| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2005 06:14:14 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I can fully understand why you "want" the same rights granted to "everyone else in this country", but consider the following:
On average, "estimates" of the homosexual population as a percentage of all adults in the U.S. is around 5%. And if you are correct, all they want are the same "rights" as married people - or as you call them "everyone else in this country". The actual percentage of "everyone else in the country" ( married adults ) is about 45%.
The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. also want the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country". Or to put it in perspective, the nearly 45% who pay ZERO taxes.
If the government grants homosexuals the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country" ( 45% ), then would I be right in assuming that you would support legislation that makes it a "right" for the top 5% of income earners to pay ZERO taxes, just like "everyone else in the country" ( also 45% )?
All we want are the same rights as "everyone else in the country".
But the question remains - are "wants" sufficient to force a change in the law? If so, then what's your beef? The [majority of] voters in Texas have expressed THEIR "wants" at the polls. And their wants are different than yours. And you seem to be upset at that. Aren't they entitled to the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country"? The right to vote their conscience?
You can go around and around on this, but when it comes to the end, not everyone gets what they want. Some have to live with what they do NOT want. Like those who are ashamed to be Texans. |
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 06:16:23 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But the question remains - are "wants" sufficient to force a change in the law? If so, then what's your beef? The [majority of] voters in Texas have expressed THEIR "wants" at the polls. And their wants are different than yours. And you seem to be upset at that. Aren't they entitled to the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country"? The right to vote their conscience?
You can go around and around on this, but when it comes to the end, not everyone gets what they want. Some have to live with what they do NOT want. Like those who are ashamed to be Texans. |
So, if a majority in the State of, say, Delaware, voted to deny certain civil liberties to, say, Native Americans, this would be OK with you? Everything's according to the collective conscience of the particular demographic? Nothing's universal, "right", set in stone?
I can't believe you said that...
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 06:19:56 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Scott,
I must admit that this is the post I really like, and I can really agree with you - mostly. However, ask yourself: how many gays and lesbians did you notice walk out of the city halls married in the past 20 years (except for the recent media frenzy and sensationalism caused by the prohibition)? Amd how many naked women/men, Paris Hilton reality shows etc. do you watch on a daily basis on TV etc? What is the real problem here - and what is the solution?
As long as the most viewed show is the show about housewives screwing around, and similar, there is nothing that adding prohibition to the constitution would do to improve the situation.
Where we disagree is, the constitution amendment is not the proper path. Check out the 18th and 21st amendments of the federal constitution to see how well it worked in the past.
So, leave the laws alone. That's not the way to go. I don't know what is, but forcing it on people is only going to make it worse.
-Serge |
I saw a statistic somewhere recently that indicated that homosexual characters and relationships are represented on TV in percentages that far exceed reality. I'd have to dig to remember where I found that. So the gay issue is just one - but not an insignificant one - in the whole societal moral landscape, but it is there to be seen over the last 20 years.
In answer to your first question - "And how many naked women/men, Paris Hilton reality shows etc. do you watch on a daily basis on TV etc?" - the answer is none - as far as I can avoid it. But I can't even watch a "family" show with my daughter (or, without my daughter for that matter) without seeing ads glorifying all sorts of offensive behavior, not the least of which is ads for other TV shows. The most I ever see of Desparate Housewives is in ads while watching anything from news to sports. (Remember the Monday Night Football stunt with Terrell Owens last year?) So while I choose to tune out those things, it can be near impossible. Even if you choose to turn off the TV entirely, you can't go out of the house without being bombarded.
I'm actually not sure, as far as the constitutional amendment. The only thing I've actually specificall proposed as far as amending the constitution in this thread was, if proponents of same-sex marriage want specific protection, that they seek an amendment. I've just been arguing the issue itself, not this particular amendment. I do understand, however, the desire on the part of those who propose these amendments, and did vote in favor of the one in California. There, in particular, it is the attempt of the electorate to have their voice heard, when the legislature refuses to acknowledge their desires in favor of their own agenda. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 06:41:48 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
But the question remains - are "wants" sufficient to force a change in the law? If so, then what's your beef? The [majority of] voters in Texas have expressed THEIR "wants" at the polls. And their wants are different than yours. And you seem to be upset at that. Aren't they entitled to the same "rights" as "everyone else in the country"? The right to vote their conscience?
You can go around and around on this, but when it comes to the end, not everyone gets what they want. Some have to live with what they do NOT want. Like those who are ashamed to be Texans. |
So, if a majority in the State of, say, Delaware, voted to deny certain civil liberties to, say, Native Americans, this would be OK with you? Everything's according to the collective conscience of the particular demographic? Nothing's universal, "right", set in stone?
I can't believe you said that...
Robt. |
I was going to add that if a majority in your State of Florida decided, for whatever reason, that you shouldn't marry your wife, RonB, based on whatever prejudices of the day were in vogue, that would be okay with you?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 06:45:38 PM · #380 |
And for those Texans looking to move to a place that is perhaps a bit more progressive, you might consider the town of Dover, Pennsylvania:
"In voting on Tuesday, all eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce "intelligent design" to high school science students as an alternative to the theory of evolution."
From this article
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 06:50:20 PM · #381 |
| A member of my family and I have had many (friendly) discussions such as this rant thread, about a wide variety of liberal vs. conservative issues, and there is one thing I have learned: I will never convince her that I am right, and she will NEVER convince me that she is right. About the best you can do is say "this is what I believe", tell why you believe it; listen to the other side, shake your head and move on. This thread could go on for the next 10 years and I bet nobody would change their beliefs becasue of it. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:05:42 PM · #382 |
At least the arch conservatives or the arch liberals can gather strength from numbers.
Try being a libertarian!
You want lower taxes, you demand personal responsibility in peoples actions, you want smaller government, school tax credits etc, etc so you get hated on by your liberal friends and family!
On the other hand...
You don't believe in school prayer, you do support civil unions, you do believe in pro-choice but don't support abortion personally, you do believe in public schools and a few other things and so you get hated on by your conservative friends and family!
Sorta like college. Hang around with people listening to the Grateful Dead and smoking some homegrown and you are a hippie. Go to a frat party and hang out with your football player friends you are a facist.
Labels and signs,what in the world would we do without them? :-/
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 19:08:49. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:19:30 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
ok, i understand that some people consider homosexuality "wrong." fine. i get it.
what i don't get is why those people feel the need to press their BELIEFS (and they are just that) on everyone else.
my being gay doesn't affect you one way or the other. if your heterosexual next-door neighbors are co-habitating but are not married, why aren't you up in arms about that? because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL.
you live your life. let me live mine. all i want is the same list of rights granted to everyone else in this country.
this is just flat-out insane. |
Been addressed, go re-read my proposal early on. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:20:52 PM · #384 |
This really is a comical "discussion," just like the last dozen or so on the same topics. Beliefs can't really be disputed (if I believe in Bigfoot, who's going to prove me wrong?), but I'm continually amazed at people (on both sides) who will passionately rant about something they clearly haven't researched (with any real understanding). The use of the word "theory" is one of my pet peeves.
ID supporters claim that evolution is a scientific theory, not a law, and thus unproven. Bzzzt! A scientific theory is NOT an unproven guess (those are called hypotheses). A scientific theory is generally just as accepted as fact as a law, but they're two somewhat different things. A LAW explains a single process or action (gravity, inertia, etc.) that is directly measurable and often described by a mathematical formula. A THEORY explains more complex processes and multiple actions (that may or may not be described with an equation). Thus, you can explain the law of gravity mathematically, but no matter how well you understand it, a model of star formation (the result of gravity compressing hydrogen and other matter) will still be called a theory. Einstein's theory of relativity will never become a "law" of relativity, no matter how thoroughly it's proven. That doesn't make it any less fact.
This one makes me giggle... the premise of Intelligent Design is that life is too complex to have formed without the guidance of a creator. Huh? Since when is something impossible because it's complicated? The implied paradox is that it's SO complex that someone must have been smart enough to think of it. Riiiiiight! It is not anyone's place to dictate another's religious beliefs, but we can (and should) separate religion and science.
Getting back to the topic, the only rationale I see offered for dictacting the lifestyles of others (gays, minorities, religious groups, etc.) is a moral one. Funny, that's the very same reason that radical Islamic Fundamentalists hate Westerners. Americans have basically ZERO influence on the ability of average Muslims to practice their religion, but because our lifestyles offend their religious convictions, we must be stopped! I could live right next door to Bin Laden for years without affecting him one iota, but let him know that I'm American and the guns come out. Hmm... that sounds awfully familiar.
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 19:22:53. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:27:12 PM · #385 |
Someone mentioned that gays are over represented in the media, and that there aren't that many gays in society.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the numbers are skewed because many are afraid to express their true feelings for fear of being attacked by homophobic people? |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:32:35 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by muckpond:
because it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL. |
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, 2005:
"We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Story here. |
this is nuts. there is absolutely nothing in that story that has anything to do with homosexuality. i can TOTALLY understand why you're enraged by that ruling. i completely see your point.
however, MY sexual preference has absolutely no impact on that situation. it also has absolutely no impact on your child. if you want to have a conversation about parental rights, let's start a new thread. you'd likely be very surprised at what opinions we have in common.
this is the problem: you've taken what you consider to be a "liberal" court ruling and tried to apply your argument against it to the supposedly "liberal" discussion at hand. your beef is apparently with ALL "liberal" politics and you're getting your arguments confused.
what i don't understand is why you think that tolerance is such an awful thing to impart upon your children. is it acceptable for them to be racially prejudiced? what makes this situation different? |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 07:56:48 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Show me where Iâve claimed absolute knowledge. Iâve simply stated that religious and non-religious people can conduct science as opposed to your bizarrely stated belief that no â ârealâ scientist can in fact be an atheist.â Iâve made no other claim in regarding to that statement. |
An atheist says there is no god. That is an absolute claim. And therefore requires absolute knowledge.
Were you to say I see no evidence of a god. Which would place you under the agnostic category. I'd have no issue.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Youâre confused in your statement. Youâre conflating the scientific search for evidence of possible other intelligent design in the universe with a positive belief in the existence of other intelligent life in the universe. The search is scientific, a positive belief without evidence is not. |
Neigh, I am equating the fact that you leave no room for a search for a search for god. But accept a search for other intelligent life as scientific. We currently have neither the means nor evidenced for finding either. And if we can not even find life on par with our level of development and existence. How can you have even the mediocre ability to find evidence of it on a much higher plane and/or development level?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
we âknowâ that there is life on the planet Earth in our universe. We even define some portion of this life on Earth as intelligent. It is possible to extrapolate that there is the âpossibilityâ of life on other planets within the same universe consisting of billions of other stars and possibly billions of other |
Interesting...as I applied the same extrapolation to intelligent design. We have evidence of informational and processing code that was written by programmers. We see code that is similar in design. How is it illogical to extrapolate that it too might have been written by a programmer. Heck, the programmer could even be a much more intelligent form than us. (We see that scenario all the time in science fiction films...and before you point to fiction. Just remember how much of science fiction of old is now science fact.)
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Since the supernatural falls outside the realm of testing via methodological naturalistic means, science cannot comment on it. It doesnât make it true no matter how many times you say otherwise. |
How do you know that....in fact, if one believes that God created the universe...the entire natural was a super-natural act. The question of observability. I have yet to observe an alien. Therefore they do not exist. They are super-natural. Can you show me observed evidence of aliens in the natural world? no....so then ALIENS DO NOT EXIST. Why, because if you apply the logic you do to God. Then how do you know there are not natural observances that you just haven't witnessed. Or even more, understood.
What if the "weak force" was in fact an act of God. And you were merely observing it. Can you explain WHY the weak force attracts and acts like it does? Or do you simply accept that it does. Are you so very sure that you have not in fact observed the acts of God?
Originally posted by "milo655321":
No, it is not âin fact magicâ to those who lack understanding. |
Please, go read Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". Go visit an unbefore discovered tribal nation. Bring your technology and see if they do not think it magic.
One can easily argue there is no magic...there is simply knowledge and it's application.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Re: Atoms - We still only observe them indirectly. |
Now we do...but 100 yrs ago we didn't.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Originally posted by theSaj:
To say that lack of ability to observe what once was considered unobservable but now is observable - one would have to say that during the time of the greeks, and even more recently in pre-modern times... no one could say anything about "atoms" as they could not be observed.
Firstly, this first part of your sentence is an incomplete thought. Secondly, youâre wrong about the history of science. Plenty was hypothesized about atoms before tests were developed and they were actually indirectly observed.
|
Exactly, I guess you missed that that was exactly my point. And right now, much is hypothesized regarding the possibility of an intelligent influence on our design. The fact that we have not directly observed god does not negate the potentiality of god's existance.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Youâve really got a screwy idea of what science is and does, donât you? Seriously. Read some books on actual science and stop making things up. Science is about method, itâs not about philosophy. You run into the troubles youâre apparently having when you confuse the two.
|
Mine are quite well grounded. And furthermore, I find it rather insightful that you constantly avoid my questions and arguments and simply dismiss them unaddressed and repeatedly return to ad hominems.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Genes that are in the genetic code but are âbrokenâ. Humans have the gene to synthesize Vitamin C, but it doesnât work. Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have the same exact broken gene, broken in exactly the same place.
|
You think that is some challenge for me? Goodness gracious. I am a programmer. I've watched the computer system crash and corrupt a file. I also am fully aware of the scientific evidence compiled regarding the effect of solar radiation and environmental damage on the DNA code. Thus, to tell me that the code is damaged in certain places is no big leap of understanding.
Furthermore, in my personal beliefs and understandings the world had a major crash. (Think Universe = Microsoft Windows infected with viruses and spyware. *lol*)
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Originally posted by "theSaj":
This is very much akin to the "programming languages" used by us. These are designed.
|
Or theyâre not, but have the appearance of design. As Iâve written, in some cases, with a jury-rigged design.
|
A jury rigged design. Oh please Great Milo....tell me of what program have you written that was not designed. Java, C++, Fortran, etc. And they all go to machine code which still had to be designed. And even if you wrote your own language from scratch at the hardware binary level. That still requires quite a bit of intelligence.
Originally posted by "Judith Polakoff":
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. So you have a homosexual couple living next door to you now, unmarried. If that same homosexual couple were living next door to you but they were married, has the fact of their marriage affected your life one iota? |
Actually I have, in this thread any many others. See, it's not about me just living my life and they theirs. It's about demanding that I accept their lifestyle.
How does it affect?
a) if I am a business owner, I get sued if I do not want to hire a homosexual
b) I then get sued after being forced to hire the homosexual for not paying "benefits" for their significant other
And this is FORCED....because when a church that believes homosexuality is wrong is forced to hire a janitor that is homosexual, than sued for benefits. You are not letting us just live our lives. You are forcing your beliefs on us.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 08:08:53 PM · #388 |
This is for Ronb and ScottK and any one else who care to read it:
My whole point in my last several posts is this:
All of these christian extremists who are trying to push their ideals and "morals" on the other 67% of the world need to get a friggin clue. Your bible is twisted and wrong for 67% of the world. it might be right for you, and fine, i hope it is (at least some parts, other parts are totally sick) but don't try to push your religion and your bible and your god on the rest of us.
this is what YOUR god and YOUR bible says about gay men:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)
yeah, there are about 25 translations of this phrase, but they all say basically the same thing. That gay people should be killed.
that's just sick.
so stop pushing your religion on the rest of us as fact, when there is nothing factual about the bible.
Yeah, i believe in god, goddess, allah, whatever you want to call it, i'm just sick and tired of all you extremists pushing your crap on the rest of us as if you're all high and mighty. gay couples aren't going to your churches and having gay sex on the alter, so get the hell out of their bedrooms with your fire and brimstone sermons about how god hates them and they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:06:42 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
An atheist says there is no god. That is an absolute claim. And therefore requires absolute knowledge. |
NOT believing in something doesn't require any more knowledge than believing. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:52:57 PM · #390 |
My imaginary man in the sky can beat up your imaginary man in the sky!
I support gay marriage...Everyone should be allowed to be as miserable as I am.
Howard Stern |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:05:22 PM · #391 |
| For the record, I'm homophobic and proud of it. It's one of my God given rights. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:36:05 PM · #392 |
I dont really care about it one way or another.
But, if some trampy cheerleaders want to get it on the the bathroom at a club, thats okay with me.
But seriously, one if my sisters is gay, and thinks getting married to her GF is "stupid".
I worried more about my breakfast in the morning then the way the outcome of this prop came out. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:54:25 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by "Judith Polakoff":
You still haven't addressed the question about how homosexuals marrying will affect you. |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Actually I have, in this thread any many others. |
I wasn't addressing you, Saj. I was addressing RonB.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:52:23 AM · #394 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
An atheist says there is no god. That is an absolute claim. And therefore requires absolute knowledge. |
I think that this is the basic fault of your premise, Jason, from which quite a bit of your argument fallaciously stems. Atheism comes in many forms. Principally, it is an absence in belief, not denial of existence of a deity. I give myself up as one example of an atheist.
I reject all religions (they cannot all be right, and I think that in past times we as a race in our various societies were more predisposed to explaining the unknown away as "magic" often attributed to some greater power).
If no organised religion, what about some more general deity? I don't see the need to explain anything in human society, the planet, or what we observe around us by reference to a deity. There are more plausible, often observable, explanations. I accept that the unknown is there as regards what is "beyond" the universe in time or space (though that may be irrelevant) and that one answer might be something akin to what we currently consider to be a deity. But I think it more likely that the answer to the unknowns (and possibly unknowables) will be very different from the common perception of a "god".
So: I don't believe in organised religion. I don't believe that we need to explain things away by saying "god did it", or that a deity of some other kind exists.
Some people claim that this is a "belief" in itself: the belief in the absence of a god. This strikes me as a weak argument, because I do not think that it is the natural state to believe in a god, from which I am removing myself (in which case I might need to justify my reasons for opposing my common state), but rather I am refusing to be drawn into a societal construct based upon a specific belief. The existence of a God is no more plausible than that of goblins, fairies and trolls.
I don't think that this is inconsistent with interpreting the world using the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 06:54:33 AM · #395 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
For the record, I'm homophobic and proud of it. It's one of my God given rights. |
Where do rights come from?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:12:43 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
For the record, I'm homophobic and proud of it. It's one of my God given rights. |
There is no god, you have no rights. You're just wrong, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:17:31 AM · #397 |
FYI
A change in the law in the UK will take place next month, legalising homosexual unions, the fifth country to to do so after ~Spain, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands. The Civil Partnership Act will enable homosexuals to have enhanced property, pension, social security,and inheritance rights and create a legal status of "civil partners".
These same sex union ceremonies will take place in Register Offices where hetrosexual marriages take place at present and where, up to now, same sex "committment ceremonies" have been taking place.
Partners will be able to dissolve the partnerships in the equivalent of a divorce.
A big step towards equal rights for all people IMO!
P
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:25:55 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...I accept that the unknown is there as regards what is "beyond" the universe in time or space (though that may be irrelevant) and that one answer might be something akin to what we currently consider to be a deity. But I think it more likely that the answer to the unknowns (and possibly unknowables) will be very different from the common perception of a "god".
|
Your explanation perfectly mirrors my "belief" (as I cannot know for fact).
However, I think that your description defines an agnostic more than an atheist. The fact that you are "willing" to believe in the possible existance of a god versus stating, without a doubt, there is no god.
Oh, and if their is a "God", he doesn't 'give' rights. Rights are self evident and owned, at birth, by all men and women. It's this whole idea by some people of 'earning' rights and that they are there to be distributed like christmas presents that burns me up.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 08:30:35. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:29:38 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
For the record, I'm homophobic and proud of it. It's one of my God given rights. |
So your scared of homosexuals and you think your god gave you a right to be scared of gay people?
And your proud to be afraid of gay people?
are you proud to be insecure because it's your god given right?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:38:11 AM · #400 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Rights are self evident and owned, at birth, by all men and women. It's this whole idea by some people of 'earning' rights and that they are there to be distributed like christmas presents that burns me up. |
Tell that to the blacks, women, indians, political critics... most of whose rights only became "self evident" in the past few hundred (or dozen) years out of the thousands or millions of years that we've been around. There are no shortage of references that favor slavery in the bible. So much for "all" men. |
|
