Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Japher]

I guess it isn't worth it to pursue this conversation...

Then I guess it doesn't really mean much to you.

---

Anyway

Is this really the extent of people's capability to think sensibly as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction against a "perversion"...

I never said nothing about perversion. Nor I have I sad that I dislike homosexuals or have a problem with it. I think sensibly in the sense that we live in a society in which we have to live together. Unlike some dikes and queers who want to flaunt their difference in a parade every year, and then want ppl to ignore or accept that difference the rest of the year.

And yes, I find public display of affection dispicable when done in large amounts. Gay or not, and this does not make me a prude, it just makes me not a hypocrit.

I am not arguing my opinion on gay marriage is the truth, but it saddens me to see people stating as a "truth" that same-sex contact is wrong and should not be seen in public.

Same-sex contact is not wrong, no more so than opp-sex contact. The thing you are forgetting is that it's PUBLIC.

So much for equality... why is it some people hold on to their rigid medieval values so much they cannot see and understand the people they are judging?

Whose judging who?

How about values like humanity, equality, tolerance or love?

They're all there as well respect... something many gay ppl who call out homophobes have forgotten about.

The only people I have encountered on the net this far with similar opinions are christian fundamentalists, and they are impossible to try to reason with. And yep, I know my comments will elicit fiery feedback from Ben and PA and such, but I expect no better...

I am neither, and I have plenty of gay friends (hell I am in the bay area)... I wouldn't pick on Ben and PA so much before you get to know them and understand there opinions. If anyone, it is you that are being stubborn and narrow minded. No one is saying that you can't be you no more than we are saying that PA shouldn't walk around the street in his Klan uniform.

I guess judgement is the thing you do to make sense of the world, even if most people think it would be uncalled for. I just don't understand how you can think "values" and "traditions" or whatever your motivation is are more important than the happiness and love of people living today, or how PA can argue no gays should be seen in public based on nothing but his personal distaste.

That's PA!!!

I like how you skirt passing judgement by passing it yourself.

The issue with many ppl is the same issue I have with many minorities, as well as average white joes; the delude themselves. One minute I am suppose to embrasse diversity, the next I am suppose to ignore it. One minute I am suppose recognize the differences, the next I am suppose to ignore it. The river don't flow both ways. Why don't you (ppl in gnrl) embrace your own differences, not just once a year, but every day.

I would be much more supportive of gay rights if such mockeries of their sexuallity wasn't put on. If those who cross dress would do so every day. If the people who say such things as "give us equality" from behind close doors would do so out in the open as well. I will not help those who will not help themselves, or does so only when it suits them.

I don't know about your area, Jarouik, but around here I am more likely to see two men sucking face on a park bench than I am to see two women or a man and a women. Gay men are more affectionate, and that is fine, but why do I have to see it? Why, also, do I have to stay out of their private life when they bring it on to the street?

Once again a silly little rant similar to my bash on the NAACP...

[Monk]

MrFun and others, he's going to continue trolling like there's no tomorrow regardless of any sound arguments and common sense that is used. Your efforts are honorable but they will surely remain fruitless, so I think your blood pressure will improve significantly if you stop trying altogether.

[Solly]

There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

[Japher]

Two straight men shouldn't hold hands/kiss in public either.

What about a straight man and a gay man?

I would pay money to see MrFun kiss PA!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

"no trolling"



And as others and myself have pointed out before -- a majority opinion in of itself on any issue is not justification for carrying out policies in favor of that particular opinion.


And Japher -- you're pointing out the small minority of gays who lack maturity, and any good sense of what constitutes appropriate public behavior. The fact that there are those who behave inappropriately speaks more about their individual character (this case lack of) than their sexual orientation.

[Solly]

"And as others and myself have pointed out before -- a majority opinion in of itself on any issue is not justification for carrying out policies in favor of that particular opinion."

Then what is a suitable measure?

One that miraculously seems to support you?

[Aeson]

Then what is a suitable measure?

One that miraculously seems to support you?

One that doesn't show favoritism to one side or another. (Well, it shows favoritism to non-bigots I suppose...)

[Japher]

a majority opinion in of itself on any issue is not justification for carrying out policies in favor of that particular opinion

Yes it is... at least in a democratic republic... right?

[Aeson]

Not in ours. If 51% of the people wanted to kill the other 49% it still isn't allowed. (it might happen, but not lawfully)

[MrFun]

Japher -- a majority would never have the right reenslave blacks just because it would be the majority opinion (hypothetically speaking of course).

And PA -- when the majority opinion would try to favor unfair discrimination against a minority of people for fallacious reasons that are not based on any rational grounds, then that majority opinion is in the wrong.

[Solly]

Stop trying to distort the argument into one of rationality and irrationality

[MrFun]

I have never come across any rational arguments in favor of opressing gays with second-class citizenship when it comes to certain specific rights.

[Japher]

How does not allowing gays to marry make them second class citizens? Is marriage a right? Why can't blind people get drivers liscenses?

There are irrational laws. To me it seems the gay agenda is asking such questions as "Why are we discriminated against?" "Why don't the laws support us?" when they should be stating "here is how we are discriminated against" "here is why we should be granted the same rights"... I haven't heard those answers within the letter of the law.

Make the case!

The same goes for those who want to legalize MJ

[Whaleboy]

Whale

…boy. Really I do insist

Humans are above animals so trying to defend the perverse behaviours of some of our species through references to monkeys and others is just ridiculous and shows how desperate you are for an argument.

Surely if I were desperate for an argument then I would be unable to provide you with numerous differing lines of reasoning to this same conclusion. Namely, the libertarian argument, the moral relativism argument, the sociological argument, the classical utilitarian argument, the modern utilitarian argument, the refutation of Leviticus argument, the mammalian argument, the essentialist argument (which can be drawn as an extension to the utilitarian arguments), and even a version of the evolutionary argument!

You are attempting to apply “perverse” with no initial frame of reference to define it as such. Is it “hot” or is it “cold”, well you can’t define that unless you have a frame of reference of “normality”. Normal for higher mammals specified is a certain proportion being homosexual, including homosexuality being recorded throughout history in humanity, so the only perversion you can bring to this argument is the statement that homosexuality is gratuitous etc.

I believe you're a proponent of the "no objective ethics" argument, so please explain this. How else does society decide what is moral/ethical than apart from what the majority thinks?

My relativism would only conclude that there are no objective ethics in a meta-ethical argument, not a sociological argument, whereby certain ethical principles, courses of action etc are better than others. Morality, in my opinion, remains arbitrary but we are not dealing here with issues of morality (hence moral relativism which allows for gay marriage) but instead issues of sociological ethics.

Society decides what is ethical not by what the majority thinks (since no democracy in history has even gone anywhere near that extreme) it decides what is ethical by what is considered best for the population, a kind of utilitarianism you’ll find in all non-anarchist states. Needless to say, the population will have an input but historically they don’t tend to be small minded bigots, since those with perhaps a broader mind than most are more vocal, hence your hatred of hippie protesters .

Define harm, simply.

How does gay marriage harm anyone else? We can have “interpretative” harm that occurs when some people are offended by the actions of another, for example a dogmatic person taking offence to a diametrically opposed view, and “proper” harm which is more akin to assault or theft etc. Any plausible argument for gay marriage being harmful would have to occur with interpretative harm. We allow this kind of harm in societies with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and even in terms of that kind of harm, it is innocuous and only affects the decreasing number of people with severe homophobia.

I would have thought there's more people unhappily chained to homosexuality. After all, nobody tends to kill themselves because they are straight.

Nobody kills themselves because they’re gay either. People get depressed because they’re not able to express themselves. In a society that ostracises homosexuality someone who is gay could well get depressed, because they cannot openly be themselves. The same would happen to straight people in a society that ostracises straights. It isn’t their sexuality that makes them depressed, and moreover, that cannot be changed, it’s societies intolerance that is to blame.

Because it is unnatural, and not what society wants to see.

Ie. Not what you want to see. Please differentiate that from what society wants to see. Much of society doesn’t care.

There's no trolling going on here, but I'm leaving this thread. I've said what I came to say and I've spoken for the off-line majority.

Link? Evidence? The majority is pretty split on gay marriage, but moreover, I’m sure the majority don’t particularly care about two men kissing. Public nudity is illegal for anyone, regardless of sexuality. Kissing isn’t.

[Aeson]

"here is how we are discriminated against"

Homosexual couples are not allowed the same rights allowed to heterosexual couples by the state. Regardless of whether you think it's justified or not, it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Are you seriously suggesting that this point hasn't already been made?

"here is why we should be granted the same rights"

Because they are people to? Not good enough for you?

I haven't heard those answers within the letter of the law.

That's because the law for/against this is not already defined (in all places). Some places gay marriage is allowed already. Some it is expressly denied. Some it is undefined.

Demanding that someone justify a change/addition to law based on current laws is unrealistic. If it was justified by current law, the change/addition wouldn't be necessary. This works both ways, as the gay marriage ammendment is trying to change or add to laws already in place.

Saying that this would be a reason to deny the change/addition is ludicrous, as then no new laws could ever be made.