login
Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 5)
-
No new posts
|
 2006-06-08 3:45 PM in reply to: #445893 |
Pro  3673      MAC-opolis |  Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?I am gay as in "happy, cheerful, full of glee" and that is my choice. Does that count? |
| 2006-06-08 3:45 PM in reply to: #447978 |
Veteran 114 Jacksonville, Florida | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? bmacmanus - 2006-06-08 4:33 PM war damn tri - 2006-06-08 4:25 PM News flash: You know when the Jews were wondering around without their own place to live in the 700-600 BC times, they were held under Babylonian rule. Around 560 BC, King Cyrus the Great of Persia defeated the Babylonians and released the Jews from slavery where they lived among the Persians for until the Roman empire. The predominant religion in Persia was "Mythraism". Mythra was a guy who was supposedly the son of God, born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, was killed, rose from the dead 3 days later and ascended into heaven. Doesn't it seem ironic that when the Jews finally came unto their own and developed their own religion that their account of Jesus was surprisingly similar to the religion of the Persians who they lived amongst peacefully for 500+ years prior to the time of Jesus? Things to make you go Hmmmmmm...... (look it up yourself)pbarbato - 2006-06-08 4:01 PM that's a fundamental problem in the way christian's think about this, though. That homosexuality is something that needs to be "forgiven" is a problem. so if you are gay, you're just supposed to constantly ask forgiveness for who you are? I personally think that christians could do with a little more "understanding and kindness" and a little less forgiveness. No, if you are gay and are asking forgiveness in the first place, then you would also ask God's help to turn away from who you are, if you truly wanted to repent. If you enjoy who you are then there would be no need to ask forgiveness because in your eyes, there is no sin. And for your last statement, I don't believe that forgiveness ia any Christian's business. That is between the person and God. My job as a Christian is to let people know about Jesus and His sacrifice for our sins. If a person is unreceptive, my job then becomes prayer and as you said, "understanding and kindness".
Ok, I will definitely do that as I love history and research. However, I do not see the relavance in that I made a simple response to another poster and you see that as an opportunity for a feeble jab at my faith. Not cool man, not cool. |
| 2006-06-08 3:47 PM in reply to: #445893 |
| Crystal Lake, IL | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? I think whoever makes these little wristband thingies (yellow=Livestrong, etc.) should make a "Gay Marriage Ban-d" and buy their own tropical island in about 6 months. They could market one for, and one against. Whoever does it I'll settle for .5% commission.
|
| 2006-06-08 3:50 PM in reply to: #447998 |
Elite 2552 Evans, GA | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? run4yrlif - 2006-06-08 3:40 PM Det - 2006-06-08 4:36 PM Are you implying that being gay is never a choice? Then yeah, I guess we disagree. Allthough I'm really not sure what we disagree about. I don't have any personal problems with homosexuals. Is that what you think? I think that some people that identify as gay are may be straight people making a choice, the same way that some gay people who identify as straight are making a choice. But by and large, I believe that people who are gay make no more of a choice about it than do people who are straight. Of course, I also believe that gay vs. straight is more of a continuum than an either/or. But that's just my belief. I'm down with that. Thus my personal belief is that homosexuality is not a sin. Why would anyone choose to be an oppressed minority? we are about to devolve into a Nature versus Nurture argument, but there is clear scientific data that supports the theory that gender differentiation is determined by various nuclei in the brain. So at a very minimum, some of our gender identity is determined by heredity. As usual, the whole story likely lies between choice and heredity on a continuum, with your predisposition to a certain sexual orientation interplaying with the environment. My previous points were from the perspective of someone who thinks homosexuality is a sin. I was trying to point out that even from that perspective it makes me wonder how the conclusion is to trounce all over individual rights in the name of a predominant religious viewpoint when a major tenet of the religion is to forgive folks for their sins. |
| 2006-06-08 3:56 PM in reply to: #447727 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? ASA22 - 2006-06-08 2:16 PM Dude you said "Anyone who thinks that gays deserve to have rights denied to them is not a good person in my book. I don't care what else "good" they may do or have done in life." I had a lunch date with a guy I met at a wine tasting. He was the Prez of the Young Republicans in Tampa. He told me over lunch that he was opposed to gay marriage because it would cost the Federal government money to offer benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees. I said "Sooo... you would deny them rights for financial reasons?" and he said "Yes, that's right." I had no further contact with him. He's entitled to his views and I'm entitled to not associate with persons whose views I find noxious. I would no sooner date a KKK member than I would date someone who was in favor of this amendment. I see them both as mean-spirited and bigoted. Edited by Renee 2006-06-08 3:58 PM |
| 2006-06-08 4:12 PM in reply to: #448039 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Renee - 2006-06-08 4:56 PM ASA22 - 2006-06-08 2:16 PM Dude you said "Anyone who thinks that gays deserve to have rights denied to them is not a good person in my book. I don't care what else "good" they may do or have done in life." I had a lunch date with a guy I met at a wine tasting. He was the Prez of the Young Republicans in Tampa. He told me over lunch that he was opposed to gay marriage because it would cost the Federal government money to offer benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees. I said "Sooo... you would deny them rights for financial reasons?" and he said "Yes, that's right." I had no further contact with him. He's entitled to his views and I'm entitled to not associate with persons whose views I find noxious. I would no sooner date a KKK member than I would date someone who was in favor of this amendment. I see them both as mean-spirited and bigoted. That's all well and good, but the issue was a challenge made for people with an oppossing view point to express their view, to engage in debate about the subject. When you invite meaningful debate on a subject then call those that you have asked to debate "bad people" before any ideas have been exchanged, you are inevitably going to stiffle the debate. Why would anyone want to enter into a free and civil exchange of ideas when it is obvious from the get-go that the civility of the debate is going to be non-existant. |
| 2006-06-08 4:15 PM in reply to: #448063 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? I hear what you're saying. And I also hear what Chris is saying. I also think that Chris is not owed an explanation on those 16 votes. People are going to feel/believe what they want to believe and they aren't obligated to explain themselves. When I had that little discussion with MrYoungRepublican, I didn't attack him, I didn't ask him to defend his views, we didn't debate the issue. I just took note of his views and knew he was not for me. |
| 2006-06-08 4:17 PM in reply to: #448063 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? ASA22 - 2006-06-08 3:12 PM Renee - 2006-06-08 4:56 PM That's all well and good, but the issue was a challenge made for people with an oppossing view point to express their view, to engage in debate about the subject. When you invite meaningful debate on a subject then call those that you have asked to debate "bad people" before any ideas have been exchanged, you are inevitably going to stiffle the debate. Why would anyone want to enter into a free and civil exchange of ideas when it is obvious from the get-go that the civility of the debate is going to be non-existant. ASA22 - 2006-06-08 2:16 PM Dude you said "Anyone who thinks that gays deserve to have rights denied to them is not a good person in my book. I don't care what else "good" they may do or have done in life." I had a lunch date with a guy I met at a wine tasting. He was the Prez of the Young Republicans in Tampa. He told me over lunch that he was opposed to gay marriage because it would cost the Federal government money to offer benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees. I said "Sooo... you would deny them rights for financial reasons?" and he said "Yes, that's right." I had no further contact with him. He's entitled to his views and I'm entitled to not associate with persons whose views I find noxious. I would no sooner date a KKK member than I would date someone who was in favor of this amendment. I see them both as mean-spirited and bigoted. I only mentioned the c-word and "bad people" quite a while after many others had asked for precisely the same debate in much kinder terms, and not received any response. Sugar didn't work. I tried vinegar. That didn't work either except to get people calling me an idiot. Cheers, |
| 2006-06-08 4:28 PM in reply to: #448076 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Chris: Fair enough. |
| 2006-06-08 4:34 PM in reply to: #448076 |
Master 2231 Des Moines, Iowa | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? coredump - 2006-06-08 4:17 PM ASA22 - 2006-06-08 3:12 PM Renee - 2006-06-08 4:56 PM That's all well and good, but the issue was a challenge made for people with an oppossing view point to express their view, to engage in debate about the subject. When you invite meaningful debate on a subject then call those that you have asked to debate "bad people" before any ideas have been exchanged, you are inevitably going to stiffle the debate. Why would anyone want to enter into a free and civil exchange of ideas when it is obvious from the get-go that the civility of the debate is going to be non-existant. ASA22 - 2006-06-08 2:16 PM Dude you said "Anyone who thinks that gays deserve to have rights denied to them is not a good person in my book. I don't care what else "good" they may do or have done in life." I had a lunch date with a guy I met at a wine tasting. He was the Prez of the Young Republicans in Tampa. He told me over lunch that he was opposed to gay marriage because it would cost the Federal government money to offer benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees. I said "Sooo... you would deny them rights for financial reasons?" and he said "Yes, that's right." I had no further contact with him. He's entitled to his views and I'm entitled to not associate with persons whose views I find noxious. I would no sooner date a KKK member than I would date someone who was in favor of this amendment. I see them both as mean-spirited and bigoted. I only mentioned the c-word and "bad people" quite a while after many others had asked for precisely the same debate in much kinder terms, and not received any response. Sugar didn't work. I tried vinegar. That didn't work either except to get people calling me an idiot. Cheers, Let's see.... "many others had asked..." - I went back and looked. Possum is the only post before yours asking for debate. Jim's first post indicated he wasn't interested in any rationalization. So why are you bashing people for just following what the post said? "quite awhile" - I looked at the times. Your post was 15 minutes after Possums. Chris, I'm shocked at your conversation on this thread. Reminiscint of someone bagging on you about being a "lottery winner" for Kona and dissing you for it. (Which I totally supported you in by the way - and still do). |
| 2006-06-08 4:59 PM in reply to: #446511 |
Veteran 114 Jacksonville, Florida | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? possum - 2006-06-07 4:27 PM I really want to hear from the 6 (so far) people who believe that the government should, for the first time ever, amend the consititution in order to exclude certain citizens from the rights hlds by others. I really do. Especially if you can do so w/out brining any kind of religion into it. ( You are restricting the debate to suit your beliefs and noone elses point of view.) possum - 2006-06-07 4:34 PM well if they can't support their beliefs in a rational, respectful way, I sure as hell can't "learn" from them or hope to reach some kind of understanding... I'm just sayin'... I think it's a tad cowardly to not express your beliefs publicly but still vote on the poll. (Calling someone else cowardly for not wanting to debate doesn't sound very respectful to me. I don't think you can have it both ways. People have a right not to debate with you just as you feel you have the right to be married to someone of the same sex. If someone calls you names for that reason, then they are wrong in my opinion)
possum - 2006-06-07 10:08 PM Thanks for the link, Chucky. The very first hit brought me to about.com's guide to conservative politics, which included 3 pages/screens of reasons. But they truly are laughable. Here are a few snipets that made me giggle: (Saying this implies that you are already opposed to anyone's views. If I wanted to discuss this with you over the internet, i picture you laughing in my face before I can speak a word.) "The teachings of the three most prominent religions in America - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - all declare gay and lesbian sexual behavior to be immoral." uh, no, there are branches of all three that think honoring who you are, as God made you to be, is the most moral obligation a believer has. A believer. As far as I know, not one of The Big Three cares to much what non-believers do... Gay and lesbian people are free to make decisions about their own behavior, but it is wrong to try and force all of society to accept that behavior as legitimate and moral. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are attempts to do just that." wrong-o. I can only speak for myself (as a lesbian person) but I don;t much care if you believe I am moral, my efforts to NOT ILLEGALIZE GAY MARRRIAGE ( as opposed to legalizing my marriage, which I have no interest in doing at the federal level at this time) are economic at this stage. The morality that I DO hope to impose on my fellow Americans is that I am entitled to the same rights as every citizen. ( the above 2 highlights, to me, indicate close mindedness. I understand here the you were debating with the writer of the paragraphs, but I would not debate you here either because you have already made up your mind.) "While traditional marriages contain normal human beings, with all their faults and shortcomings, the nuclear family remains the strongest and healthiest of all models." Wait, some professional writer/pundit thinker actually wrote that? (insert louder guffaws) (again, if I shared this view, you are already laughing at me for my opinion.) I would think that there are certain "faults and shortcomings" (let's just say, for starters, physical and emotional abuse, drug addiction, alcholism,) that many of these normal nuclear families exhibit that might be less ideal than, say, freaky lesbians like my partner and me. Anyone on this website raised by straight married people want to chime in on your superior childhood experience? (Here you took the context of the paragraph, clearly not written by anyone here and applied it to most everyone on this board and challenged them negatively. As a child of a straight married couple, why would I want to talk to you aboutthis. You already have a formed opinion.) I maintain that, as a lesbian, the idea of a FEDERAL BAN, an amendment to our Constitution is fundamentally mean spirited, and goes against what America means to most of our citizens, the bogus research on this site notwithstanding. But I am supposed to be cut off from COJ, it's too distracting from real issues, like, my family (as vile and threatening as it may be to yours) my career (in which I work to improve literacy among the children of Wisconsin, a contribution I make to fellow tax payers' normal strong healthy families) Grrr, settle down Possum.
I have highlighted all the reasons (in blue) why someone who might be for this ammendment/opposed to gay marriage, would not want to debate with you. My comments are in red. I don't mean for this to be a hateful but just to say that if you really wanted to debate this issue with people, just tone down the anger a little. I don;t understand with what you are going through but if I ever wanted to, I feel that I would get pounced on quickly. |
| 2006-06-08 5:12 PM in reply to: #448132 |
Extreme Veteran 307 Madison, WI | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? war damn tri - 2006-06-08 4:59 PM possum - 2006-06-07 4:27 PM I really want to hear from the 6 (so far) people who believe that the government should, for the first time ever, amend the consititution in order to exclude certain citizens from the rights hlds by others. I really do. Especially if you can do so w/out brining any kind of religion into it. ( You are restricting the debate to suit your beliefs and noone elses point of view.) possum - 2006-06-07 4:34 PM well if they can't support their beliefs in a rational, respectful way, I sure as hell can't "learn" from them or hope to reach some kind of understanding... I'm just sayin'... I think it's a tad cowardly to not express your beliefs publicly but still vote on the poll. (Calling someone else cowardly for not wanting to debate doesn't sound very respectful to me. I don't think you can have it both ways. People have a right not to debate with you just as you feel you have the right to be married to someone of the same sex. If someone calls you names for that reason, then they are wrong in my opinion)
possum - 2006-06-07 10:08 PM Thanks for the link, Chucky. The very first hit brought me to about.com's guide to conservative politics, which included 3 pages/screens of reasons. But they truly are laughable. Here are a few snipets that made me giggle: (Saying this implies that you are already opposed to anyone's views. If I wanted to discuss this with you over the internet, i picture you laughing in my face before I can speak a word.) "The teachings of the three most prominent religions in America - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - all declare gay and lesbian sexual behavior to be immoral." uh, no, there are branches of all three that think honoring who you are, as God made you to be, is the most moral obligation a believer has. A believer. As far as I know, not one of The Big Three cares to much what non-believers do... Gay and lesbian people are free to make decisions about their own behavior, but it is wrong to try and force all of society to accept that behavior as legitimate and moral. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are attempts to do just that." wrong-o. I can only speak for myself (as a lesbian person) but I don;t much care if you believe I am moral, my efforts to NOT ILLEGALIZE GAY MARRRIAGE ( as opposed to legalizing my marriage, which I have no interest in doing at the federal level at this time) are economic at this stage. The morality that I DO hope to impose on my fellow Americans is that I am entitled to the same rights as every citizen. ( the above 2 highlights, to me, indicate close mindedness. I understand here the you were debating with the writer of the paragraphs, but I would not debate you here either because you have already made up your mind.) "While traditional marriages contain normal human beings, with all their faults and shortcomings, the nuclear family remains the strongest and healthiest of all models." Wait, some professional writer/pundit thinker actually wrote that? (insert louder guffaws) (again, if I shared this view, you are already laughing at me for my opinion.) I would think that there are certain "faults and shortcomings" (let's just say, for starters, physical and emotional abuse, drug addiction, alcholism,) that many of these normal nuclear families exhibit that might be less ideal than, say, freaky lesbians like my partner and me. Anyone on this website raised by straight married people want to chime in on your superior childhood experience? (Here you took the context of the paragraph, clearly not written by anyone here and applied it to most everyone on this board and challenged them negatively. As a child of a straight married couple, why would I want to talk to you aboutthis. You already have a formed opinion.) I maintain that, as a lesbian, the idea of a FEDERAL BAN, an amendment to our Constitution is fundamentally mean spirited, and goes against what America means to most of our citizens, the bogus research on this site notwithstanding. But I am supposed to be cut off from COJ, it's too distracting from real issues, like, my family (as vile and threatening as it may be to yours) my career (in which I work to improve literacy among the children of Wisconsin, a contribution I make to fellow tax payers' normal strong healthy families) Grrr, settle down Possum.
I have highlighted all the reasons (in blue) why someone who might be for this ammendment/opposed to gay marriage, would not want to debate with you. My comments are in red. I don't mean for this to be a hateful but just to say that if you really wanted to debate this issue with people, just tone down the anger a little. I don;t understand with what you are going through but if I ever wanted to, I feel that I would get pounced on quickly. OK WDT, you successfully pointed out aspects of possum's argument that reflect emotion...well done. Believe it or not, this is an emotional issue for a lot of us, and Possum certainly has a lot invested in it. And yes, often times, people who enter a debate have their minds made up already, but that's the same on both sides. These debates sometimes get heated...however, I would peg the tenor of Possum's post as mildly warm. Rather than debating whether or not her post would induce others to debate, just make your point. But forgive those of us who's attachment to this issue is more than just a passing interest.
|
| 2006-06-08 6:11 PM in reply to: #448132 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? war damn tri - 2006-06-08 5:59 PM possum - 2006-06-07 4:27 PM I really want to hear from the 6 (so far) people who believe that the government should, for the first time ever, amend the consititution in order to exclude certain citizens from the rights hlds by others. I really do. Especially if you can do so w/out brining any kind of religion into it. ( You are restricting the debate to suit your beliefs and noone elses point of view.) No, she is stating that she is interested in hearing from the supporters of the ban, particularly if their reasons for supporting the ban are irrespective of religion. She didn't restrict anything. possum - 2006-06-07 4:34 PM well if they can't support their beliefs in a rational, respectful way, I sure as hell can't "learn" from them or hope to reach some kind of understanding... I'm just sayin'... I think it's a tad cowardly to not express your beliefs publicly but still vote on the poll. (Calling someone else cowardly for not wanting to debate doesn't sound very respectful to me. I don't think you can have it both ways. People have a right not to debate with you just as you feel you have the right to be married to someone of the same sex. If someone calls you names for that reason, then they are wrong in my opinion) Why should she respect someone when she just expressed that she thought they were a tad cowardly? Do you have great respect for people you view as cowardly? possum - 2006-06-07 10:08 PM Thanks for the link, Chucky. The very first hit brought me to about.com's guide to conservative politics, which included 3 pages/screens of reasons. But they truly are laughable. Here are a few snipets that made me giggle: (Saying this implies that you are already opposed to anyone's views. If I wanted to discuss this with you over the internet, i picture you laughing in my face before I can speak a word.) "The teachings of the three most prominent religions in America - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - all declare gay and lesbian sexual behavior to be immoral." uh, no, there are branches of all three that think honoring who you are, as God made you to be, is the most moral obligation a believer has. A believer. As far as I know, not one of The Big Three cares to much what non-believers do... Gay and lesbian people are free to make decisions about their own behavior, but it is wrong to try and force all of society to accept that behavior as legitimate and moral. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are attempts to do just that." wrong-o. I can only speak for myself (as a lesbian person) but I don;t much care if you believe I am moral, my efforts to NOT ILLEGALIZE GAY MARRRIAGE ( as opposed to legalizing my marriage, which I have no interest in doing at the federal level at this time) are economic at this stage. The morality that I DO hope to impose on my fellow Americans is that I am entitled to the same rights as every citizen. ( the above 2 highlights, to me, indicate close mindedness. I understand here the you were debating with the writer of the paragraphs, but I would not debate you here either because you have already made up your mind.) I'm sure the KKK has a nifty website, too. Are we supposed to be open to their views, in the name of open-mindedness???? Are we not allowed to laugh at their views for fear someone might call us *gasp* close-minded. I'll be the first to say here - I have closed my mind to bigotry. "While traditional marriages contain normal human beings, with all their faults and shortcomings, the nuclear family remains the strongest and healthiest of all models." Wait, some professional writer/pundit thinker actually wrote that? (insert louder guffaws) (again, if I shared this view, you are already laughing at me for my opinion.) Maybe she would. Maybe the views are laughable. She's allowed to have that opinion. And we are all entitled to be laughed at for our views. I would think that there are certain "faults and shortcomings" (let's just say, for starters, physical and emotional abuse, drug addiction, alcholism,) that many of these normal nuclear families exhibit that might be less ideal than, say, freaky lesbians like my partner and me. Anyone on this website raised by straight married people want to chime in on your superior childhood experience? (Here you took the context of the paragraph, clearly not written by anyone here and applied it to most everyone on this board and challenged them negatively. As a child of a straight married couple, why would I want to talk to you aboutthis. You already have a formed opinion.) You seem to be saying that you would only engage in a discussion only if she were receptive to changing her opinion. Why should she? Do you only have discussions with people who agree with you or agree to agree with you?
I have highlighted all the reasons (in blue) why someone who might be for this ammendment/opposed to gay marriage, would not want to debate with you. My comments are in red. I don't mean for this to be a hateful but just to say that if you really wanted to debate this issue with people, just tone down the anger a little. I don;t understand with what you are going through but if I ever wanted to, I feel that I would get pounced on quickly. If you can't stand the heat, there's the kitchen door. Edited by Renee 2006-06-08 6:14 PM |
| 2006-06-08 6:27 PM in reply to: #445893 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? I am reluctantly for the amendment I believe it should be a state issue but Federal courts are taking it out of the states hands. The 10th amendment has virtual no meaning now days. |
| 2006-06-08 6:27 PM in reply to: #445893 |
Master 1641 Cambridge, MA | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Ugh, the colorful comments kill my interest in this debate. Equal marriage for all Equal people, and yes, LGBT people are Equal IMHO. If this debate were confined to equality and not morality, then I think everyone would side with the justices who ruled against the ban. |
| 2006-06-08 6:28 PM in reply to: #445893 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? This thread was pretty boring until the Chris' showed up. The amazing thing is that even when we agree, we don't get along! Edited by ChuckyFinster 2006-06-08 6:28 PM |
| 2006-06-08 6:31 PM in reply to: #448175 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? CBarnes - 2006-06-08 7:27 PM I am reluctantly for the amendment I believe it should be a state issue but Federal courts are taking it out of the states hands. The 10th amendment has virtual no meaning now days. How so? 38 states have DOMA laws, none have been overturned. How are the federal courts taking it out of the states' hands? |
| 2006-06-08 7:03 PM in reply to: #448144 |
Veteran 114 Jacksonville, Florida | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? pbarbato - 2006-06-08 6:12 PM war damn tri - 2006-06-08 4:59 PM OK WDT, you successfully pointed out aspects of possum's argument that reflect emotion...well done. Believe it or not, this is an emotional issue for a lot of us, and Possum certainly has a lot invested in it. And yes, often times, people who enter a debate have their minds made up already, but that's the same on both sides. These debates sometimes get heated...however, I would peg the tenor of Possum's post as mildly warm. Rather than debating whether or not her post would induce others to debate, just make your point. But forgive those of us who's attachment to this issue is more than just a passing interest.
Point taken. next time, be more concise. And I know her comments were out of passion for this topic which is why I stayed clear of it. I am in no place to talk about this. I just wanted to point out reasons why someone who might have wanted to, didn't. I believe it was pointed out towards another poster as well. Totally respect her bitterness though, if that is what it is. |
| 2006-06-08 7:15 PM in reply to: #448172 |
Veteran 114 Jacksonville, Florida | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Renee - 2006-06-08 7:11 PM war damn tri - 2006-06-08 5:59 PM I'm sure the KKK has a nifty website, too. Are we supposed to be open to their views, in the name of open-mindedness???? Are we not allowed to laugh at their views for fear someone might call us *gasp* close-minded. I'll be the first to say here - I have closed my mind to bigotry.
I'll leave the other points you made alone as they were good ones. However, I find that you made my point for me here. If you are closed minded to the KKK's views and opinions, you would obviously not instigate a debate with them unless you did it for the sake of having an argument. Not because you really wanted to "learn" their opinions. |
| 2006-06-08 7:33 PM in reply to: #445893 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? I just wanted to point out something for whatever it's worth. And I hope those that post on COJ on a regular basis consider it, and those that "lurk" in COJ but don't post also consider it, and take it in the light that it is meant. Several of us on this thread have argued for a more civil exchange of ideas. It never ceases to amaze me when this type of request is met with hostility. It seems counter towards the purpose of COJ, or perhaps I'm wrong, Perhaps the purpose of COJ is to simply yell at each other. I know from personal experience that in the past there have been several topics that I have wanted to chime in on and engage in some meaningful discourse on. But I have avoided it because of the type of discourse that goes on in COJ. Now I'm not afraid to engage in meaningful arguement. I do so for a living, often argueing about life and death issues, literally. But, when I do so I expect that certain rules or etiquete is followed. Chief amongst those is that my opponent will not resort to personal attacks, name calling , and the expression of demeaining comments in the form of "it's just my opinion". I enjoy engaging in meaningful discourse about controversial topics. I am not afraid to hear oppossing view points. In fact that is why I engage in these debates. And contrary to what some have asserted on this thread, we do in fact owe those expressing oppossing view points our thoughtful considered attention to their arguement. It doesn't mean that we are going to be swayed by it, it just means we owe our opponent the opportunity to be listened to in a respectful manner. Too often that doesn't occurr in COJ. There is a small group of regular posters that consistently engages in name calling, personal attacks and "it's my opinion" so live with it arguements. If debate is to be meaningful it must be first and foremost respectful, courteous, and reasoned. You can disagree, even vehementlly disagree with a persons position without resorting to personal attacks. Perhaps we should foster a culture of "meaningful" debate on the hot topics on COJ, rather than an if it's too hot there's the kitchen door attitude. Perhaps then some of those lurkers would come out of the shadows and join the debate without fear of personal attacks for expressing thier positions. |
| 2006-06-08 8:13 PM in reply to: #447786 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? coredump - 2006-06-08 2:51 PM Uhh, that's the point I was trying to make to the post that I replied to. I was pointing out the inconsistency of the position that it's okay for supporters of the amendment to prejudge gays, but bad for me to prejudge the supporters. Okay, I misunderstood the point that you were trying to make. I apologize if I offended you. |
| 2006-06-08 9:03 PM in reply to: #445893 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? In response to ASA22's post. Here are the reasons why I am opposed to the amendment: 1) Violation of the principle of "separation of church and state". The amendment would impose a single, religious definition of marriage on the entire nation, regardless of individual beliefs. 2) I consider the Constitution to be a sacred document, and I see this move as a short term political play done for disingenious reasons. The Constitution should not be used as a political "pull-toy" by any party or politician. Amendments should not be made for frivolous reasons. 3) The argument that a "straight family" is better than a "gay family" has no basis in fact. The American Psychological Association has concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as likely as straight parents to provide supportive healthy environments for their children. There is no scientific evidence that children of homosexual parents are more likely to suffer abuse, psychological hardship or homosexual tendencies. Gay couples have been found to be just as happy -- and just as unhappy -- as heterosexual couples and similarly committed to long-term relationships. 4) Homosexual couples are not to blame for the failings of hetersexual couples to remain stable comitted family units. Deadbeat dads in the inner city do not run off because lesbians want to get married. Punishing homosexual couples who wish to establish a comitted family unit because heterosexual couples can't seem to make it work as well as they used to is a silly idea. If you have two children and one of them misbehaves, which one is disciplined? 5) Restrictions and laws denying rights to distinct groups of people have ultimately crumbled, and are now viewed as being morally unjust. See the denial of voting rights to women, and the denial of civil rights to african americans. Can we not learn from our past and not repeat yet another form of discrimination against people who happen to be "different" from "us" is some way? 6) We are not a theocracy, and our laws, while they may be guided by the morals provided by our religion, should not be created to enforce religious customs. I invite those who support the amendment to share their reasoning, as I have done. And, I will not reply, argue with, or attempt to refute your arguments. |
| 2006-06-09 7:42 AM in reply to: #445893 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Perhaps my view of debating is different. I am what is know as an "Emotional Vacuum". I believe I have an open mind to just about everything. If one is going to truely debate, then they should have an open mind before engaing in it. I listen to the other person's reason/arguments and take them on their face value (assuming they are accurate). As soon as emotion is injected, I know I have won the debate...why? Because they can't/don't have FACTS to back it up. I'm that guy who listens to NPR on the way into work and Sean Hannity on the way home. I listen to the spin on both sides and gather my info that way. And in regards to the KKK website question, I would listen to them very intently and see if their views have any merit. Since I have done this before, I came to the conclusion that they do NOT have merit (shocking...I know), but I gave it a chance. The reasons behind what people do intrigue me very much. I don't shout them down and if I do get into a "Heated discussion", as soon as they get emotional...I'm in Heaven. So in short, I think if you debate, you should be truly openminded and acknowledge that you might leave that debate with a different mindset. Also keep note that the other person might too. Just my 2 cents. PS: Hangloose...(refer to pg 2), I don't know if your daughter has a sell by date, but I bet she has a Born on Date!! :P |
| 2006-06-09 8:06 AM in reply to: #448206 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? ASA22 - 2006-06-08 8:33 PM Perhaps we should foster a culture of "meaningful" debate on the hot topics on COJ, rather than an if it's too hot there's the kitchen door attitude. Perhaps then some of those lurkers would come out of the shadows and join the debate without fear of personal attacks for expressing thier positions. I think that's a great idea (notice no sarcasm font). It would be interesting to see if we could pull it off. Maybe someone could draft rules, but then of course they'd have to be accepted by all participants. And you know how that'd go. Maybe we need debate moderators. We could title threads "moderated/" Someone could volunteer, and keep people in check when they get out of line. Hmmm...interesting. But of course, the evil side of me kind of likes to watch the sniping play out...so I'm not exactly sure how I feel. Maybe we should start a rules of debate debate? |
| 2006-06-09 8:18 AM in reply to: #448203 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? war damn tri - 2006-06-08 8:15 PM Renee - 2006-06-08 7:11 PM war damn tri - 2006-06-08 5:59 PM I'm sure the KKK has a nifty website, too. Are we supposed to be open to their views, in the name of open-mindedness???? Are we not allowed to laugh at their views for fear someone might call us *gasp* close-minded. I'll be the first to say here - I have closed my mind to bigotry.
I'll leave the other points you made alone as they were good ones. However, I find that you made my point for me here. If you are closed minded to the KKK's views and opinions, you would obviously not instigate a debate with them unless you did it for the sake of having an argument. Not because you really wanted to "learn" their opinions. The reason I am indifferent to the justifications of those who would vote in favor of the ban for reasons of religion is quite simple: you cannot debate religious beliefs. Nor should you. That's why I said from the get-go that that they don't owe anyone an explanation. And you are correct - I would not have an interest in debating the KKK. Their justifications are based upon bigotry and plain old meanness. How do you debate that? Why would you debate that? It's enough to see it for what it is. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK