Whaleboy]

That's the spirit!

[Odin]

BK, There is no enviromental influence on homosexuality, that is religious righ bullsh*t.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk


What's that supposed to mean?

(edit... deleted the irrelevant part.)

I'm wondering if you're aware of the heterosexist and homophobic pressures that have caused a small number of gays to claim that they have changed their sexual orientation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should the minority dictate terms to the majority?

How are the minority dictating terms to the majority? Last I checked, the majority could still marry...

[Asher]

One post to destroy them all:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, this is irrelevant to the case of marriage, for the same reason why we do not affirm one religion over another.

If your reason for denying gay people the right to marry is because marriage is a religious institution, it does not belong in the hands of the government, period.

[Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun

I'm wondering if you're aware of the heterosexist and homophobic pressures that have caused a small number of gays to claim that they have changed their sexual orientation.

Yeah, and I'm wondering how you can be certain the pressures in question are the causes of every and all such 'conversion'. Your sexuality is a living, ever-changing part of your personality so it's highly unlikely your tastes won't change over time. Changing from gay to straight is probably a pretty rare occurence, I'll grant you that, but given the complexity of human sexuality I can imagine stranger things happening.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's the spirit!

It's the reason why I don't understand the rush to marry. It seems like a loosing proposition to me.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Anal sex is no different to iced tea. Don't knock it until you've tried it .

Umm, no. I haven't tried it (my back door is one-way) but I can definitely see a difference....


Ben - You argue an unpopular position with logic and civility.

Name callers - If your position is so strong why the need to insult? It detracts from your arguments.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should the minority dictate terms to the majority?

Let the people vote on the laws on the country.

*insert obligatory remark about Jews in Nazi Germany*