|
Debate
Feb 4, 2005 20:02:42 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 4, 2005 20:02:42 GMT -5
What does everyone else think? Well challenger, I am honestly not that aware of your posts. Your avatar is so small it's unobtrusive. In this debate you seem to be staying reasonably calm, which is a trait I admire. Elros comes off as a bit more impassioned. I wish him no ill will, but he did take a position opposite mine on an issue that I care about. He and I seem to have reached an impasse in this particular discussion, so I will probably abandon it soon. Galadon does not make a good impression. He has a bit too much trouble with his grammar and spelling for me to take him all that seriously. He also never seems to give up a position once he takes it. Hussar is a marvel. Always well-informed. Almost always calm. He does seem to say are we going down that road again and similar comments of one who's seen all the arguments too many times. Okay Challenger, I reread your early posts on Hurry Up and Post, So I Can Disagree with you, and I think you came off well.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 1:30:50 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 5, 2005 1:30:50 GMT -5
Did I say I was ever perfect? NO!! SO you can judge me with your rightiousness... NOT!!! I didn't mean to say anything to condemn you directly. I simply believe that you should try to keep your spoken message and actual actions consistent. I can not say I do so perfectly, but I do believe that I have followed my professed morality of pacifism wedded to anarchism reasonably well. I can say that I have followed pacifism reasonably well and not used physical force against another human being, and even try to not step on ants and not slap mosquitoes for the last few years. On the anarchism front I have not been doing so well. I don't give orders unless others explicitly ask for instruction, but I do follow orders. Thank you for prompting this bit of soul-searching and introspection whether you meant to or not. And since you seem to be anti-anarchist please check out my anarchism thread but please read the whole thing.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 6:44:07 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 5, 2005 6:44:07 GMT -5
Hmmm, I see you as a person who simply wants to be heard. and persistant. Not quite what I was aiming for but it will do Probably quite accurate though Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 6:52:47 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 5, 2005 6:52:47 GMT -5
Heh, gotta keep the inner gorilla in check from time to time. Actually, I'm going to agree with Elros for a second here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his attitude. It's his point of view and he's 100% entitled to it. I disagree with it, but, that in no way entitles me to stop him from having that point of view. What I do have entitlement to is preventing people from using purely religious reasons from making laws. The First Amendment specifically states against that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That's it in a nutshell. NO LAW. That means you have to come up with reasons other than what you find in your faith. Because, your faith is NOT my faith, nor is it the faith of lots of other people. To enforce your religious practices on a minority is NO DIFFERENT than Islamic Sharia law. The founding fathers most certainly did not want a combination of church and state. Considering the history of the time, the idea that they would is ludicrous. Pretty much every western state at the time was busily burying the church and removing it from politics. Does the Rennaissance ring a bell? While the Church of Mormon does disavow polygymy, some Mormon's still practice it. From here
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 7:19:53 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 5, 2005 7:19:53 GMT -5
I get the feeling I over stepped the mark earlier Blackstar so I'll appologies for that. To be honest I was replying to a post about three up by the time I pressed post so my post had little bearing on things by the time you read it.
The thing is your only arguement seems to be that
'its wrong because it just is.'
and that just won't fly with me.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 11:24:44 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 5, 2005 11:24:44 GMT -5
NO, I say its wrong because NATURE says its wrong. In please, nobody try that cheesy " Well animals doit so its natual" crap. That was disproved long ago... next.....
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 15:17:22 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 5, 2005 15:17:22 GMT -5
you know I've never had a talk with 'nature' how do I go about doing this? Sorry but that had to be done. What criteria are you using to decide what is natural and what isn't? Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 16:17:18 GMT -5
Post by nonameapparent on Feb 5, 2005 16:17:18 GMT -5
I might have missed the point of this, but why is it important if homosexuality is natural or not. I don’t see how that is an argument for anything really. In fact I have never understood why homosexuals marrying and just being what they are, is worthy of debate or outrage. Personally I may find it gross but that is not the point, the point is that they can whatever they want. PDAs either by heteros or homosexuals freak me out, but so again does large black people. It is sad, but that’s the way it is, its not racism or sexism; its angst for the foreign and the unusual. I am sure some "normal" parents are bad parents and vice versa. A homosexual couple can be just as good parents, but the problem as I see is that society is not ready for kids with homosexual parents. They will be shunned, they will be teased mercilessly and some of them will wish they never were born. It is an open question wither society will ever be ready; we live in an intolerant world.
rant end..
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 16:27:43 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 5, 2005 16:27:43 GMT -5
you know I've never had a talk with 'nature' how do I go about doing this? Sorry but that had to be done. What criteria are you using to decide what is natural and what isn't? Challenger Guess YOU dont read all the posts either eh? Ill post this piece again, this time for you Challenger: 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 5, 2005 17:40:30 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 5, 2005 17:40:30 GMT -5
I did read it but missed what you were trying to get at.
I sort of see where you going and I realy lack the background knowledge to argue convincingly against it. I don't like the assumption that certain activities are irrational and there for not an instinct. Personaly I would have to say that canabalism is a very rational thought for a hungry lion in absence of other food. Under normal conditions it makes little sence to hunt another lion when that antalope over there is not only alot easier and safer to kill but a better meal too.
You didn't clarify but I'd assume from your arguement that natural=animal behavior under normal circumstances. But we're well aware there are several animal behaviors concidered wrong by human standards and an aweful lot of unnatural behaviors concidered complettly acceptable
So in a similar vein to the artical I ask you what makes rational animial instinct acceptable as normal human behavior? Also what makes unnormal (is that even a word?) animal behavior/instinct unacceptable?
Seeing as if those statements are true what I am currently doing and what you must do to reply is most definatly wrong, while there is nothing wrong about stealing from my neighbours.
Horrads got two good point. I'm not entirely sure why I got involved its not a question I realy care about. If memory serves Elros' first post on the subject was just the sort of statement that begs for a negative reaction and I quite enjoy a lively debate.
The point about the children is a very good one. I could see them having to enjure alot of bullying to be honest.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 5, 2005 17:57:34 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 5, 2005 17:57:34 GMT -5
You got that right!! Until tommarrow.....we battle anew....
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 6, 2005 7:27:48 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 6, 2005 7:27:48 GMT -5
Just because the children may be forced to endure bullying is hardly a reason to prevent marriage however. Given that my wee one is of mixed parentage, I believe she'll be faced with a fair number of problems regardless of where she goes to school.
The basic point is this. Homosexuality breaks NO LAWS in America. None. Not anymore. Those state laws against sodomy have all been repealed as unConstitutional (as have adultery laws IIRC). Also, as it stands, there are no laws preventing gay marriage, there simply isn't any law allowing it.
There are a number of laws specifically preventing incestual and polygymous marriage, so those arguements are irrelavent. You can't marry your sister, not because of marriage laws, but because it's a felony to have sex with your sister, regardless of whether she consents or not. Incest laws do not care about consent, unlike rape laws. You have sex with your sister, you go to jail. End of story.
On the other hand, I can have sex with another man till the cows come home and there is zero anyone can do about it.
Your personal views of the morality of homosexuality don't matter. Neither do mine. Homosexuals are not breaking any laws. Their behaviour is perfectly legal. Since when do we make laws discriminating against legal behaviour?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 6, 2005 12:26:28 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 6, 2005 12:26:28 GMT -5
So Hussar, your saying, that even though homosexuality it is morally wrong, as long as thier is no law, out goes your morallity?? Thats just plain sick thinking at best......
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 6, 2005 22:16:35 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 6, 2005 22:16:35 GMT -5
So, if I think that mixed marriages are immoral, I should be allowed to stop mixed couples from being married?
If I think abortion is wrong, I should be allowed to stop people from having them?
If I think taxation is morally wrong, I don't have to pay my taxes?
Ok, the last one is a bit of a joke, but you get the idea. The point is, whether or not you personally think something is morally wrong does not give you the right to make a law about it. Just because a given belief states that X is wrong is not good enough. The First is pretty clear on this. NO LAWS. You cannot make laws based on faith.
A while ago, you mentioned Michigan's adultery laws. What happened to those laws? Are they still in effect?
Now, you can argue against homosexuality till the cows come home. You can claim from the rooftops that it is imoral and wrong. That is 100% your right. What you CAN'T do, is make a law which enforces that morality on everyone. Not until you can come up with a better arguement than, "The great Juju in the Sky tells me that gays are teh evil."
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 7, 2005 13:43:36 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 7, 2005 13:43:36 GMT -5
So, if I think that mixed marriages are immoral, I should be allowed to stop mixed couples from being married? Sorry Hussar, but your trying to get way out of context here. Again, Im aurguing about a same sex couple. Hmmm, do you? My opinion on that is YES, but only if the mothers life is in danger. EXACTLY!!!! I agree!!! BUT, if a MAJORITY agrees to it, and they vote it into law, then it is the law!!YES.
Michigan's Sodomy Law
A successful conviction for § 28.355/§750.158; Sodomy or "crime against nature" in Michigan requires penetration (People v. Carrier, 74 Mich App 161) though emission need not be proved. Punishment is a felony with a term in prison of not more than 15 years. If a person is labelled a "sexually delinquent person" then the state may punish that person by imprisonment in the state prison for an interminate term, the maximum of which shall be imprisonment for life.
Fellatio is outlawed by the various statutes against "gross indecency"; § 28.570/750.338 Gross indecency between male persons: felony; § 28.570(1)/750.338a Gross indecency between female persons: felony; § 28.570(2)/750.338b Gross indecency between male and female persons: felony. Each is punishable by not more than 5 years in jail or a fine more than $2,500.00. If the state of Michigan labels a person as a "sexually delinquent person" then a punishment of an indeterminate imprisonment is permitted, the maximum of which shall be imprisonment for life.
Fellatio is not considered part of the sodomy statute (§ 28.355). [People v. Dexter, 6 Mich App. 247]
Consenting adults are to be punished for certain sexual conduct deemed indecent. [People v. Dauer, 131 Mich App. 839]
It is not gross indecency for a male person to touch another male's genital area over that male's clothing. [People v. Myers, 161 Mich App 215]
Michigan Criminal Code § 28.221/§750.32 makes it a felony to divorced persons to cohabit together. Unmarried men and women who lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together may be punished by imprisonment not more than 1 year or by fine of not more than $500.00 for the misdemeanor offense.
Again, sorry Hussar, but gay marriage is ILLEAGLE in the state of Michigan and in our state constitution:
§ 25 Marriage.
Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004
|
|