General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
Forcing Muslims, Jews, and Christians to accept a definition that violates a tenent in their religion is interfering with them. Why the hell do you have to call it marriage anyways? Don't give me any of this "it's unequal" stuff, since heterosexuals and homosexuals are both different words to describe a different lifestyle. Not calling it marriage solves half your problem, but heaven forbid we try to solve problems in this society to prevent declining social unity and political resistence.

They arent asking you to accept it, they're asking you to tolerate it.

Quote:
People like me also fought for the abolition of slavery. Go look at Republican and Democrat records on civil rights legislation. Do I look more like a Republican or a Democrat to you?
The republicans and democrats made a marked shift, when civil rights was involved.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 07-12-2004, 07:33 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

terrabyte
I'll suck any cock as long as it's liberal cock
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
People like me also fought for the abolition of slavery.

WRONG. The Republicans were the liberal party until the decline of the Progressive Era. You really think a staunch environmentalist, pro-business regulation, and civil rights advocate like Teddy Roosevelt was a Conservative? I know the first thing you're going to point to is his "big-stick Democracy," but the liberals were also tough on national defense until the conclusion of the Vietnam Era.

Lincoln a Conservative, Teddy a Conservative, etc... that's hilarious.
Old 07-12-2004, 07:33 PM terrabyte is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
Absolutely not, as people who support homosexuals are not limiting lifestyle opportunities and options.

But telling people "we believe this and so should you" is pushing your morals on them, whether you want to admit it or not. What you're doing is exactly the same thing. The yes and no side of this question are doing the exact same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
Believing in something does not grant you the right to enforce it on the rest of society.

Great, so I assume you'll be dropping the gay marriage proposal, which polls have indicated most of the rest of society doesn't support.

Note, I myself am divided on this. I don't think there is a clear answer we can go to at this point in time, unless people are willing to, oh I dunno, CALL IT BY ANOTHER NAME WHICH MAKES MOST PEOPLE AGAINST IT NOW HAPPY....

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
However, because we are a secular government dedicated to all individuals, we will find a solution that provides the maximum opportunity with limited damage.

Which seems to be NOT CALLING IT MARRIAGE. But no, I guess we can't do that since it's far too realistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
Our set of morals and beliefs are based upon our social and physiological requirements, not upon a magical sky God who supposedly knows right from wrong.

Hmm. Last I check sociology teaches that religion is a social construct, at least in some circles. So, like it or not, some of our "social requirements" will come from a magical sky God of some sort. A lot of Western law is Judeo-Christian in origin.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 07-12-2004, 07:36 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nano
They arent asking you to accept it, they're asking you to tolerate it.

But it's a crime when evangelicals ask them to "accept" that it not be allowed? That's pushing morals?

And actually Nano if you read the thread, it does appear to me they demand the religious tolerate it.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 07-12-2004, 07:38 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

Nano
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
But it's a crime when evangelicals ask them to "accept" that it not be allowed? That's pushing morals?

And actually Nano if you read the thread, it does appear to me they demand the religious tolerate it.


Disallowing something is a civil rights violation.

The KKK thinks blacks should be slaves. No one is asking them to accept that they're not, they're asking them to tolerate it.
__________________
Im not elitist, Ive simply been marginalized by the preponderance of idiots in the world.
Old 07-12-2004, 07:42 PM Nano is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
WRONG. The Republicans were the liberal party until the decline of the Progressive Era. You really think a staunch environmentalist, pro-business regulation, and civil rights advocate like Teddy Roosevelt was a Conservative? I know the first thing you're going to point to is his "big-stick Democracy," but the liberals were also tough on national defense until the conclusion of the Vietnam Era.

Lincoln a Conservative, Teddy a Conservative, etc... that's hilarious.

Conservatives by definition are those who don't want to force social change. So are those who want Affirmative Action removed not conservatives? Are liberals who support such legislaton conservative now because they don't want change on a particular issue. Being a conservative doesn't mean you wont attempt to force change if you see a problem. Being conservative doesn't mean you will be conservative in all cases. Being conservative doesn't mean you're racist, or a redneck, or against cleaning up the environment.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 07-12-2004, 07:45 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

terrabyte
I'll suck any cock as long as it's liberal cock
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
But telling people "we believe this and so should you" is pushing your morals on them, whether you want to admit it or not. What you're doing is exactly the same thing. The yes and no side of this question are doing the exact same thing.

There are no morals being pushed. The government isn't stating that it is morally acceptable; the government is merely providing access to it. In this society, you can cheat on your girlfriend without having to face criminal penalties. Additionally, you can smoke, curse, and drink without bring prosecuted. Furthermore, you can get a divorce when it suits you, and have sex before you are married. Remember, the government isn't stating what is morally acceptable and what isn't; it merely provides ACCESS TO IT, because it is a choice to be made. There is ZERO moral pushing, NONE.

Quote:
Great, so I assume you'll be dropping the gay marriage proposal, which polls have indicated most of the rest of society doesn't support.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...to-belief.html

I don't care what the majority thinks. Majority rules, minority rights. Additionally, since this isn't moral pushing, I won't drop it.

Quote:
Note, I myself am divided on this. I don't think there is a clear answer we can go to at this point in time, unless people are willing to, oh I dunno, CALL IT BY ANOTHER NAME WHICH MAKES MOST PEOPLE AGAINST IT NOW HAPPY....
It's a name. Deal with it.

Quote:
Which seems to be NOT CALLING IT MARRIAGE. But no, I guess we can't do that since it's far too realistic.
Heh, it's far too unreasonable, because it justifies the principle of separate but equal. Nice try, racist.

Quote:
Hmm. Last I check sociology teaches that religion is a social construct, at least in some circles. So, like it or not, some of our "social requirements" will come from a magical sky God of some sort. A lot of Western law is Judeo-Christian in origin.
None of western law is "Judeo-Christian," because they are morals which are shared by virtually every other religion (i.e. theft). So, it's safe to say that our laws have a Muslim foundation.

Last edited by terrabyte; 07-12-2004 at 07:51 PM..
Old 07-12-2004, 07:49 PM terrabyte is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

Vagamus
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
It has nothing to do with that. People are saying "oh these evangelical Christians are pushing their morals on society by expressing vocal displeasure with the gay marriage proposal". Tell me than, what the hell are the people who support gay marriage doing to the evangelical Christians, who share their society, by forcing them to officially recognize a marriage union that they would prefer not to?

Painfully simple. Either everyone can do it (marriage) or no one can. It's not a fucking special club. As you said, we share the society, so what they're proposing is fairness - they want to be married. I'd say screw all marriage, and ban it all for everyone, myself. That'd save alot of us alot of trouble in the future.

But the SIMPLE concept to understand here is inequality. We should all have the same rights. It's supposedly a free country. Your opinion of what makes marriage sacred can remain your opinion, but just because gays being married offends you, doesnt mean they shouldn't be able to.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay-married.

Quote:
All I've basically seen is people saying "put up with it and shut up, it doesn't affect you". That's not pushing your morals on someone?
It's asking someone not to push their morals on everyone else. You don't like it - that's your opinion. Should we legislate something because it's your opinion?

If so, I'd like to suggest legislating extremely harsh rules against news outlets allowing them to be sued for billions per applicant when they can be proven to have published a story that is not accurate.

I'm pretty hard line on that media thing. Should we go ahead and do it? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not.

Quote:
Telling them to completely ignore their beliefs so that yours can achieve official recognition by the government is not pushing your morals on them?
No one is telling you what to believe. You are still free to believe it's wrong. The government is not a/your religious authority, so you dont need to take an issue with the government issuing marriage licenses to gay people. Take it up with the church if they do.

Quote:
What the hell is it than?
It's being a whiney little homophobic bitch who wants to control other people for no fucking reason other than to pacify himself.

Quote:
Since morals is a perception of right and wrong, telling those to accept your viewpoint without any resistance, or with resistance by ensuring they're forced to live with it anyways IS pushing your morals on them.
We don't need rules promoting discrimination. That's why we don't have them. Your perception of right and wrong requires you to tell gays to accept your viewpoint without any resistance, and every day you force them to live with different rights than you are entitled to IS pushing morals on them.

You are really reaching to make this argument. REALLY reaching. I can't believe that you can form such intelligent-sounding opinions (even when I don't agree) but somehow you can stand behind this massive perversion of the truth as your basis for an argument against gay marriage.

Quote:
If you don't think so, then explain to me what exactly is involved in pushing your morals on someone.
See above.
__________________
"A half truth is often a great lie." - Benjamin Franklin
---
"Alright I'd grant you this one" - Viriik
Old 07-12-2004, 08:14 PM Vagamus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

Vagamus
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
But telling people "we believe this and so should you" is pushing your morals on them, <big snip>

Uuuugghh. I had no idea you were THIS dense.
__________________
"A half truth is often a great lie." - Benjamin Franklin
---
"Alright I'd grant you this one" - Viriik
Old 07-12-2004, 08:19 PM Vagamus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
There are no morals being pushed. The government isn't stating that it is morally acceptable; the government is merely providing access to it. In this society, you can cheat on your girlfriend without having to face criminal penalties. Additionally, you can smoke, curse, and drink without bring prosecuted. Furthermore, you can get a divorce when it suits you, and have sex before you are married. Remember, the government isn't stating what is morally acceptable and what isn't; it merely provides ACCESS TO IT, because it is a choice to be made. There is ZERO moral pushing, NONE.

So then what do you call what you people are doing to religious folk, essentially telling them to ignore their beliefs and shut-up? That's not moral pushing? Telling them they have to accept something (a moral issue) whether they like it or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...to-belief.html

I don't care what the majority thinks. Majority rules, minority rights. Additionally, since this isn't moral pushing, I won't drop it.

Go read the quote I responded to and try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
It's a name. Deal with it.



Heh, it's far too unreasonable, because it justifies the principle of separate but equal. Nice try, racist.

I'm a big fan of this quote. When it comes to religious folk (to them it's not "just a name by the way") it's only a name, doesn't really matter, and they have to deal with it. However, when you tell a gay-marriage supporter it's just a name, oh no, it's a whole equality issue. Give me a break man, that's rediculous! Either it's "just a name" or it's really important to you. Pick one. You can't expect religious folk to dismiss it as "just a name" if you refuse to do so yourself.

By the way, it has nothing to do with equality, it would have to do with calling a different thing by a different name. Give me a break it's "separate but equal". Yeah, "homo" and "hetero" are "separate" as well. OMGWTFBQQ INEQUALITY++!!!!!!1111

By the way:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...nary&va=racist

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Next time, learn what the word means before you use it so you don't look like a . Anyone who reads this board knows I'm not a racist. Anyone who reads this board knows my stance on gay marriage as well, which apparantly you've failed to figure out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrabyte
None of western law is "Judeo-Christian,"

__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 07-13-2004, 05:26 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
Painfully simple. Either everyone can do it (marriage) or no one can. It's not a fucking special club. As you said, we share the society, so what they're proposing is fairness - they want to be married. I'd say screw all marriage, and ban it all for everyone, myself. That'd save alot of us alot of trouble in the future.

But the SIMPLE concept to understand here is inequality. We should all have the same rights. It's supposedly a free country. Your opinion of what makes marriage sacred can remain your opinion, but just because gays being married offends you, doesnt mean they shouldn't be able to.

Then why the hell not call it all "civil-union" when issued by the government and leave marriage to the religious so they don't worry about it's God given definition being violated. Oh, that makes too much sense, sorry I mentioned it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay-married.

Don't like theft? Don't steal! Just don't push your morality on me! I'm gonna go listen to Linkin' Park.

As you can see, I've never been a big fan of that line. Fact of the matter is, marriage has a religious context for some people in this country and that too must be respected. I don't understand how you can respect the rights and feelings of some but not others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
It's asking someone not to push their morals on everyone else. You don't like it - that's your opinion. Should we legislate something because it's your opinion?

Well, why should we legislate something because it's your opinion? Not everyone is seeing eye to eye on this issue as it is, and jugglers like me are caught in the middle interested in maximizing social utility whilst no one wants to listen. Both sides are pushing their morals on the others. One side doesn't agree with homosexuality and believes that marriage should be reserved as per their religious "God given" definition. The other side supports, or is apathetic to, homosexuality and believes marriage should be used to describe a homosexual union irregardless of what the religious feel. Let's review what morals are since you don't appear to know.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...nary&va=morals

2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ETHICS

There are two competing moral practices going toe to toe here. This makes it a moral issue, with both sides trying to ensure their morality is legislated into law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
No one is telling you what to believe. You are still free to believe it's wrong. The government is not a/your religious authority, so you dont need to take an issue with the government issuing marriage licenses to gay people. Take it up with the church if they do.

But people are still trying to legislate morality from both sides, telling the other they must tolerate their viewpoint in the process whether they like it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
It's being a whiney little homophobic bitch who wants to control other people for no fucking reason other than to pacify himself.

You need to improve your reading comprehension, because that is not an appropriate response to that question. By the way, if you don't like homosexuality, you have an opinion, not a phobia. Learn what a phobia is, and not just use idiotic lefty catch phrases and let them do the thinking so you don't have to. Furthermore, know my position before sounding off so you don't look like a . I made it very clear in past threads what my solution to this problem is, and also repeated myself earlier. I'm speaking on behalf of the people you choose to completely ignore, whilst trying to maintain a position of caring about society on the whole. You can't ignore a big chunk of it and accomplish that goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
We don't need rules promoting discrimination. That's why we don't have them. Your perception of right and wrong requires you to tell gays to accept your viewpoint without any resistance, and every day you force them to live with different rights than you are entitled to IS pushing morals on them.

You are really reaching to make this argument. REALLY reaching. I can't believe that you can form such intelligent-sounding opinions (even when I don't agree) but somehow you can stand behind this massive perversion of the truth as your basis for an argument against gay marriage.

My point is that people here are accusing the religious right (to use a popular liberal catch phrase) of "pushing their morals on society" for fighting to support their position on an issue. Meanwhile, those same people are doing the EXACT SAME THING as the religious right, so if they're pusing their morals on them, than what exactly are they doing? This issue isn't about "moral pushing" in the first place. The "religious right" believes marriage is a God given concept with a religously back definition they want to preserve. In MANY CASES, it's as easy as calling a homosexual union something else other than marriage to pacify their voices. They have no problem with gays being allowed a union of their own, but with a "GOD GIVEN" (I must emphasize this) definition, they see it as the government messing with their beliefs. The left and supporters of gay "marriage" are saying in spite of what the religious right believes, this is an equality issue and you cannot deny people equal rights in this society (and as I said before I AGREE WITH THAT). HOWEVER, they refuse to surrender the name "marriage" which would pacify a lot of the opposition to their eventual goal, stating it's an equality issue (funny how it's "just a name" when religious folk complain about it's misuse), basically saying that religious folk have to put up with the idea that marriage must accomodate their MORAL BELIEFS as well (that's borderline moral pushing if anything). The BEST solutuion if your goal is really to maximize social utility is to simply change the name. If you're going to get all whiny about it being an equality issue, than call all government given marriages "civil unions" and reserve the word marriage for use by the Church and religious institutions. There is really no need to adopt a term that is going to cause grief for some people in society if you can easily side-step it, and you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagamus
Uuuugghh. I had no idea you were THIS dense.

I was trying to reach your level .
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 07-13-2004, 05:59 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

aaron31981
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
Then why the hell not call it all "civil-union" when issued by the government and leave marriage to the religious so they don't worry about it's God given definition being violated. Oh, that makes too much sense, sorry I mentioned it.

That is exactly what should happen. The government should not recognize ANY marriages. Only civil unions between two adults.

Would you consider that acceptable? Assuming you are a heterosexual, that means you could never be married in the government's eyes.
Old 07-13-2004, 09:37 PM aaron31981 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
Oh yeah, I forgot pro-gay marriage people AREN'T pushing their morals on others.


They aren't.

Would you agree freedom is not based on a persons morals? In a free society where everyone can do what they want, no ones personal morals are in affect, right? Ideally, if a society were free, then every aspect of it, such as marriage, would also be free. Trying to make it anything but free would mean you are pushing your own personal morals on it.

Pro-gay marriage people are arguing for freedom.
Anti-gay marriage people are arguing for their own morals.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 07-14-2004, 03:14 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky
Then why the hell not call it all "civil-union" when issued by the government and leave marriage to the religious so they don't worry about it's God given definition being violated. Oh, that makes too much sense, sorry I mentioned it.


Laws should not be made because of something in the bible.

If we are going to start making laws because of the christian bible then we also need to allow laws to be made in the same sense that are from something such as the satanic bible.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 07-14-2004, 03:19 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#74  

Wren5
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody
Laws should not be made because of something in the bible.

If we are going to start making laws because of the christian bible then we also need to allow laws to be made in the same sense that are from something such as the satanic bible.
If it is the will of the people that law not prohibted by the constitution be made out of the Christian Bible, then democracy demands that such laws be made. If we all decide to be atheists then the obvious similar idea is also true.
Old 07-14-2004, 03:36 AM Wren5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.