Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Solly]

PH

What goes on between two consenting adults is no business but their own.

Fine, so why do gays want their relationship to be the state's business? Just keep it private and hidden and no-one will complain or beat them up.

[Drogue]

Why do straights want their relationship to be state sanctified too? Should you expect to be beaten up for kissing a girl in public?

[Whaleboy]

Fine, so why do gays want their relationship to be the state's business? Just keep it private and hidden and no-one will complain or beat them up.

Because whereupon one is oppressed, one wishes to fight that oppression. Also many people view their marriage as a public declaration of their love. Marriage is also a states recognition of that relationship, so if a state refuses to recognise that relationship via marriage or something to that effect, then it is inherently discriminating against homosexuals if it allows heterosexuals to do the same, denying a fundamental civil right both in its own right and in the right to express oneself, including ones love.

Now you have said that one should take an action based upon the reaction of bigots like yourself. However, that is unacceptable considering that those in the wrong in this matter are said bigots, and thus it seems reasonable that one should not bow to intimidation or such threats in order to appease the petty prejudices of small minded troglodytes.

[Solly]

"Should you expect to eb beaten up for kissing a girl in public?"

That is normal and socially accepted at the current time. There's no moral absolutes remember.

[Solly]

The state is not stopping anyone from marrying.

[Whaleboy]

That is normal and socially accepted at the current time. There's no moral absolutes remember.

Just as institutional racism is socially accepted. If homophobia is socially accepted, then there is a problem that should be addressed. Fortunately however, homophobia is reducing and homosexuals, their attitudes and lifestyles are becoming mainstream . The issue of moral absolutes is irrelevant in a sociological instance. You could use that to say that racism isn't absolutely morally wrong, and you'd be right, but that is not a basis for society, whereby in this context certain rules need to apply. As a relativist, I would not dream of saying that murder, racism or institutional, embedded homophobia is acceptable in society.

The state is not stopping anyone from marrying.

Then you're problem is on public displays of homosexual relationships? That's a woefully tired and flawed position, since you're making a "should" or "ought" statement from your own highly subjective, bigoted opinions that fortunately are heading into the minority anyway, so you can't even use democracy as your defense!!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Seeker
You are confusing me for my robot dog-drone, Boshko.

Blarg, too many Zimesque avatars.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Seems like we need a better definition of what constitutes 'coercion' before we get any further. I think it is possible to have morally legitimate forms of coercion.

I'm using the dictionary definition: Forcible domination/control/restraint, or put another way, forcing somebody to think and/or act a certain way.

And yes, there are morally legitimate forms of coercion, else the legal system would be pretty worthless -- you'd have to politely ask criminals to stop breaking the law if you weren't able to impose fines, community service, imprisonment, etc. on them (all of which are forms of coercion). However, a majority arbitrarily restricting the liberties of a minority is a morally illegitimate form of coercion, which is why your "coercion through popular vote" proposal is unsatisfactory. Whether or not a majority like or dislike gay marriage (or anything else, for that matter) is morally irrelevant.

[Whaleboy]

BK: You'd argue that democracy is a valid reason against gay marriage where most people don't want it? Why exactly is that? What premise or conclusion of democracy (beyond brute force which is irrelevant in my view in a civilised society) is relevant to the question of whether a minority should be granted a right... or more fundamentally, how free-wills have a right to impede the right of another free-will to do anything, except impede that of another?

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

Injustified is a matter of opinion, is it not? I'm sure to Communists imposing capitalism on the populace (which is done by moderates as well) is unjustified.

[Whaleboy]

Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

The question is justified and they are not morals being imposed upon the majority of people, they are rights being granted to a minority.

EDIT: Imran -

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk


If somebody truly feels they've changed during the years, then who are we to say that couldn't possibly be true? As far as I can tell, your view is that the people who claim to have switched sides during the years are unfit to tell for sure just what they really are, or they're outright lying. I think if anybody said something like that to you, the eternal preacher of tolerance and diversity, you'd be pissed (and with a good reason to be so).

When you find out what it feels like to live in heterosexist, homophobic society, and feel the pressures to conform, let me know.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Should you expect to eb beaten up for kissing a girl in public?"

That is normal and socially accepted at the current time. There's no moral absolutes remember.

In the southern states of United States in the early twentieth century, lynching blacks was considered to be a moral norm.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Moderates do not seek to impose injustified morals onto other people.

Injustified is a matter of opinion, is it not? I'm sure to Communists imposing capitalism on the populace (which is done by moderates as well) is unjustified.

Unjustified imposition of morality, IMO -- is when people seek to deprive others of rights and/or equal privileges.

[Solly]

"In the southern states of United States in the early twentieth century, lynching blacks was considered to a moral norm."

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

[Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun
When you find out what it feels like to live in heterosexist, homophobic society, and feel the pressures to conform, let me know.

What's that supposed to mean?

(edit... deleted the irrelevant part.)