quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover No. It means that I believe they have the natural right to make that choice to practice their homosexual ways. And don't even start with that 'it's the way they are crap' with me. I don't believe that for a second and this was discussed at length in another thread already on anti-gay marriage. If these people want an entire society to financially support their ways the burden of proof lies on them provide overwhelming evidence that it is not choice but 'how they are'. Even if there was overwhelming evidence that it was genetic that still doesn't mean a state should have to support it. Democracy isn't always fair to everyone and it's time you people woke up and smelled the flowers. Do I have the right to run around exposing myself or engaging in gay acts in public? What about in your country? Other people may find that offensive if allowed. Yet many would say they should because it's their natural right. Well obviously there are limits to what democratic societies allow since too many rights allow infringement on others rights also. It is a balance and the US has done quite well for 200 years now.

For me democracy is more than just the people choosing the government, its about treating everyone equal

i guess we think different and you will probably never change your opinion, nor will i, so i give up

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also? Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way. The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here. The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution. Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state.

So it's acceptable to to impose your beliefs on others as long as it's the majority doing the imposing upon a minority?

By voting against gay marriage, you make the statement that you believe that it's perfectly reasonable to deny gay individuals, for example, the right to sue someone for harming or killing their partner, since that right can be obtained only by marriage. If this isn't based on your beliefs, what is it based on? And if it is based on your beliefs, how is denying gay couples a basic right given to heterosexual couples for no reason other than your beliefs not imposing your beliefs upon them?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So it's acceptable to to impose your beliefs on others as long as it's the majority doing the imposing upon a minority? By voting against gay marriage, you make the statement that you believe that it's perfectly reasonable to deny gay individuals, for example, the right to sue someone for harming or killing their partner, since that right can be obtained only by marriage. If this isn't based on your beliefs, what is it based on? And if it is based on your beliefs, how is denying gay couples a basic right given to heterosexual couples for no reason other than your beliefs not imposing your beliefs upon them?

In all democracies there will exist a majority who will vote based on their personal beliefs. However, you can't target everything you don't agree with to christianity. There are many more religions in this country than just christianity. Are you trying to take away from the fundamental process of democracy? You are trying to make a an argument that what a majority of people in a society vote is meaningless and irrelevant. You aren't supporting democracy, you are supporting a kind of socialist society now.


Democracy is based on a majority rule it is not a utopian society where everyone recieves complete equality. And naturally, a person doesn't have to live there either do they? The gays can buy some deserted island somewhere and create their own democracy where they are the majority. If a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage and give it equal benefits, that power is granted to them under the constitution as long they are not denying them any natural rights.

It's so ironic that so many of you liberals don't even understand what a democracy is. You are so far left that you are trying to turn democracy into socialism. There are many things in a democracy that are not equal. How come I don't get to make as much money as some other dude? Is that fair? So what if he has more education or training, shouldn't I have the right to make the same salary? Heck, why shouldn't everyone have the right to make equal salaries? See what I mean. This gets us into socialism very quickly.

The founding fathers designed US democracy around state sovereignty and 'natural rights' which are God given. Financial support and benefits are not a part of 'natural rights'. All the many social programs that dems support are not part of these rights. Equal salaries are not part of these rights. It has nothing to do with imposing christian beliefs on anyone.

Stop trying to avoid the issue with irrelevant drivel, and answer the question.

You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others."

And then you proceed to cite the "majority rule" of a Democracy as an excuse to do precisely that: impose your beliefs upon gays.

So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover In all democracies there will exist a majority who will vote based on their personal beliefs. However, you can't target everything you don't agree with to christianity. There are many more religions in this country than just christianity. Are you trying to take away from the fundamental process of democracy? You are trying to make a an argument that what a majority of people in a society vote is meaningless and irrelevant. You aren't supporting democracy, you are supporting a kind of socialist society now. Democracy is based on a majority rule it is not a utopian society where everyone recieves complete equality. And naturally, a person doesn't have to live there either do they? The gays can buy some deserted island somewhere and create their own democracy where they are the majority. If a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage and give it equal benefits, that power is granted to them under the constitution as long they are not denying them any natural rights. . It's so ironic that so many of you liberals don't even understand what a democracy is. You are so far left that you are trying to turn democracy into socialism. There are many things in a democracy that are not equal. How come I don't get to make as much money as some other dude? Is that fair? So what if he has more education or training, shouldn't I have the right to make the same salary? Heck, why shouldn't everyone have the right to make equal salaries? See what I mean. This gets us into socialism very quickly. The founding fathers designed US democracy around state sovereignty and 'natural rights' which are God given. Financial support and benefits are not a part of 'natural rights'. All the many social programs that dems support are not part of these rights. Equal salaries are not part of these rights. It has nothing to do with imposing christian beliefs on anyone.

This is why the founding fathers also created a balance of power with a Supreme Court that was given lifetime appointments as a means of keeping their decisions outside the realm of politics, as they would not worry about re-elections. The courts have been an institution designed to protect Constitutional rights for the miniority. The most obvious example of this is Brown v. Board, which ended segregation for African-Americans despite their lack of a majority. Obviously the court system is not completely separated from politics, but there are numerous examples ofthe court protecting the rights of minorities, despite the contrary intentions of the majority.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others." So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

Your trying to get me to somehow announce that i'm trying to force my beliefs on others or that all christians are, which isn't true. When a group of people in society don't agree with something another group of people do, it doesn't mean they are 'imposing' their beliefs on that group. I respect each persons natural rights and the right to make their own decisions. I'm not forcing anything on anyone.

edith and if you are going to try to somehow argue that anytime a people don't agree with another group of people.. this is technically imposing their belief system on them, don't bother with the keystrokes. The argument can equally be made that homo's are imposing their perverted ways on society as well. No one is forcing anyone to convert to anothers ways, therfore 'impose' isn't really the correct word. Maybe you meant 'influence'. In which case yes, i suppose my beliefs do influence others just as everything in our environment does to one degree or another.

Last edited by tecnolover on Nov-09-2004 at 16:17

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 This is why the founding fathers also created a balance of power with a Supreme Court that was given lifetime appointments as a means of keeping their decisions outside the realm of politics, as they would not worry about re-elections. The courts have been an institution designed to protect Constitutional rights for the miniority. The most obvious example of this is Brown v. Board, which ended segregation for African-Americans despite their lack of a majority. Obviously the court system is not completely separated from politics, but there are numerous examples ofthe court protecting the rights of minorities, despite the contrary intentions of the majority.

Correct. Natural rights of all US citizens is to be protected at all times. However, this isn't the debate here. The legal benefits etc etc. that gays want for their 'marriages' or 'unions' doesn't fall under natural rights. It's all about money. Each state has the right to decide based on majority vote whether to support those unions or not. Natural rights are not an issue. If the state or fed gov. were to prohibit all homosexual relations/practices that would constitute a natural rights violation.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The fact that such a large portion of the population has radically shifted views without even acknowledging it says something powerful to me: it says that people are not basing their political views on sound philosophy, facts, or reason, but on blind faith in a political party. When democracy has reached that point, it's difficult for me to surmise how to view American democracy as anything but a failure.

You just nailed it on the head again Arbiter. Well said.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Maybe people are simply seeing a clarification of their own philosophies. Maybe the difference between the left and right has become so starkly defined this go round that people had an easier decision based on their own views. In any case, I'd hardly call democracy in America a failure when you have over 100 million individuals casting their votes. The left should quit trying to rationalize their loss--it amazes me how nobody wants to give Bush any credit. The left is still convinced that Kerry should have won, but with record voter turnout and record amounts of money spent on the campaigns, he was clearly the loser. Time to move on. Democracy worked.

I often wonder how Clinton ever got elected for a second term. IMO he was simply in the right place at the right time and Bob Dole simply wasn't a strong enough candidate that people could identify with, so Bubba got the nod to sick around for 4 more years while the Internet was rocking the market and people were making money hand over fist.

Hi technolover. I really have some questions for you here, so I hope you don't mind the intrusion...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve.

Why? Why discriminate on the basis of finances when two consenting people have a committed, life-long relationship?

quote:

It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children.

Care to support your beliefs with any research? Most studies tend to say just the opposite - that children reared by gay relationships tend to be quite heterosexual, and apparently tend to be more accepting and less judgemental than average, though admittedly scientists are not conclusive on this aspect:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm

quote:

It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also?

Argue it, then. I hope you're not going to pull out the old child molestation bit or propensity of future pedophilia:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainb...olestation.html

quote:

Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way.

The Constitution also guarantees a minority voice and equal rights between minority and majority. You fail to make a strong case on how sexual preference among two consenting adults would be considered an "unlimited freedom". Keep in mind that at the time that the US Supreme Court legalized mixed-race couples, a majority of adults in many states were opposed to the concept.

Do you think it was appropriate back then to illegialize mixed-race marriages based on majority rule? By your logic, this must be true.

quote:

The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here

On the surface, no, but please don't pretend that religious beliefs have nothing to do with this argument. That's somewhat insulting to most of us here. But the argument you do present, however, is discriminatory and prejudice based on sexual preference between 2 consenting adults.

quote:

The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution.

Well first of all I think we all understand that such a beastial relationship is not exactly consensual, though it may certainly seem like your dog humping your leg may state otherwise.

Second, I think we should have enough faith in our legislation and judiciary on both the state and federal level to carry enough logic to know the difference between a consenting adult relationship of two humans vs. human and beast. I really don't think that slippery slope that the anti-gay rights folks love slidin' down is of much use here.

quote:

Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state.

I agree, and I think it was simple politicizing by Bush and the Christian Right to push this into our federal legislative branch the way they did.

In general it seems to boil down to whether or not sexual preference between 2 consenting adults should be given the same natural rights as, say, those of different race, color, nationality, gender, and so forth. IOW, should sexual preference be given the same status as those unchangeable factors mentioned. Well first off, historically those factors mentioned were, in fact, not given same status as the white male. Only through time, tolerance, bloodshed, and understanding have we allowed such unchangeable factors such as gender, race, and color to be given the same status as the majority white male.

So why should sexual preference between 2 consenting adults be treated any differently? What is the rationale? Are you about to say that sexual preference is a choice? I hope you are willing to support that assertion if you do.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Correct. Natural rights of all US citizens is to be protected at all times. However, this isn't the debate here. The legal benefits etc etc. that gays want for their 'marriages' or 'unions' doesn't fall under natural rights. It's all about money.

So the benefits given to opposite-sex marriages DO fall under "natural rights" then, or not? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain benefits such as being able to see their dying spouse in the hospital because of their "natural rights"? Do we give heterosexual marriages certain tax breaks because they are following "natural rights"?

Maybe I'm a bit confused as to what you're arguing here. Yes there is a government financial aspect involved here, but simply stating as such doesn't explain the rationale behind the discrimination of finances and benefits between one type of marriage/civil union over another. If the argument is, in fact, about money, then you're going to have to explain the logical differences between what our government arbitrarily chooses relationships between 2 consenting adults should and should not be given finances, tax breaks, and benefits. What would they base their rationale upon here?

quote:

Each state has the right to decide based on majority vote whether to support those unions or not. Natural rights are not an issue. If the state or fed gov. were to prohibit all homosexual relations/practices that would constitute a natural rights violation.

I think we've seen enough of how Christians have historically defined natural rights. Needless to say, I tend to be quite elated when the Christian definition of "natural rights" has slowly broadened to include slavery, women, marriages among African-Americans, and marriages among interracial couples over the past coupla hundred years or so. I see no reason why "natural rights" should not include same-sex marriages/civil unions and give them the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages.

Perhaps we need a working definition of "natural rights" before we can go much further.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Stop trying to avoid the issue with irrelevant drivel, and answer the question. You said, quote: "Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others." And then you proceed to cite the "majority rule" of a Democracy as an excuse to do precisely that: impose your beliefs upon gays. So what is it? Do you want to impose your beliefs on others or not?

Arbiter makes an extremely good point here...

This is an extremely gray area. I (as a Christian) am all about never imposing my beliefs onto other people (and I cringe when people do it to try to "convert" someone) - yet this is an area where you have to take into consideration the harmony and well-being of the society you are living in.

I believe that homosexuality is a strong enough topic where it should be a democracy for the people to choose whether they will accept it in their society or not. I believe the recent vote has proven this. I also believe that if Kerry was anti-gay (as Bush is) that he would easily be president right now.

Anyway, just my opinion.