12 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyThey sentenced Socrates to execution and he carried out their sentence out of respect for the law. Interesting story, that.
Ancient Greece also became arrogant and thought that their brand of "democracy" should be forcably exported to the rest of the world, beginning with Sparta. The reuslt? The result was a long hard war with Sparta that led them to abject ruin economically, from which they never recovered. Sound familiar?
They also depended a great deal on slave labor so t ...[text shortened]... in a world filled with guile, or something to that effect. Of course, then they murdered him.
12 May 12
Originally posted by wittywonka"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect.""
[b So, at the very least, I think your analogy is inadequate.
This quote, however, is where I find myself agreeing with you, currently. I see the gay marriage movement as the central means by which the gay community expresses its frustration with a society that often treats it without dignity or respect. I'm not sure I fully embrace the means of the mo ...[text shortened]... at no other means would achieve the gay community's end, then I'll support the means, anyway.[/b]
Reasonable estimates of homosexuality range from 2% to 5%. In that figure are quite a few who behave bisexually, or have changed one or more times. Whether it is a "defect" I don't know, but it is a somewhat less than mainstream lifestyle.
It is not the only less than mainstream lifestyle involving sexual behaviors considered by most aberrant. I have always believed that unusual behaviors of consenting adults are nobody's business but their own. It is also true that flaunting such behaviors is foolhardy and arrogant.
" I see the gay marriage movement as the central means by which the gay community expresses its frustration with a society that often treats it without dignity or respect."
True but, why would it be axiomatic that society as a whole would or ought to treat what is viewed as aberrant with dignity and respect? Clearly, other cultural and religious differences result in less than respectful treatment by people with opposite views and habits.
For example you refer to the electorate of N. Carolina as "so bigoted (as in, for example, passing a state constitutional marriage amendment to solidify a law already firmly secure on the books)"
I don't think a huge majority of N. Carolina voters are simply bigots. They see that even laws on the books aren't safe from activist judges, who may view matters differently than they do. You do realize that you endorse a dangerous principle, that "the ends justify the means". Add to that danger, the dubious nature of the "ends".
To facilitate greater respect and dignity of a minority, you propose altering the central cultural and religious estate of a society, actual of most societies on earth? I don't see how such means accomplishes the end. Pursuit of this means, will reverse decades of increasing tolerance of gays, as they become not just non mainstream but adversaries of traditional lifestyles.
13 May 12
Originally posted by normbenignYou can dress it up as much you like but bigotry is bigotry. To pretend that it is okay to treat section of the community differently to the rest of that conmutity is just wrong. The rationale you are actually presenting to defend this bigotry is that it might upset the bigots. News flash; bigots are always getting upset, it is their own little fetish; they enjoy getting hot under the collar over what total strangers do with their bits and pieces. Also; marginalising 'the other' gives them the illusion of power and membership of the in group.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect.""
Reasonable estimates of homosexuality range from 2% to 5%. In that figure are quite a few who behave bisexually, or have changed one or more times. Whether it is a "defect" I don't know, but it is a somewhat less than mainstr ...[text shortened]... ey become not just non mainstream but adversaries of traditional lifestyles.
In order to justify the status quo you have to demonstrate that giving gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples will harm society in some concrete way and that does include hurting the sensetivities of a particular religous group or groups, there is no such thing as a god given rightt to oppress.
13 May 12
Originally posted by normbenign(Shrug) Until the mid 1980's the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriages were "immoral". It's a fair bet that the percentage of North Carolinians who believed the same thing was higher.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect.""
Reasonable estimates of homosexuality range from 2% to 5%. In that figure are quite a few who behave bisexually, or have changed one or more times. Whether it is a "defect" I don't know, but it is a somewhat less than mainstr ...[text shortened]... ey become not just non mainstream but adversaries of traditional lifestyles.
Natural Rights like Equal Protection are not subject to majority votes. "Traditional lifestyles" are not a legitimate subject of governmental action and any true libertarian would not essay the arguments you are now making.
13 May 12
Originally posted by normbenignIn what sense have gays in for example the Netherlands acted as "adversaries of traditional lifestyles" since gay marriage was legalized?
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but regardless let me clarify that I most certainly do not view homosexuality as a "defect.""
Reasonable estimates of homosexuality range from 2% to 5%. In that figure are quite a few who behave bisexually, or have changed one or more times. Whether it is a "defect" I don't know, but it is a somewhat less than mainstr ...[text shortened]... ey become not just non mainstream but adversaries of traditional lifestyles.
13 May 12
I heard this on comedy central, I don't know the comedian:
"I don't understand what the problem is if a State legalizes same-sex marriage. I mean, it's not like that's gonna change God's position. Rest easy my religious friends, God will still send them all to hell. So stop worrying."
Voila.
Problem solved.
13 May 12
Originally posted by no1marauder(Shrug) And some people think that open marriages are OK. And some people like having sex with their car. And some people think that sheep are "hot". So what? Why on earth is the secular state in the middle of this mess by endorsing any sexual union of any kind?
[b](Shrug) Until the mid 1980's the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriages were "immoral". It's a fair bet that the percentage of North Carolinians who believed the same thing was higher.
13 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyA marriage is not an "endorsement", but a legal construct having ramifications for things such as adoption, inheritance, custody etc.
(Shrug) And some people think that open marriages are OK. And some people like having sex with their car. And some people think that sheep are "hot". So what? Why on earth is the secular state in the middle of this mess by endorsing any sexual union of any kind?
13 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyThen argue for the dissolution of marriage not the continuation of a special status for straight people.
(Shrug) And some people think that open marriages are OK. And some people like having sex with their car. And some people think that sheep are "hot". So what? Why on earth is the secular state in the middle of this mess by endorsing any sexual union of any kind?
13 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57He does occasionally make that argument, but the existence of legally sanctioned marriage never seemed to bother him until it became increasingly likely that gays would soon be legally entitled to enter it.
Then argue for the dissolution of marriage not the continuation of a special status for straight people.
13 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyThey aren't "endorsing" a "sexual union".
(Shrug) And some people think that open marriages are OK. And some people like having sex with their car. And some people think that sheep are "hot". So what? Why on earth is the secular state in the middle of this mess by endorsing any sexual union of any kind?
13 May 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI would guess he'll slap me about a bit when he logs back on then (do not tell him about me being a masochist)😉
He does occasionally make that argument, but the existence of legally sanctioned marriage never seemed to bother him until it became increasingly likely that gays would soon be legally entitled to enter it.
I have noticed that the anti gay marriage lobby constantly avoid saying that they are anti gay marriage, instead they come on as affronted about the exclusion of some other group, such as polygamists. This is missing the point that people choose to be polygamous or adhere to a religious doctrine whereas the consensus is that gay people are not making a lifestyle choice anymore than straight people are, they just are gay, and have a right to the same legal protection; within, and for their relationships.
13 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Whether people "chose" to be gay or not is irrelevant IMO.
I would guess he'll slap me about a bit when he logs back on then (do not tell him about me being a masochist)😉
I have noticed that the anti gay marriage lobby constantly avoid saying that they are anti gay marriage, instead they come on as affronted about the exclusion of some other group, such as polygamists. This is missing the point that people choo ...[text shortened]... st are gay, and have a right to the same legal protection; within, and for their relationships.