|
Debate
Feb 3, 2005 14:26:08 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 3, 2005 14:26:08 GMT -5
Really?? Then, for aurguments sake, try having a child with yourself and another man, locked up in a room.
I thought not......
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 3, 2005 14:42:09 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 3, 2005 14:42:09 GMT -5
, I want to marry my daughter. I want 15 wives of any age. And remember, the MORMONS BANNED multi-marrages YEARS ago because THEY decided it was wrong!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 3, 2005 20:54:57 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 3, 2005 20:54:57 GMT -5
That is incorrect. The federal government banned polygymous marriage around the turn of the 20th century in response to certain actions by Mormons. Many Mormon groups continue to practice polygymy although it is not legally binding.
The first Amendment flatly states that you will not make laws based on religion. The laws against murder, theft and the like are NOT religious based. If they were, then countries with no Christian population would be murdering freely. Heck, the Romans had laws against murder, not because it was a sin, but because even 2000 years ago, people knew that murder was wrong without having some great beard in the sky tell them so.
Again, majority votes have ZERO to do with rights issues. The majority of voters were against emancipation of slaves in the South. Yet we freed the slaves despite what the majority said. The majority of voters were against universal sufferage (that's giving the vote to women, blacks and other minorities), yet, now, everyone has the vote. Majority votes have nothing whatsoever to do with the application of the Constitution. That's the job of the Supreme Court. Sorry, take a look at Constitutional law if you think I'm wrong.
Again, to get back to Blackstar's comment about two men or two women. IF the only purpose of marriage is procreation, then those who are sterile should also not be allowed to marry, as well as those who choose not to have children. You cannot ban one group for a given reason without applying that reason to everyone equally and fairly. "The unwillingness to universalize a maxim is proof of it's immorality" (Kant) If you are not willing to extend a rule to cover everyone equally, then you are guilty of hypocricy at best and bigotry at worst. If a rule only applies to one group and not another, that cannot be morally justified.
And I would like to repeat the question, how does legalizing gay marriage affect straight marriage in any way, shape or form. See, the laws against polygamy and incest exist. There is no law PREVENTING gay marriage. There simply isn't a law allowing it. There ARE laws preventing polygymy and incest. Bringing in incest and polygymy is a straw man arguement.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 10:50:52 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 4, 2005 10:50:52 GMT -5
Actually that's not entirely correct Hussar.
Some Mormon's still marry a bakers dozen. But the offical stand of the church, it's no longer allowed by the church.
And another point Hussar, you really don't want to get in an constitutional discussion. You already started off wrong on the 1st.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 10:52:00 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 4, 2005 10:52:00 GMT -5
officialy
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 10:54:11 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 4, 2005 10:54:11 GMT -5
There's an echo in here.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 15:10:36 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 4, 2005 15:10:36 GMT -5
Really?? Then, for aurguments sake, try having a child with yourself and another man, locked up in a room. I thought not...... Why would I want to? I happen to be a heterosexual male. My anarchist beliefs lead me to think that actual equal rights for all would be a good thing. And you missed my point completely. All the trappings of civilization and technology are inherently unnatural. You can not base your morality on naturalness unless you want to give up clothing, live in the Congo, and eat grubs and whatever you can kill with your bare hands. Since you seem reasonably comfortable with some degree of unnaturalness like living in a house, eating cooked food, wearing clothing, and oh yes using a computer, you can't really claim that unnaturalness offends your moral sensibilities. Since civilization is inherently unnatural, it could be argued that going so far as to accept those who are born to lead unusual lifestyles as your equals is the most civilized thing that you can do.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 17:58:00 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 4, 2005 17:58:00 GMT -5
What the heck brought that up?? I NEVER mentioned I wanted you to do so.....
So you whould advocate anarchy for the aims at the overthrowing of a civil government? That aint natual!!!
Not at all.
Come to think of it, that MIGHT be true...
Um, Im basing it on nature, and science. As for living and eating in the Congo thing, I did that when I went through Ranger school, thank you very much.
Yes I can and I will. You or anyone else cant force me to say whatever you want me to say and same applies to me. I am just expressing my views.
In your way of thinking yes.
YOU missed MY point,like everyone else has. I keep commenting on 2 individuals of the same sex trying to have a child, and you all go off on a tangent about morals!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 18:15:22 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 4, 2005 18:15:22 GMT -5
So you whould advocate anarchy for the aims at the overthrowing of a civil government? That aint natual!!! YOU missed MY point,like everyone else has. I keep commenting on 2 individuals of the same sex trying to have a child, and you all go off on a tangent about morals!! Yes I would. It's questionable whether anarchy is more or less natural than government, after all, even ape bands have alphas. I thought you were commenting on 2 people of the same sex getting married. That does bring up moral and poltical and religious issues. Of course, two people of the same sex can't have a child without some unnatural technological intervention. That is no reason not to let them get married though. Marriage isn't natural; it is a man-made institution. It is also not necessarily all about children. I'm sorry. My meaning in the passage quoted above that response was a little unclear. You have the Gods-given right and ability to say whatever you want, but you should make your life and your message consistent or you are a hypocrite. What I menat to say is that in order to not be a hypocrite, you must either live the very natural life of a chimpanzee and base your morality on naturalness, or you may live the very unnatural life of a modern city-living human and find something else to base your morality on, like harm or freedom. I try to base my morality on harm and freedom. If something causes harm, it is bad. If something increases freedom, it is good. So my way of approaching the gay marriage issue says: 1) Keeping gay marriage illegal harms gays. 2) Legalizing gay marriage increases freedom. 3) Legalizing gay marriage harms no one. So, to me legalizing gay marriage looks like the way to go.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 18:22:54 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 4, 2005 18:22:54 GMT -5
Ill more or less agree with you except, having sex for any reason with the same sex is is morally, natually wrong.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 18:28:59 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 4, 2005 18:28:59 GMT -5
ok lets try READING their posts here Blackstar.
Because you plainly either are not READING their posts or arn't actualy bothering the READ them properly.
You have time and time again stated that the fact a gay couple cannot produce a child is you main grievence against gay marrage
So Hussar put it to you that what you seem to be suggesting is that if the only reason gay's cannot marry is that they cannot have children then shouldn't this extend to a man and woman who for what ever reason cannot or will not have children.
Which you have replied to that its not the same thing. Yet you fail totaly to EXPLAIN why you see this to be so.
Next point
Now your other reason is that it is unnatural? Well while its not to my personal tastes you are aware that being gay was actively encouraged in the old world right. Greeks, Romans and many of the other civilisations you are decended from saw no harm in it. For that matter the Sacred Band an elite militery unit of the time was 100% gay. I don't think it was until Christianity that this started to be frowned upon.
BTW are you telling me your the only man with access to the internet never to have accessed lesbian pornography?
Wrong to your moral senses is not the same as unnatural. Its worth remembering that.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 18:31:23 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 4, 2005 18:31:23 GMT -5
Ill more or less agree with you except, having sex for any reason with the same sex is is morally, natually wrong.Then explain why homosexuality is, at least occasionally, practiced by non-human animals, the most natural beings there are. Oh and check out the revised version of my previous post too. I saw something else to comment on.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 18:43:31 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 4, 2005 18:43:31 GMT -5
Did I say I was ever perfect? NO!!
SO you can judge me with your rightiousness... NOT!!! By the way, Im not judging gay, i am stating a fact, that you all seem to not get.
for khyron1144
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
Homosexuality is genetic or innate; Homosexuality is irreversible; Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural. Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals. - Animal behavior is determined by their instincts. - Nature requires animals to follow their instincts. - Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature. - Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals, It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 19:09:39 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 4, 2005 19:09:39 GMT -5
Did I say I was ever perfect? NO!! SO you can judge me with your rightiousness... NOT!!! By the way, Im not judging gay, i am stating a fact, that you all seem to not get. It may just be you use of language Elros but you most certaintly appear to be passing judgement. 'Gays are wrong, unnatural and thus by extension evil.' That is the message I am rightly or wrongly reading from your posts. How can describing someones sexual preferences as wrong and unnatural be anything other than passing judgement? BTW as a complettle asside. What tone does everyone view themselves and each other to be writing in duering these debates. I'm intrested to see if everyone gets the same impression or are getting the impression they are aiming for. Elros always seems to be very passionate about his subject matter to the point of shouting it from the roof tops. There's always alot of emotion behind his posts Galadon, I'd best describe as a court jester at times. I can never figure out when he's serious and when he's having a personal joke at my expence. Sometimes I'd swear he takes a view point he knows will be unpopular purely for the reaction and I always imagine his laughting behind the keyboard while doing so. Hussar always comes off as highly fustrated with the whole affair. Usualy he seems to want to shout and screem but is restraining himself. khyron1144 comes off as idealist and calm. As for myself I don't know. I usualy see myself as applying cold logic with a twing of amusement probably closer to an Bond baddie than I would like to admit. I'm well aware I often allow emotion into a post when either narced or laughing my head off. What does everyone else think? Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 19:48:38 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 4, 2005 19:48:38 GMT -5
Hmmm, I see you as a person who simply wants to be heard. and persistant.
|
|