Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 13
 
 
Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
OptionResults
Support a Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional Ammendment
Oppose a Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional Ammendment

2006-06-14 3:41 PM
in reply to: #445893

User image

Regular
62
2525
Rochester, MN
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

Ok, sorry but I'm a science geek and tend to read a bit too much.  It doesn't seem to be so much a gene thing but more a combination of genes and various hormone levels throughout the pregnancy that have a huge part in how our brains are wired.  Obesity is just weight, it doesn't alter you as a person, and having a predisposition to alcoholism may simply mean your body is more susceptable to addictions.  The difference with these examples is that you can work on them and lose some weight or avoid drinking alcohol...but they aren't who you are...you aren't changing a fundamental part of yourself. 

Why should I have to change because you don't like it?  I believe you have a right to say it's immoral or whatever makes you feel good at night, I honestly don't give a rat's ass.  I'm entitled to the right to pursue my happiness and not interferring with anyone else's rights.  The government isn't allowed to discriminate based on gender and my ability to pay taxes is not hindered by the gender of the person I marry, so why do they care? 



2006-06-14 3:51 PM
in reply to: #454453

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
run4yrlif - 2006-06-14 4:33 PM

bradword - 2006-06-14 4:27 PM The answer to that question is it's not different. You are saying it's a choice to abuse children (sexual preferance is children not adults...they were born that way right?) but they should repress that feeling and live a lie because it's wrong in the publics eye (yes it is wrong). So the difference is, weather you think the act of homosexuality is wrong. If it is it's the same reasoning on why you should chose not to do it. If you think it isn't, you say you are born with it. We are talking about the same thing. You are just saying that if you have the tendancy and are attracted to the same sex, you should just go with it. Whlie I'm saying you shouldn't.

I think (and again, my opinion but backed up some by my knowledge of biology) that a tendancy towards alcoholism or pedophilia is inherantly and fundamentally different than *being* homosexual. Sexuality (again, in my opinion) is innate. There's no more of a genetic tendancy (again, IMO) towards homosexuality than there is towards heterosexuality. I for one, could never "suppress" my love for women.

I believe this because in part from the representation of homosexuality in nature. Sure chimps will f*ck anything, but deeper than that is how, for instance, seagulls commonly form lesbian pair bonds. And that's a relationship that goes far beyond sexual. 

I would agree that sexual preference is an innate biological characteristic:  You are what you are.

At the same time, from a sociological perspective, human societal pressure can present immense pressure on gays to suppress their true feelings in order to conform with the "norms" of their society.  Not something seagulls would experience out in the wild kingdom.

Mark

 

 

2006-06-14 4:02 PM
in reply to: #454362

User image

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

It occurs to me that this debate/conversation has gone much the same way it does among politicians.  That is, without directly discussing the issue at hand.  Out of 8 pages of posts how many are about whether gay marriage should be legal?  That is not the issue, as a few posts have pointed out.  The issue is, even if you think that gay marriage should not be legal, do you think the federal government has the right to ban gay marriage?

I brought this up earlier but this time I'll ask it more directly.  If you think the federal government does have the right to ban gay marriage, then do you think that the states should have the power to decide on the abortion issue for themselves?  If you do, how do you equivocate the two opinions?

 

2006-06-14 4:04 PM
in reply to: #454279

User image

Extreme Veteran
307
100100100
Madison, WI
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
dontracy - 2006-06-14 2:09 PM
pbarbato -

...and unless somebody says otherwise, consider the deck cleared.

OK, good.

So, do you agree with those who say that it is immoral to oppose gay marriage?

If so, and this question is really for anyone who believes it is immoral to oppose gay marriage, what is your position based on? What underlying system of morals can you point to that would show that it is indeed immoral to have such a position?

sorry to rehash if covered already, but I'm just getting back.  Yes, I think it's wrong (immoral, if you prefer) to oppose gay marriage.  What do I base that on?  My moral code.  I live my life by the golden rule.  And part of the golden rule is that you can do whatever you want so long as it doesn't impede other people's ability to do what they want.  So, we make laws that say, you can't do X because it impedes Jones's ability to do Y (for example, can't kill jones, impedes his ability to live).  And that jibes with the golden rule.  What a ban on gay marriage would do is impede on other people's right to do what they want, unnecessarily.

so, there's what it's based on for me...what about you?

2006-06-14 4:06 PM
in reply to: #454506

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2006-06-14 4:21 PM
in reply to: #454506

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
hangloose - 2006-06-14 5:02 PM

I brought this up earlier but this time I'll ask it more directly.  If you think the federal government does have the right to ban gay marriage, then do you think that the states should have the power to decide on the abortion issue for themselves?  If you do, how do you equivocate the two opinions?

no and no.

mark



2006-06-14 6:16 PM
in reply to: #454511

Pro
4909
20002000500100100100100
Hailey, ID
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

I don't think the gov't should be involved at all in personal issues of this nature. Period. Don't we have more important things to worry about?




Why do we as people think that if the government is working on one issue they can't be working on 100 or 100000 different things. If our gov. only worked on one thing at a time we'd be in a lot of hurt.
2006-06-14 8:42 PM
in reply to: #445893

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

yes. our gov't is working on one thing: war. and many people are in a lot of hurt.

oh wait, yes, they are also busy trying to, for the first time ever, add an amendment to our beloved constitution whose sole purpose is to exclude certain citizens from their unalienable rights.  multitaskers, they are. 

2006-06-14 8:59 PM
in reply to: #454508

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
pbarbato -

Yes, I think it's wrong (immoral, if you prefer) to oppose gay marriage. What do I base that on? My moral code. I live my life by the golden rule...

so, there's what it's based on for me...what about you?

OK Paul, so I think we agree that it is valid to judge that someone's position on gay marriage is moral or immoral, right or wrong, based on some underlying moral system.

I agree with you that if my position that holds the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman is not true, then indeed my position is wrong and immoral.

So, how do we know which of our positions is true? Is it yours or is it mine? If, like me, you subscribe to a moral code, than I assume that you also want that moral code to be based in the truth, as do I. So if we're both searching for the truth in the matter, then I'd say that we are allies in the hunt.

I try to live my personal life according to religious principles based in both faith and reason. (I usually fail at it every day.)

One of those principles is that one ought not to impose religious beliefs on another person. So when it comes to important civic duties like voting for a candidate, or possibly an ammendment, I try to look for the line where my religious beliefs are informing my decision but not imposing my beliefs on another.

Usually, the first step for me is to jettison a faith argument and stick with reason. The place I look for guiding principles in trying to understand an issue like gay marriage strictly from a reason based point of view is Natural Law .

Our country was founded on Natural Law principles. I think they are still valid.

Now when someone makes an argument that supporting gay marriage is expanding human freedom, I'd say they are appealing to a Natural Law argument; the argument being that it is good for human freedom to expand.

At the same time, I have not read one argument, itself is based in Natural Law, that supports the notion that marriage can be other than a union of one man and one woman. The Natural Law arguments I've read weigh heavily on the side of heterosexual marriage.

So in my own thinking, I came to a crossroads (and I should say that I supported gay unions/marriage for more than twenty five years, most of my adult life, before coming to the flaw in my thinking ).

The flaw being this: if I support gay marriage as an expansion of human freedom, I need to do it based in Natural Law notions of freedom. But at the same time, I can't find any Natural Law argument that supports the notion of marriage being anything other than a union of one man and one woman.

In that case, I then need to get rid of an appeal to Natural Law in the first place. But if I do that, then many other problems start popping up.

One fairly important one being that the phrase "We hold the truths to be self-evident..." is false. If Natural Law does not exist, then there are no self-evident truths. If that's the case, then Jefferson was wrong when he continued and said, " that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

And if he was wrong about us possessing "unalienable Rights" then all bets are off. We are then at the mercy of power. There can be no appeal to an underlying truth. Whomever holds more power, by whatever system, gets to decide what is true and then gets to impose that on everyone else.

That's not a world I want my children to inherit.

So unless I can find a convincing Natural Law argument in support of gay marriage, I will continue to suppport the notion that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

There is really a lot at stake here that has absolutely nothing to do with who sleeps with whom.



Edited by dontracy 2006-06-14 9:08 PM
2006-06-14 9:20 PM
in reply to: #454738

Pro
4909
20002000500100100100100
Hailey, ID
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
possum - 2006-06-14 7:42 PM

yes. our gov't is working on one thing: war. and many people are in a lot of hurt.

oh wait, yes, they are also busy trying to, for the first time ever, add an amendment to our beloved constitution whose sole purpose is to exclude certain citizens from their unalienable rights.  multitaskers, they are. 



That is so wrong you know it. Why must this bring up Iraq. Is that where we go when we have nothing else to say?
2006-06-14 9:25 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
394
100100100252525
Madison,WI
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

it's my bad...i said it, i forgot to use that new red "sarcastic" font....i also said it was off track.....so double my bad.....but then again, i'm also the one that brought OW into the thread, and I don't mean "open water"

I probably should have thought twice before submitting anything to this thread in the first place..lesson learned



2006-06-15 8:26 AM
in reply to: #454756

Extreme Veteran
307
100100100
Madison, WI
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

don -- I appreciate your answer...it is a different approach than I have previously seen.  And i agree, what's at stake here has very little to do with who sleeps with whom.

Because my understanding of "natural law" stems primarily from one undergrad course about 10 years ago, I'm hoping you can elaborate a little more.

You say your problem is that you can't find an argument in natural law that supports marriage between same-sex couples, but you can find a persuasive argument for mixed-sex couples.  I'd like to know what that persuasive argument is...I think that would give me a better understanding of what you meann by "natural law" and how it plays in here.

2006-06-15 9:54 AM
in reply to: #454960

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
pbarbato -

I'm hoping you can elaborate a little more...

 I'd like to know what that persuasive argument is...

OK, Paul.

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that work commitments makes it hard for me to participate in this discussion as much as I'd like.  But I will get a couple of posts together about my understanding of what Natural Law is and the Natural Law argument for heterosexual marriage.  It just may take some days for me to do it.  After I post it here, I'll pm you to let you know that it's up.

I look forward to continuing our discussion.  

2006-06-15 10:03 AM
in reply to: #455091

Extreme Veteran
307
100100100
Madison, WI
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
dontracy - 2006-06-15 9:54 AM
pbarbato -

I'm hoping you can elaborate a little more...

 I'd like to know what that persuasive argument is...

OK, Paul.

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that work commitments makes it hard for me to participate in this discussion as much as I'd like.  But I will get a couple of posts together about my understanding of what Natural Law is and the Natural Law argument for heterosexual marriage.  It just may take some days for me to do it.  After I post it here, I'll pm you to let you know that it's up.

I look forward to continuing our discussion.  

Thanks don.  I look forward to it to.

Paul.

2006-06-15 12:05 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
I don't mean to sound snarky, but if it the argument is so difficult to enunciate, how can it be credible?

(shrug)
2006-06-15 12:15 PM
in reply to: #455300

Elite
2458
20001001001001002525
Livingston, MT
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
GatorJamie - 2006-06-15 9:05 AM

I don't mean to sound snarky, but if it the argument is so difficult to enunciate, how can it be credible?

(shrug)


You're being snarky. You're a lawyer. I'd expect you to completely understand why it takes time for someone to formulate a well thought out argument and articulate it well.



2006-06-15 12:23 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
Objection overruled. My question/comment stands as posed.
2006-06-15 1:54 PM
in reply to: #455319

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

ChuckyFinster - 2006-06-15 12:15 PM
GatorJamie - 2006-06-15 9:05 AM I don't mean to sound snarky, but if it the argument is so difficult to enunciate, how can it be credible? (shrug)

You're being snarky. You're a lawyer. I'd expect you to completely understand why it takes time for someone to formulate a well thought out argument and articulate it well.

Particularly when you know it will be under very close scrutiny.  I think Don has shown that he's capable of articulating what he believes very well.  I prefer his thought out responses and arguments (although I disagree with some of them) over the knee jerk ranting of people who simply parrot what they've heard on talk radio and tv.  If he says he needs time I appreciate the care he's giving to the issue.

So on the one hand, I don't mind waiting for his answer.  On the other hand, it seems as if he'll be addressing his conversation with Paul.  I'm more interested in hearing from someone who thinks that amending the constitution in this manner is appropriate for this issue (regardless of what they think of gay marriage itself).  This is where I've been trying to recenter this thread to.

 

 

2006-06-15 2:06 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
My comment was directed to time - it was directed toward the complexity of the argument. It was also somewhat in jest, hence the use of the informal term "snarky". Geez, lighten up arreddy.

Yes, of course, I'll wait on an argument. I will say this, though: my (very rudimentary) research of natural law indicates that there is no clear-cut natural law theory regarding same-sex marriage. There is split in that philosophy as well.

Just an observation. Hold your lawyer-bashing. It's bad for training.



Edited by GatorJamie 2006-06-15 2:07 PM
2006-06-15 2:19 PM
in reply to: #455581

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by oneword 2006-06-15 2:19 PM
2006-06-15 2:19 PM
in reply to: #454756

Master
1315
1000100100100
Shreveport, LA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
I would think reading the first few chapters of CS Lewis's book Mere Christianity would explain a little bit about Natural Law, if I remember correctly.



2006-06-15 2:28 PM
in reply to: #455581

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?

GatorJamie - 2006-06-15 2:06 PM My comment was directed to time - it was directed toward the complexity of the argument. It was also somewhat in jest, hence the use of the informal term "snarky". Geez, lighten up arreddy. Yes, of course, I'll wait on an argument. I will say this, though: my (very rudimentary) research of natural law indicates that there is no clear-cut natural law theory regarding same-sex marriage. There is split in that philosophy as well. Just an observation. Hold your lawyer-bashing. It's bad for training.

I'm just working on post inflation.  I've only got a week and a half before my tri - got to get my post count up there.

 

2006-06-15 2:31 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
2006-06-15 2:32 PM
in reply to: #445893

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
there should be a constitutional ban against post inflation.
2006-06-15 3:03 PM
in reply to: #445893

Extreme Veteran
414
100100100100
Reston, VA
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against?
No, there shouldn't, and I am offended that you would say such a thing.

Bigot.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 13