New Jersey legalizes medical marijuana...and bans gay marriage

[archimage_a]

1)Just because 1 person thinks something doesn't make it true either...If we are talking about rape or beastiality then who, bar humans, can decide if it is right or wrong?

God? Which God?

Morality? Who's Morality?

You prove no way of making these decision, except the world according to you. Or by the some total of feelings, as defined by each individual, personally.

2) True. But more people are gaining that understanding. Can that be said for black people? There is no more understanding now than there was when the American Civil War broke out, there is just resentment and oppression of white people. Yeah there is a Black US president....And? Is it because he is equal or is it because he is black?

The United States cut a line straight across the country and created racists and equalists(Or whatever). You can be one or the other and if you are a racist then it goes on your record and forever you are a racist.

Homosexuality though isn't about it being right or wrong, it is about the shades of 'wrongness'....You can be murderingly against it, then maimingly against it, then verbably against it, then against it, then against it with people you know, then against it involving you, then against it being equal to marriage, then against it being repressed, then against it not being equal, then against hetrosexuality and so on....There are countless shades and so those who are violently opposed to it can slowly come to terms with it, safe in the knowladge that things are moving at a rate THEY are happy with.

3) Fair enough... We will just legalise raping 12 year old children then(unless you happen to be 12 then we will wait till next year) After all, your not doing it, it shouldn't be in your power to stop those who wish to.

4) I am comfortable in my understanding of free speech.

I disagree with the concept though. It is highly flawed...People without knowladge forming an opinion and then arguing with people who do have knowladge, on the same level....Its like asking the Pope and a random person on the street what Catholism means to Catholics....The random person on the street is probably not going to be a Catholic, but they will probably give it a go anyway, talking about themselves, people they know or about stuff they have heard about from wherever. People are left feeling that Catholism is something it isn't because someone, who seemingly had authority, was allowed to talk about it with someone who did have authority.

Far better is the idea of freedom and life by example....Rather than tell people how to act you show people how to act and then they decide if they want to do as you do.

5) I see. So you are saying 4 hours(for ease) of one person's life is worth more than 1 hour of 4 different people's lives?

Personally there is everything wrong with the idea, but going beyond my base reaction I see that it is the 'best', likely, outcome...4 people suffering silently for the benefit of 1 person who is unchanged, verses 4 people who are satisfied, with a slight increase in happiness at the expense of one person who is now suffering silently(or verbally).

We don't have to like or agree with the truth, I think that was your first point...the truth is the truth regardless of what we want it to be.

[Zierro]

It's two against one, and yet you are still persistently debating with us....

 

That's the spirit! :thumbsup:

[Romy]

1)Just because 1 person thinks something doesn't make it true either...If we are talking about rape or beastiality then who, bar humans, can decide if it is right or wrong?

God? Which God?

Morality? Who's Morality?

You prove no way of making these decision, except the world according to you. Or by the some total of feelings, as defined by each individual, personally.

2) True. But more people are gaining that understanding. Can that be said for black people? There is no more understanding now than there was when the American Civil War broke out, there is just resentment and oppression of white people. Yeah there is a Black US president....And? Is it because he is equal or is it because he is black?

The United States cut a line straight across the country and created racists and equalists(Or whatever). You can be one or the other and if you are a racist then it goes on your record and forever you are a racist.

Homosexuality though isn't about it being right or wrong, it is about the shades of 'wrongness'....You can be murderingly against it, then maimingly against it, then verbably against it, then against it, then against it with people you know, then against it involving you, then against it being equal to marriage, then against it being repressed, then against it not being equal, then against hetrosexuality and so on....There are countless shades and so those who are violently opposed to it can slowly come to terms with it, safe in the knowladge that things are moving at a rate THEY are happy with.

3) Fair enough... We will just legalise raping 12 year old children then(unless you happen to be 12 then we will wait till next year) After all, your not doing it, it shouldn't be in your power to stop those who wish to.

4) I am comfortable in my understanding of free speech.

I disagree with the concept though. It is highly flawed...People without knowladge forming an opinion and then arguing with people who do have knowladge, on the same level....Its like asking the Pope and a random person on the street what Catholism means to Catholics....The random person on the street is probably not going to be a Catholic, but they will probably give it a go anyway, talking about themselves, people they know or about stuff they have heard about from wherever. People are left feeling that Catholism is something it isn't because someone, who seemingly had authority, was allowed to talk about it with someone who did have authority.

Far better is the idea of freedom and life by example....Rather than tell people how to act you show people how to act and then they decide if they want to do as you do.

5) I see. So you are saying 4 hours(for ease) of one person's life is worth more than 1 hour of 4 different people's lives?

Personally there is everything wrong with the idea, but going beyond my base reaction I see that it is the 'best', likely, outcome...4 people suffering silently for the benefit of 1 person who is unchanged, verses 4 people who are satisfied, with a slight increase in happiness at the expense of one person who is now suffering silently(or verbally).

We don't have to like or agree with the truth, I think that was your first point...the truth is the truth regardless of what we want it to be.

 

 

It's late at night and I guess I didn't quite explain myself as intended, seeing as you didn't understand half of what I said.

1) I was merely saying that the majority shouldn't dictate the minority over the majority's opinion, purely because they are the majority.

2) What I was trying to say here was, that the majority (and not necessarily only the majority, any individual aswell) may think 1 thing because he/she does not understand the concept behind it, or only partly understands it. I happen to know of too many people who don't understand that sexual orientaion is not a matter of choice, and perhaps for that reason, think it's wrong to be gay.

3) However, gay marriage does not affect those who don't wish to marry others of the same sex directly. Unlike 12 year old girls who obviously are affected by pedophile rapists directly.

4) I agree with you on it being flawed. However, that's the way things were supposed to be according to my civil teacher. In addition, the opinions I was talking about were only opinions regarding important matters.

5) What I was saying is that that specific woman wouldn't only suffer for those 4 hours, but infact carry it over. So, if we go to the scales and measure things, even though it's 4 men's "fun" as opposed to one woman's suffer, in cold terms, the woman 'lost' a lot more than the men gained. This is a very biazzare example Oo.

What I'm trying to say though, is that you (not specificly you) shouldn't feel selfish for trying to legalize gay marriage, only because gays are a minority, especialy because gay marriage affects only gays directly.

Edited January 16, 2010 by romy

[archimage_a]

1) True enough, yet they have the power to do so...So either we take that power, which we shouldn't(because being right does not entitle you to force others to accept it), or accept that they have power.

 

2) What I was trying to say here was, that the majority (and not necessarily only the majority, any individual aswell) may think 1 thing because he/she does not understand the concept behind it, or only partly understands it. I happen to know of too many people who don't understand that sexual orientaion is not a matter of choice, and perhaps for that reason, think it's wrong to be gay.

I agree that people don't understand...but if someone is learning how to drive a car you don't drive it for them...that teaches them nothing and causes them to feel put out.

Slow and steady growth is the surest way of progress...not quick legislation fixes.

 

3) However, gay marriage does not affect those who don't wish to marry others of the same sex directly. Unlike 12 year old girls who obviously are affected by pedophile rapists directly.

No more than they are now.

It is, after all, not like every man in the world has a secret desire to rape 12 year old girls...the people who want to do it will still do it, whether it is legal or not...The main reason it is illegal is so that the frequency drops, instead of raping and killing 1 girl a week maybe now it will be 3 girls, none dead, in a week.

Gay marriage on the other hand hurts dozens of people(the two people and their familes and whatever) illegal, but hundreds of people(Concerned neighbours, and their families, churches, married couples) are hurt by it being legal. The law of the majority means that instead of hundreds of people being hurt by it only hundreds and then only dozens and then only tens or fewer still are hurt by it.

Legalising it now hurts far more people than legalising it when people are ready for it.

 

4) I would say that how people see catholics is fairly important. It draws a direct parallel with gay people.... Lets say an atheist goes on TV and tells you how terrible the catholic church is and how it does so much evil and this and that and the other...and the Pope is meekly trying to point out that that isn't true and actually the church tries to do good wherever it can....Then, as a result of that program, a catholic church gets torched for apparently raping all the choir boys. I would say the destruction of a place of hope and salvation(for some people) is fairly important...

 

5) In one example maybe...But in another example...say that those 4 men were all black and gay, who had been given some drug to prevent them from being gay and thus now lacked sexual attraction to anyone, but had a sexual aversion to males. Thus there '4 hours' is representative of weeks of reprieve from their frustration, not only that but stands as something which they can now think about, to do with sex, which doesn't violently repulse them because of the drugs.

Meanwhile the woman is a criminal who burns black people because they are not equal and thus has been given the sentence of rape to show her that she is not above anyone else.

 

Thus the equation changes significantly from 4 hours on one side and 4 hours on the other, to many months on one side and 'corrective trauma' on the other...Or Poetic Justice, depending on the results

The woman has lost nothing but dignity and self respect, yet that dignity and self respect were built of a foundation of making others suffer. The destruction of that dignity represents the settling of a debt she owes.

 

So now is it wrong? I would probably say yes as well, forcing such a situation into action is inherantly unjust and immoral...but what about the men? Is it the Majorities fault now? They are still exploiting the minority....just because the factors have changed shouldn't change your opinions...They have brought their happiness at the expense of another human being's happiness.

The men have done the best they could in the situation they were given and, in my mind, that is fair. The Woman has suffered yes...that hasn't changed in my mind(hence why it was hard thinking up something)...It is wrong to rape her personally, as a rule it is wrong. But for them, not having my experiance and perhaps willpower, it is not wrong, it is the right option.

 

What I'm trying to say though, is that you (not specificly you) shouldn't feel selfish for trying to legalize gay marriage, only because gays are a minority, especialy because gay marriage affects only gays directly.

But it doesn't. It doesn't only effect gays.

Its like saying 'Our pollution only effects us.' We live in a societally diverse world. Everything is interconnected and everything effects everything else.

One gay wedding could create both a gunman and a maryta for which society flocks to. One errant kiss could lead to a child experimenting which(I don't know) his brother(we are talking 6 and 7 maybe...too young to know what they are doing but old enough to remember it when they grow up.)....We live in an extremely volatile world. One which we should not be haphazardly navigated by the compass of self interest, but by the steady heading of society...the path which does not cause the waves to crash over the bow of the ships, capsizing society...One only has to look at Weimar Germany to see the dangers of moving too far too fast....

 

It's two against one, and yet you are still persistently debating with us....

I could just say 'Super Mod', post my views and lock the thread....thereby winning...but somehow I expect that wouldn't convince you I was right.....Odd that...

[Zierro]

I could just say 'Super Mod', post my views and lock the thread....thereby winning...but somehow I expect that wouldn't convince you I was right.....Odd that...

 

Uhh, what's your point here? My point was that, even though the majority is against you, you are still sticking up for your beliefs and debating it out logically - the exact thing I am arguing for and you are arguing against.

 

In other words, you are contradicting your own beliefs by fighting against the majority and not giving us what we want, which is to convince you to agree with us (since that is the point of debating). Thus, you do not believe in always giving the majority what they want.

[Madmanpur3]

I discussed this matter with a friend and I'll sum up his take on it:

 

He first asked why they want to call it marriage then pointed out the two reasons - to make it synonymous with the religious aspect (which is "[developmentally delayed]iculous") or to get access to the benefits for marriage, provided by the government and private businesses. So if we assume it's the latter, monetary benefit to one person is never free - it comes at the cost of others. Also, private businesses have whatever right they want to encourage religious practices...and as far as the government goes, the only purpose for marriage benefits is to encourage people to begin a family and such.

 

Just thought I'd mention that because it brings some new points to the discussion.

 

As for this,

You may be from Jersey, but I think that's where our similarities end. I could see that legalized marijuana could be a good economic solution, but Im really tired of seeing our country put money before morals. Just because it's a quick and easy buck, doesn't make it the right solution. There is no way that you could possibly convince me that a pothead (marijuana user) is not a junkie. Just like I can't convince you that homosexuality is an okay thing. But to each his own.

This is what I think is the biggest obstacle facing legalizing marijuana here in the US, a lot of people are narrow minded coupled with misconceptions. If there is no way that we could possibly convince you of something, especially something like a pothead not being a junkie, then you are in fact narrow minded and quite frankly not worth debating with.

 

And adding to the economic benefit marijuana could have, the United States is absolutely [developmentally delayed]ed for not incorporating industrial hemp into it's agriculture.

[archimage_a]

Uhh, what's your point here? My point was that, even though the majority is against you, you are still sticking up for your beliefs and debating it out logically - the exact thing I am arguing for and you are arguing against.

 

Yes, I got the joke...Or I assumed it was a joke.

The point is that me discussing someting is not me stopping you from doing anything...Something which I have always avocated, what I am 'fighting' against is the idea that you can just wave a magic sheaf of legislation and all the problems will go away.

So I was pointing out that me locking the thread, rather than letting the majority discuss it and then decide, would not convince you of my argument....now would it? Far better to let it run its course and then we can both learn from the experiance....becoming more educated and maybe a little more tolerant.

 

In other words, you are contradicting your own beliefs by fighting against the majority and not giving us what we want, which is to convince you to believe that your argument is faulty (since that is the point of a debate). Thus, you do not believe in always giving the majority what they want.

 

It is not within my power to let you convince me, with your current arguments, that my argument is faulty...any more than it is within two hunter's ability to convince a bear to give up its life...it must be taken(You must create the argument to defeat me)!

Thus I am the rebellious minority, fighting against the oppressive power of the majority by way of trying to educate...Not despotic individual convinced of my own rightness to such a point that all discussion is pointless because my arguements are final.

[Zierro]

The point is that me discussing someting is not me stopping you from doing anything...

 

And what exactly does homosexual marriage "stop" bigots from doing? Honestly, I don't even see how it effects them. If gay marriage being allowed is "forcing bigots to accept something they believe is wrong," then arguing against the majority in this thread is "forcing us to not be satisfied with the outcome of this discussion".

 

what I am 'fighting' against is the idea that you can just wave a magic sheaf of legislation and all the problems will go away.

So I was pointing out that me locking the thread, rather than letting the majority discuss it and then decide, would not convince you of my argument....now would it? Far better to let it run its course and then we can both learn from the experiance....becoming more educated and maybe a little more tolerant.

 

You make heated logical debating sound so elementary. Courts, representatives, the people, etc. all debating the issue of homosexual marriage would be an arduous process - nothing like going "POOF" and simplifying everyone's lives in the name of convenience. That would be counting hands you're thinking of.

 

I might not know the logistics behind how TIF officials make board decisions, but I'm inclined to believe, with the presence of intelligence around here, it is more of an open discussion rather than just a poll. (I could be wrong though.)

 

That's how I think controversial issues should be worked out in the government. Basing a system entirely off of what the majority wants is way too shallow (and scary). Should population have a role in the choices our government makes? Absolutely. But it should not be limited to just that. If 55% of Americans don't want gays to marry, the government should take that as a factor to take into account when it comes to the debate. It should not be the final solution to the dispute. It should be weighed in the same way that any other logical point is weighed in: "Hmmm.... 55% of Americans are opposed to it. Heterosexual couples have already violated the sanctity of marriage before. Gay sex has a strong correlation with AIDs. There has yet to be any evidence that you can control your sexual orientation. What should we do?."

 

Like I said, democracies can be good in some ways, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. When it comes to stuff like this, a lot more thought needs to be put into it than a simple hand count. If we used democracy as the only tool of deciding things, then it would be "okay" to gangbang a person without her consent.

 

Not the way I like to do it, but it is the correct, societially correct, way of judging whether or not something is good for society.

 

If it is not the way you like to do it, why don't you choose to be the rebellious minority fighting against the power of the majority by way of trying to educate? Why is it that you only do that when trying to get your point across in the context of giving the majority what they want?

[archimage_a]

And what exactly does homosexual marriage "stop" bigots from doing? Honestly, I don't even see how it effects them. If gay marriage being allowed is "forcing bigots to accept something they believe is wrong," then arguing against the majority in this thread is "forcing us to not be satisfied with the outcome of this discussion".

Yes. I agree.

Maybe you should make me shut up. Because that is exactly how a bigot would think(not calling you a bigot, please don't be offended).

 

If they do not get their own way then they take the law into their own hands and do whatever is necessary to prevent what they see as wrong from occuring. This could be violent or verbal...or even legislatory....After all if something like 1 in 20 people are gay and there are 300 million people in the United States...and thus 15 million(approx) are gay....It only takes one of these people to do something stupid...I don't know, say take their child to a gay bar and while there the child has something happen, even if it is not specifically a gay act, it could be as simple as swallowing a pill and going into convolutions.

That is all that would be needed to start a public outcry, the platform for one senator/governor/whatever to get elected, start their campaign against Gay Marriage, gaining support from the masses, (which by a majority)... Thus this person could become President or some other high office, and 4 years of American policy would destroy any progress that had been made and set back progress for countless years.

How is my idea any different? Because there is a oh so obvious flaw in that plan....it could happen to any parent who goes to a club with their child:

If the majority are in this mindset that 'Gay people are equal to us' then it is just a news story.

If the majority are in the mindset of 'Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, I resent the law that says they can' then it becomes this state/national campaign of hate.

 

Then it would depend on how I have acted. If I have been courteous, responded with decency and fully explained my points and reasoning, then you look like a fool...Someone who does not understand and is not willing to understand. If I have merely rambled, made bad examples and lost my temper, then I sound like someone who is clutching at straws...not really someone to be trusted.

 

 

You make heated logical debating sound so elementary. Courts, representatives, the people, etc. all debating the issue of homosexual marriage would be an arduous process - nothing like going "POOF" and simplifying everyone's lives in the name of convenience. That would be counting hands you're thinking of.

 

I see our fundamental difference...You are thinking that I would stand in front of a room and go 'Hello, I am gay and I am here to talk to you about gay marriage.'...

I am not. That has a 1 in a million chance of getting though to anyone, depending entirely on people asking questions and getting involved.

No. I am thinking much more along the lines of me living my life and talking to people who are interested in my sexuality, answering any questions they might have in a honest way and if, at the end of all that, they decide that I am still inferior to them then they are the 1 in 10 that I don't get though to.

I have had opportunity to do this maybe 13 times in my life, almost always there is someone who is not listening, however there is always at least one person asking, usually two or three. The crowd is only about 10 people, but if I get though to those 3 people then that is a major achievement because they are almost always the loudest, the ones who the group want to talk for them, so by convincing 3 people out of 10 I am not convincing 3 out of 10 but more in the range of 9 out of 10 because that group of 10 people will go away and talk about it and the 3 people I got through to will hold the majority in their sway. The one idiot is dismissed because his or her views are commonplace, they don't add anything new and so are ignored or accepted without thought, thus are left unprocessed.

Believe me this is not just me coming up with some silly idea, I have lived this system and it has worked and continues to work. Those 9 people might have 3 children each, thats 27 people who are, potentially, willing to accept gay marriage. That is ignoring their parnters, of course, people who they randomly chat to or any number of other scenarios, all of whom potentially will and potentially won't be convinced. That is not my concern, I cannot do anything about them, all I can do is talk to the 10 people when they are within my reach and plant the seeds.

 

Like I said, democracies can be good in some ways, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. When it comes to stuff like this, a lot more thought needs to be put into it than a simple hand count. If we used democracy as the only tool of deciding things, then it would be "okay" to gangbang a person without her consent.

Really? Would you vote for that then? As I said before, is it a secret wish of every person to go out and rape someone? I know I have some strange ideas from time to time, and I have definately found myself thinking about the possibility of doing, but never in any realistic fashion...

Perhaps it would be a better system if we did do that then...Rather than all shying away from these darker feelings we should actually admit them...then we would realise that we don't need to put on such an act, we can just be ourselves.

 

If it is not the way you like to do it, why don't you choose to be the rebellious minority fighting against the power of the majority by way of trying to educate?

I am doing so, as explained.

 

Why is it that you only do that when trying to get your point across in the context of giving the majority what they want?

Quite simply? I was asked for my opinions and then I was engaged in a debate, thus I acted to fufill the role I had been given. Two people have expressly disagreed with me, but that has not ended the debate, since they both seem willing to continue to engage in it.

[1230abcz]

... Don't be hatin' on teh Guido's... Nubs... :D

 

 

 

Legalizing medical marijuana was a good step forward, but banning gay marriages... Lame.

[Giordano]

Well I don't get why you guys want weed so damn much. <_<

[indy500fan]

Well I don't get why you guys want weed so damn much. <_<

 

Safer, healthier, better and easier than alcohol. Also no withdraw symptoms. Plus there are plenty of non-recreational uses for it.

[Saru Inc]

Well I don't get why you guys want weed so damn much. <_<

 

 

Statistics prove that cocaine in a sense, gives the most bang for its buck.

 

 

 

Also, idk why I'm posting this since it's kinda off topic. But someone posted earlier about like people thinking being gay is unnatural.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32304475/ns/health-mental_health/

 

 

Some interesting reads. And its from MSNBC. ;)

[Furah]

Well I don't get why you guys want weed so damn much. <_<

Reasons why users want them aside, there are benefits to legalisation. If it is sold in a law-abiding establishment it will put criminals out of business, reduce crime, reduce the amount children from smoking it, allow the governments to regulate it, and yes even tax it. It's non-addictive properties allow it to safely be used for pain relief, and is sometimes used to help people sleep (don't know if it has been scientifically proven or not.)

[Romy]

1) True enough, yet they have the power to do so...So either we take that power, which we shouldn't(because being right does not entitle you to force others to accept it), or accept that they have power.

 

2) What I was trying to say here was, that the majority (and not necessarily only the majority, any individual aswell) may think 1 thing because he/she does not understand the concept behind it, or only partly understands it. I happen to know of too many people who don't understand that sexual orientaion is not a matter of choice, and perhaps for that reason, think it's wrong to be gay.

I agree that people don't understand...but if someone is learning how to drive a car you don't drive it for them...that teaches them nothing and causes them to feel put out.

Slow and steady growth is the surest way of progress...not quick legislation fixes.

 

3) However, gay marriage does not affect those who don't wish to marry others of the same sex directly. Unlike 12 year old girls who obviously are affected by pedophile rapists directly.

No more than they are now.

It is, after all, not like every man in the world has a secret desire to rape 12 year old girls...the people who want to do it will still do it, whether it is legal or not...The main reason it is illegal is so that the frequency drops, instead of raping and killing 1 girl a week maybe now it will be 3 girls, none dead, in a week.

Gay marriage on the other hand hurts dozens of people(the two people and their familes and whatever) illegal, but hundreds of people(Concerned neighbours, and their families, churches, married couples) are hurt by it being legal. The law of the majority means that instead of hundreds of people being hurt by it only hundreds and then only dozens and then only tens or fewer still are hurt by it.

Legalising it now hurts far more people than legalising it when people are ready for it.

 

4) I would say that how people see catholics is fairly important. It draws a direct parallel with gay people.... Lets say an atheist goes on TV and tells you how terrible the catholic church is and how it does so much evil and this and that and the other...and the Pope is meekly trying to point out that that isn't true and actually the church tries to do good wherever it can....Then, as a result of that program, a catholic church gets torched for apparently raping all the choir boys. I would say the destruction of a place of hope and salvation(for some people) is fairly important...

 

5) In one example maybe...But in another example...say that those 4 men were all black and gay, who had been given some drug to prevent them from being gay and thus now lacked sexual attraction to anyone, but had a sexual aversion to males. Thus there '4 hours' is representative of weeks of reprieve from their frustration, not only that but stands as something which they can now think about, to do with sex, which doesn't violently repulse them because of the drugs.

Meanwhile the woman is a criminal who burns black people because they are not equal and thus has been given the sentence of rape to show her that she is not above anyone else.

 

Thus the equation changes significantly from 4 hours on one side and 4 hours on the other, to many months on one side and 'corrective trauma' on the other...Or Poetic Justice, depending on the results

The woman has lost nothing but dignity and self respect, yet that dignity and self respect were built of a foundation of making others suffer. The destruction of that dignity represents the settling of a debt she owes.

 

So now is it wrong? I would probably say yes as well, forcing such a situation into action is inherantly unjust and immoral...but what about the men? Is it the Majorities fault now? They are still exploiting the minority....just because the factors have changed shouldn't change your opinions...They have brought their happiness at the expense of another human being's happiness.

The men have done the best they could in the situation they were given and, in my mind, that is fair. The Woman has suffered yes...that hasn't changed in my mind(hence why it was hard thinking up something)...It is wrong to rape her personally, as a rule it is wrong. But for them, not having my experiance and perhaps willpower, it is not wrong, it is the right option.

 

What I'm trying to say though, is that you (not specificly you) shouldn't feel selfish for trying to legalize gay marriage, only because gays are a minority, especialy because gay marriage affects only gays directly.

But it doesn't. It doesn't only effect gays.

Its like saying 'Our pollution only effects us.' We live in a societally diverse world. Everything is interconnected and everything effects everything else.

One gay wedding could create both a gunman and a maryta for which society flocks to. One errant kiss could lead to a child experimenting which(I don't know) his brother(we are talking 6 and 7 maybe...too young to know what they are doing but old enough to remember it when they grow up.)....We live in an extremely volatile world. One which we should not be haphazardly navigated by the compass of self interest, but by the steady heading of society...the path which does not cause the waves to crash over the bow of the ships, capsizing society...One only has to look at Weimar Germany to see the dangers of moving too far too fast....

 

It's two against one, and yet you are still persistently debating with us....

I could just say 'Super Mod', post my views and lock the thread....thereby winning...but somehow I expect that wouldn't convince you I was right.....Odd that...

 

1) On *almost* any situation in which 4 people want something from 1 man/woman (not necessarily rape...), and the 4 decide they should take it by all means, they have the power to. That does not make it right, nor does it mean the 1 man/woman should accept the fact that she/he's a minority, and say... sacrifice his/her son for some religious ceremony the four deeply desire.

I would like to add that, you probably can give an example in which the 1 man/woman should give away his/her son. However, that's not the point. The point is that since there could (and more than probably does) exist a situation in which a minority SHOULDN'T surrender to the majority's will. And if the minority has the power not to surrnder (executive power could be a good example), then by all means, the minority shouldn't surrnder. Bottom line of this paragraph- the possible fact that the majority has a power over the minority doesn't mean the minority should just accept it. If the minority has reason and logic on it's side, then the minority should fight for it's rights.

2) Who said the majority, in this case, even wants to 'learn to drive a car' (as in, learn about sexual orientation)? What if the majority has the wheel, and lets push it a bit, only pretends it wants to drive a car? If the minority noticed that, shouldn't it just drive the car itself? (Side note: considering the odds for a situation in which the majority will never accept gay marriage, aren't that bad, I think the minority should do it's best at taking the wheel to their hands. At some point, probably not as far as you may think, the majority would accept the change. Perhaps even understand it.)

3) What if said hundreds won't decrease in number?

I'd also like to expand on a certain area here. Gay teenagers.

Many gay teenagers live in a surrounding that does not accept "gayness", some even live in a surrounding that hates it and tries to block it and mock for it at any given time. Said teenagers may also hate gays themselvers- that's what they were taught throughout their lives.

I don't know whether or not you know this, but this kind of teenagers exists everywhere, and not by small numbers. It's been proven that over 66% of these teenagers will either commit suicde, develop some sort of mental illness (an example could be staying away from society at any possible time, blocking even the closest relatives and friends), consume huge amounts of drugs/alcohol/both, basicly addict themselves, run away from home and completely "forget" about their families, become very violent or become a misantropist.

The reason I added that information is, that legalizing gay marriage would automaticly begin a very, very slow process in which gays are accepted worldwide, and thus stop (at some point) situations like the ones I suggested from happening. Isn't that a righteous goal in itself?

4) I didn't quite get your point here. Why is it important to destruct the place (by your point of view)?

5) You may haven't noticed, but the mere fact that you said "In one example maybe...But in another example..." implies that in certain situations the minority has reason and logic on it's side, and shouldn't be giving in and surrender to the majority's power and opinions.The fact that you had to change my example to one in which the majority is supposedly right (as righteousness levels are VERY vague in that specific example), implies that on certain situation the minority is right, and shouldn't be 'quiet' about it. I'd like to clear that I do not mean all situations, only ones in which the minority has logic on it's side (and by logic I simply mean the minority is right).

 

By the way, why shouldn't my opinions chage on the account of the factors changed? It makes all the sense that I would think one this is wrong, and change my mind under certain circumstances. Each case should be individually examined.

 

 

Pollution is not a good example here, as it definetly directly and almost immediately affects anyone who is next to it, with directly being a very important part of the situation. In addition, the examples I gave you about teenagers imply that people are hurt no matter what the situation is, so it might aswell be one in which things are correct.

 

The child example isn't a good one either, as the child could do the same thing if he saw a man and a woman kiss, to his sister.

In addition, most of the world's 6 and 7 year old boys and girls already "know" (perhaps not accurately, or even moderately) that they're "supposed" to eventualy 'team up' with the opposite sex.

Well, if at some very far away point gay relations will become a part of the worldwide accepted concensus, perhaps the 6 and 7 year olds would think two men kissing is nothing different than two women, or a woman and a man.

[archimage_a]

1) On *almost* any situation in which 4 people want something from 1 man/woman (not necessarily rape...), and the 4 decide they should take it by all means, they have the power to. That does not make it right, nor does it mean the 1 man/woman should accept the fact that she/he's a minority, and say... sacrifice his/her son for some religious ceremony the four deeply desire.

I would like to add that, you probably can give an example in which the 1 man/woman should give away his/her son. However, that's not the point. The point is that since there could (and more than probably does) exist a situation in which a minority SHOULDN'T surrender to the majority's will. And if the minority has the power not to surrnder (executive power could be a good example), then by all means, the minority shouldn't surrnder. Bottom line of this paragraph- the possible fact that the majority has a power over the minority doesn't mean the minority should just accept it. If the minority has reason and logic on it's side, then the minority should fight for it's rights.

 

So...For example, it is the duty of every rapist to rape as many people as possible. It is the duty for every criminal to commit a crime and for every bigot to engage in bigotry.

This is my other side. The part thays says you should be yourself, regardless of everyone around you. However this would involve me sticking my tounge rather far down one guys throat and I know that he, though being gay, would not be happy if I did so. Thus such action is directly bad...Even though it would probably make him only, say 65% uncomfortable, where as it would make me about 500% happier...Even ignoring the consequences of me probably never seeing him again when I left the area I stuck rigidly to the fact that I should not imping on his rights, merely because I felt completely overwhelmed.

However I have been in numerous situations in which other people have very much impinged on my rights...But I CANNOT and WILL NOT judge them in the same way I judge myself. Only they can live their lives and thus I must accept, regardless of my personal feelings, that they are doing things for good reason.

Thus for me, unless it requires me to take an active role in something, I will not oppose someone doing something merely because I disagree with it(unless, obviously, I am asked for my views)

 

What was the point of that little romp though my life? I have logic and reason on my side, they have logic and reason their side and the people they oppress have logic and reason on their side too. We all have logic and reason on our side and so the idea which makes the most logical sense and the most reasonable sense will be the idea which most people believe in...Thus the majority.

Naturally of course it is probably not the most logical or most reasonable or people would not change their minds.

 

 

2) Who said the majority, in this case, even wants to 'learn to drive a car' (as in, learn about sexual orientation)? What if the majority has the wheel, and lets push it a bit, only pretends it wants to drive a car? If the minority noticed that, shouldn't it just drive the car itself? (Side note: considering the odds for a situation in which the majority will never accept gay marriage, aren't that bad, I think the minority should do it's best at taking the wheel to their hands. At some point, probably not as far as you may think, the majority would accept the change. Perhaps even understand it.)

So if a woman is naturally stupid then it is ok for man or woman to rape her, because she is only pretending to be in charge of her life...

 

Sigh...My whole argument is about them accepting the change....But consider this, the North where in favour of the abolition of Slavery, but they still saw black people as inferior...They didn't want Blacks in their cities or schools or anything of that kind. How many gay rights activists have said they support it and then plastered a false smile on their face when they saw two men kiss? Looking for longer than was needed because they don't know how to react because their first instinct tells them it is wrong. In this country being gay, at least for me, is not something that is terribly dangerous...most people live by the 'Yeah, live your life, just don't come near or look at me.' These are also people who support gay marriage to your face, but who's first instict when they hear about it is 'Ruddy gays, never satisfied'.

 

3) What if said hundreds won't decrease in number?

 

Then the can of worms that you open with be much larger than the one I don't open....Since you are forcing it though regardless.

In any case its more likely to continue to grow in the current situation...Straight people see gay people suffering and hear them complaining and make the logical jump from A to B that it is wrong and thus have their opinion formed by experiance, as opposed to having a situation forced on them.

 

I'd also like to expand on a certain area here. Gay teenagers.

 

Wrote the book and brough the tee-shirt =P

 

Many gay teenagers live in a surrounding that does not accept "gayness", some even live in a surrounding that hates it and tries to block it and mock for it at any given time. Said teenagers may also hate gays themselvers- that's what they were taught throughout their lives.

You would be suprised how innaccurate that can be. When I 'came out' it was not something that people just accepted, it was the subject of constant jeering for probably 4 years of my life. Yet, because I was willing to look those people in the eye, to answer their questions and to be proud of my sexuality I discovered that actually they did want to know what was going on with me...It wasn't just jeering it was the only way they could actually ask questions...because who else can they turn to?

Their parents? Unlikely, if you come from a background which hates gay people then asking the people who hate gay people probably isn't a good way to find out about them.

Friends? Unlikely, wanting to know about it makes you gay....obvouisly

Teachers? No, most of them feel unfortable about it...or better yet give the ever informative 'Its just the same as straight sex'...which it isn't(as far as I know)

So they are left with 'gay people' as their sole source of information and the only way in which they can ask is in a jeering way, otherwise their friends might think they are gay too.

I had numerous one to ones with people, trying to talk to them about homosexuality, which I barely understood myself...and I have already mentioned the meetings of 10 I had with people.

Surrounded by probably the 'hardest boys' in Kent, where I lived, talking to them about homosexuality, in no uncertain terms, having them urghing and laughing and listening intently, we deeply unnerving for me...Imagine being asked about your sex life, asked to describe how your partner looks, how they feel and so on and so forth. Some of these people had families, even themselves, who had gone out gay-bashing...and here I was describing to them what it was to be gay... I think that those four years, despite the jeering of the idiots, were the best years of my life because I actually developed my personality during that period...I stopped being shocked by things and started to see the world as I see it now...In every sense that mattered I was changed from a deeply private person, to someone who was deeply private but had no problem talking about private stuff, if the conversation demanded it. Sounds petty, but perhaps if you tried it you would think differently....Anyway...

I understand where you are coming from, but, in my opinion, this is going to happen anyway. The ability to live though it and get married is not going to make huge swathes of teenagers feel better....Nor will listening to their parents condemn how gay people are once against forcing their immoral hands on decent right thinking people(You know how people exaggurate) help them.

 

I don't know whether or not you know this, but this kind of teenagers exists everywhere, and not by small numbers. It's been proven that over 66% of these teenagers will either commit suicde, develop some sort of mental illness (an example could be staying away from society at any possible time, blocking even the closest relatives and friends), consume huge amounts of drugs/alcohol/both, basicly addict themselves, run away from home and completely "forget" about their families, become very violent or become a misantropist.

 

And? I know straight people who have developed mental illnesses...I know numerous people who had tried to commit sucicide and people who have succeeded. I know people who have been changed by bullying, for better and worse....I know an insane number of people who drink excessively anyway. I also know of a number of cases where they run away from home, I think one case permenantly.

It is endemic of a society which forces people into catagories, not only forces people into catagories but into stereotypes....Are you a Gay hater or a Gay Lover or are you Gay...and if you answer the first or last I am gonna beat you up.

 

The reason I added that information is, that legalizing gay marriage would automaticly begin a very, very slow process in which gays are accepted worldwide, and thus stop (at some point) situations like the ones I suggested from happening. Isn't that a righteous goal in itself?

A rightous goal...but a flawed theory...Gay marriage is like a yorkshire pudding with a roast dinner...It is something that is wonderful and brilliant...but it is an extra. Gay consciencness has been progressing for almost 50 years now, always making slow progress.

Or to put it another way....It is like Ice Cream....great on its own, but not so good while eating a roast....you need to finish eating the roast and then you can eat the ice cream.

 

 

4) I didn't quite get your point here. Why is it important to destruct the place (by your point of view)?

Oh just that I gave the example of the popl and youy said something about the discussion you were having with your civil teacher 'actually being important'...thus I took to mean, that is a dig at Catholics...Thus I was honourbound to right that wrong if I could.

 

5) You may haven't noticed, but the mere fact that you said "In one example maybe...But in another example..." implies that in certain situations the minority has reason and logic on it's side, and shouldn't be giving in and surrender to the majority's power and opinions.

 

Well they always do...It is always their right to not give in or surrender. Just as it is the majorities right to do whatever the hell they want....The underlying principle is that rights do not exist unless they are taken and used in a state of anarchy...which is the world we live in...There are laws, but we choose to apply them, if we chose not to apply them then we would not get instantly killed or punished....some people manage to survive their whole lives without being punished... It is merely the matter that I believe that working with the majority is almost always better than working towards your own ends.

 

The fact that you had to change my example to one in which the majority is supposedly right (as righteousness levels are VERY vague in that specific example), implies that on certain situation the minority is right, and shouldn't be 'quiet' about it.

 

As above the minority is always right....Everyone is always right in anything that they do. That is taken as a fact, since people would not and could not do things if they were not right. A man could not rape a child if he did not believe it was the right thing to do...Either because his body tells him to, or because the gun to his head tells him to...or some other reason...he has made a reasoned decision and this is right in his actions....whatever they are.

 

I'd like to clear that I do not mean all situations, only ones in which the minority has logic on it's side (and by logic I simply mean the minority is right).

And who decides if the minority is right? They must judge for themselves if they are right...

 

By the way, why shouldn't my opinions chage on the account of the factors changed? It makes all the sense that I would think one this is wrong, and change my mind under certain circumstances. Each case should be individually examined.

Because rape is cruel and unusual as a punishment, has debatable effectiveness and is a corruption of the process which children are born.

Furthermore I agree, each case should be treated equally. However I am treating you and the other one who is arguing with me as the same person.

 

Pollution is not a good example here, as it definetly directly and almost immediately affects anyone who is next to it, with directly being a very important part of the situation. In addition, the examples I gave you about teenagers imply that people are hurt no matter what the situation is, so it might aswell be one in which things are correct.

Pollution is thus only the landowners problem...by that logic...It was believed for a long time that, yes there was a problem, but it was each person's duty to himself to work for his own betterment...and thus he could ignore the suffering of others if he was profiting by it...Say you owned a mill which put out thick clouds ot pollution....however it also made important medical goods which saved hundreds of people's lives...Surely then it is ok for the people living around you to accept the situation...if not then tough, they can move.

The same blaze idea is happening here... I want this, they want that, I don't care, they can suffer because I am getting married.

 

The child example isn't a good one either, as the child could do the same thing if he saw a man and a woman kiss, to his sister.

 

In addition, most of the world's 6 and 7 year old boys and girls already "know" (perhaps not accurately, or even moderately) that they're "supposed" to eventualy 'team up' with the opposite sex.

 

Exactly. They know they are supposed to team up with the opposite sex...almost everything on TV and in books is to do with the hetrosexual couple. With very little for the homosexual couple there is no code of conduct involved. Further more Boys tend to much stupided that Girls...Girls tend to just be stuck up....at that age, I mean.

 

Well, if at some very far away point gay relations will become a part of the worldwide accepted concensus, perhaps the 6 and 7 year olds would think two men kissing is nothing different than two women, or a woman and a man.

Perhaps...But I think the idea of worldwide concensus is abhorant...All the culture that would have to be destroyed or mutilated for it to happen...It is not for us to decide how other people live their lives after all...

[Romy]

[hide]

1)

1) On *almost* any situation in which 4 people want something from 1 man/woman (not necessarily rape...), and the 4 decide they should take it by all means, they have the power to. That does not make it right, nor does it mean the 1 man/woman should accept the fact that she/he's a minority, and say... sacrifice his/her son for some religious ceremony the four deeply desire.

I would like to add that, you probably can give an example in which the 1 man/woman should give away his/her son. However, that's not the point. The point is that since there could (and more than probably does) exist a situation in which a minority SHOULDN'T surrender to the majority's will. And if the minority has the power not to surrnder (executive power could be a good example), then by all means, the minority shouldn't surrnder. Bottom line of this paragraph- the possible fact that the majority has a power over the minority doesn't mean the minority should just accept it. If the minority has reason and logic on it's side, then the minority should fight for it's rights.

 

So...For example, it is the duty of every rapist to rape as many people as possible. It is the duty for every criminal to commit a crime and for every bigot to engage in bigotry.

This is my other side. The part thays says you should be yourself, regardless of everyone around you. However this would involve me sticking my tounge rather far down one guys throat and I know that he, though being gay, would not be happy if I did so. Thus such action is directly bad...Even though it would probably make him only, say 65% uncomfortable, where as it would make me about 500% happier...Even ignoring the consequences of me probably never seeing him again when I left the area I stuck rigidly to the fact that I should not imping on his rights, merely because I felt completely overwhelmed.

However I have been in numerous situations in which other people have very much impinged on my rights...But I CANNOT and WILL NOT judge them in the same way I judge myself. Only they can live their lives and thus I must accept, regardless of my personal feelings, that they are doing things for good reason.

Thus for me, unless it requires me to take an active role in something, I will not oppose someone doing something merely because I disagree with it(unless, obviously, I am asked for my views)

 

What was the point of that little romp though my life? I have logic and reason on my side, they have logic and reason their side and the people they oppress have logic and reason on their side too. We all have logic and reason on our side and so the idea which makes the most logical sense and the most reasonable sense will be the idea which most people believe in...Thus the majority.

Naturally of course it is probably not the most logical or most reasonable or people would not change their minds.

 

 

2)

2) Who said the majority, in this case, even wants to 'learn to drive a car' (as in, learn about sexual orientation)? What if the majority has the wheel, and lets push it a bit, only pretends it wants to drive a car? If the minority noticed that, shouldn't it just drive the car itself? (Side note: considering the odds for a situation in which the majority will never accept gay marriage, aren't that bad, I think the minority should do it's best at taking the wheel to their hands. At some point, probably not as far as you may think, the majority would accept the change. Perhaps even understand it.)

So if a woman is naturally stupid then it is ok for man or woman to rape her, because she is only pretending to be in charge of her life...

 

Sigh...My whole argument is about them accepting the change....But consider this, the North where in favour of the abolition of Slavery, but they still saw black people as inferior...They didn't want Blacks in their cities or schools or anything of that kind. How many gay rights activists have said they support it and then plastered a false smile on their face when they saw two men kiss? Looking for longer than was needed because they don't know how to react because their first instinct tells them it is wrong. In this country being gay, at least for me, is not something that is terribly dangerous...most people live by the 'Yeah, live your life, just don't come near or look at me.' These are also people who support gay marriage to your face, but who's first instict when they hear about it is 'Ruddy gays, never satisfied'.

 

3)

3) What if said hundreds won't decrease in number?

 

Then the can of worms that you open with be much larger than the one I don't open....Since you are forcing it though regardless.

In any case its more likely to continue to grow in the current situation...Straight people see gay people suffering and hear them complaining and make the logical jump from A to B that it is wrong and thus have their opinion formed by experiance, as opposed to having a situation forced on them.

 

I'd also like to expand on a certain area here. Gay teenagers.

 

Wrote the book and brough the tee-shirt =P

 

4)

Many gay teenagers live in a surrounding that does not accept "gayness", some even live in a surrounding that hates it and tries to block it and mock for it at any given time. Said teenagers may also hate gays themselvers- that's what they were taught throughout their lives.

You would be suprised how innaccurate that can be. When I 'came out' it was not something that people just accepted, it was the subject of constant jeering for probably 4 years of my life. Yet, because I was willing to look those people in the eye, to answer their questions and to be proud of my sexuality I discovered that actually they did want to know what was going on with me...It wasn't just jeering it was the only way they could actually ask questions...because who else can they turn to?

Their parents? Unlikely, if you come from a background which hates gay people then asking the people who hate gay people probably isn't a good way to find out about them.

Friends? Unlikely, wanting to know about it makes you gay....obvouisly

Teachers? No, most of them feel unfortable about it...or better yet give the ever informative 'Its just the same as straight sex'...which it isn't(as far as I know)

So they are left with 'gay people' as their sole source of information and the only way in which they can ask is in a jeering way, otherwise their friends might think they are gay too.

I had numerous one to ones with people, trying to talk to them about homosexuality, which I barely understood myself...and I have already mentioned the meetings of 10 I had with people.

Surrounded by probably the 'hardest boys' in Kent, where I lived, talking to them about homosexuality, in no uncertain terms, having them urghing and laughing and listening intently, we deeply unnerving for me...Imagine being asked about your sex life, asked to describe how your partner looks, how they feel and so on and so forth. Some of these people had families, even themselves, who had gone out gay-bashing...and here I was describing to them what it was to be gay... I think that those four years, despite the jeering of the idiots, were the best years of my life because I actually developed my personality during that period...I stopped being shocked by things and started to see the world as I see it now...In every sense that mattered I was changed from a deeply private person, to someone who was deeply private but had no problem talking about private stuff, if the conversation demanded it. Sounds petty, but perhaps if you tried it you would think differently....Anyway...

I understand where you are coming from, but, in my opinion, this is going to happen anyway. The ability to live though it and get married is not going to make huge swathes of teenagers feel better....Nor will listening to their parents condemn how gay people are once against forcing their immoral hands on decent right thinking people(You know how people exaggurate) help them.

 

5)

I don't know whether or not you know this, but this kind of teenagers exists everywhere, and not by small numbers. It's been proven that over 66% of these teenagers will either commit suicde, develop some sort of mental illness (an example could be staying away from society at any possible time, blocking even the closest relatives and friends), consume huge amounts of drugs/alcohol/both, basicly addict themselves, run away from home and completely "forget" about their families, become very violent or become a misantropist.

 

And? I know straight people who have developed mental illnesses...I know numerous people who had tried to commit sucicide and people who have succeeded. I know people who have been changed by bullying, for better and worse....I know an insane number of people who drink excessively anyway. I also know of a number of cases where they run away from home, I think one case permenantly.

It is endemic of a society which forces people into catagories, not only forces people into catagories but into stereotypes....Are you a Gay hater or a Gay Lover or are you Gay...and if you answer the first or last I am gonna beat you up.

 

6)

The reason I added that information is, that legalizing gay marriage would automaticly begin a very, very slow process in which gays are accepted worldwide, and thus stop (at some point) situations like the ones I suggested from happening. Isn't that a righteous goal in itself?

A rightous goal...but a flawed theory...Gay marriage is like a yorkshire pudding with a roast dinner...It is something that is wonderful and brilliant...but it is an extra. Gay consciencness has been progressing for almost 50 years now, always making slow progress.

Or to put it another way....It is like Ice Cream....great on its own, but not so good while eating a roast....you need to finish eating the roast and then you can eat the ice cream.

 

 

7)

4) I didn't quite get your point here. Why is it important to destruct the place (by your point of view)?

Oh just that I gave the example of the popl and youy said something about the discussion you were having with your civil teacher 'actually being important'...thus I took to mean, that is a dig at Catholics...Thus I was honourbound to right that wrong if I could.

 

8)

5) You may haven't noticed, but the mere fact that you said "In one example maybe...But in another example..." implies that in certain situations the minority has reason and logic on it's side, and shouldn't be giving in and surrender to the majority's power and opinions.

 

Well they always do...It is always their right to not give in or surrender. Just as it is the majorities right to do whatever the hell they want....The underlying principle is that rights do not exist unless they are taken and used in a state of anarchy...which is the world we live in...There are laws, but we choose to apply them, if we chose not to apply them then we would not get instantly killed or punished....some people manage to survive their whole lives without being punished... It is merely the matter that I believe that working with the majority is almost always better than working towards your own ends.

 

9)

The fact that you had to change my example to one in which the majority is supposedly right (as righteousness levels are VERY vague in that specific example), implies that on certain situation the minority is right, and shouldn't be 'quiet' about it.

 

As above the minority is always right....Everyone is always right in anything that they do. That is taken as a fact, since people would not and could not do things if they were not right. A man could not rape a child if he did not believe it was the right thing to do...Either because his body tells him to, or because the gun to his head tells him to...or some other reason...he has made a reasoned decision and this is right in his actions....whatever they are.

 

10)

I'd like to clear that I do not mean all situations, only ones in which the minority has logic on it's side (and by logic I simply mean the minority is right).

And who decides if the minority is right? They must judge for themselves if they are right...

 

By the way, why shouldn't my opinions chage on the account of the factors changed? It makes all the sense that I would think one this is wrong, and change my mind under certain circumstances. Each case should be individually examined.

Because rape is cruel and unusual as a punishment, has debatable effectiveness and is a corruption of the process which children are born.

11)Furthermore I agree, each case should be treated equally. However I am treating you and the other one who is arguing with me as the same person.

 

12)

Pollution is not a good example here, as it definetly directly and almost immediately affects anyone who is next to it, with directly being a very important part of the situation. In addition, the examples I gave you about teenagers imply that people are hurt no matter what the situation is, so it might aswell be one in which things are correct.

Pollution is thus only the landowners problem...by that logic...It was believed for a long time that, yes there was a problem, but it was each person's duty to himself to work for his own betterment...and thus he could ignore the suffering of others if he was profiting by it...Say you owned a mill which put out thick clouds ot pollution....however it also made important medical goods which saved hundreds of people's lives...Surely then it is ok for the people living around you to accept the situation...if not then tough, they can move.

The same blaze idea is happening here... I want this, they want that, I don't care, they can suffer because I am getting married.

 

13)

The child example isn't a good one either, as the child could do the same thing if he saw a man and a woman kiss, to his sister.

 

In addition, most of the world's 6 and 7 year old boys and girls already "know" (perhaps not accurately, or even moderately) that they're "supposed" to eventualy 'team up' with the opposite sex.

 

Exactly. They know they are supposed to team up with the opposite sex...almost everything on TV and in books is to do with the hetrosexual couple. With very little for the homosexual couple there is no code of conduct involved. Further more Boys tend to much stupided that Girls...Girls tend to just be stuck up....at that age, I mean.

 

14)

Well, if at some very far away point gay relations will become a part of the worldwide accepted concensus, perhaps the 6 and 7 year olds would think two men kissing is nothing different than two women, or a woman and a man.

Perhaps...But I think the idea of worldwide concensus is abhorant...All the culture that would have to be destroyed or mutilated for it to happen...It is not for us to decide how other people live their lives after all...

 

For comfort, I numbered everything in your quote and numbered my answers the same way.

 

1) The most imporatant thing of that part of my answer is that they DO NOT have logic and reason on their side. They THINK they do, but they definetly do not.

Proving that is easy- except for those who aren't open minded and wouldn't change their mind even if you were beating them logic with a bat, you can convince (albeit not so easily for everyone) anyone that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, IF you will use logic and explain yourself as should, and IF they will listen throughout your whole explenation.

Surely, some would argue, surely some wouldn't understand it right away, surely at some cases you'd need months to convince them- but eventualy, if you really do talk sense into them, answer each and every question of theirs and make sure they listen to everything you say, they will be convinced, eventually.

As for being yourself, it's a matter of cost, and I think that's where neither of us will be able to convince the other, as we're entitled to different opinions.

The cost for a rapist to 'be himself entirely' is to rape as many people as possible. The cost, if we are to completely ignore the authorities (as in, they don't play a role in this example), is the suffering of many, not only at the time of action, but also for a long time after the rapist is done.

The 'cost' of implementing gay marriage as a right, is perhaps a few offended people, who knows? Perhaps riots at the extreme. But in the end we will get the benefits of both: gay marriage rights implemented and the understanding of the public, in the end.

History is there to prove it, eventually the public understands, and if you wish I will add in some examples in my next post.

2) A change in public opinion will be reached eventualy if laws were to enforce gay marriage.

Other than that, what's your point here? Yes, people are phony, there's nothing we can do about it. However, I'd rather have a society of phony people who say they believe gays should be equal to heterosexuals and then be disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, rather than a society that declares it hates them simply for that. Not because I'd feel more comfortable, but because then: A. Gays will have their rights as should. B. Gays would have less problems with living as ordinary people. C. If a country's or the entire world's sociery was filled with a phony population who says it fights for gay rights, in the end, it will believe it aswell, and accept it.

3) So you're suggesting that if a world's society won't accept a change, a righteous change, then we should never be implementing it?

If we kept that approach throughout history, western lands would still be considered as 'wild west' and people were killed in America by the tens of thousands each day for no reason (surely this is true for today aswell, but not in quantities as high as would have been, and also, those to kill were not to be punished (atleast as badly) for their actions).

If we will keep that approach in the future, the world as we know it will probably never change, and considering the world we currently live in, that's horrible. If I were the most moral person I could be, I'd honestly have to shoot myself.

 

Lastly for this part, if people did not sacrifice some of their freedom and set boundaries to themselves, in the favour of confidence, this world would be much greater chaos than it currently is.

By sacrificing freedom I mean that- countries have geographical boundaries that mostly are worldwide accepted (except for some very specific problems in Africa and the Middle East), populations have rules to stop them from commiting certain deeds, and so can be said for jails, Hierarchy, govenors, governments, etc.

4) Your story is only one example, it doesn't make it the story of all others. You can take for certaincy that many Homophobes are really gays in denial.

5) And the facts are that said teenagers developed these problems because of the combination of them being gay, and their surroundings' hatred towards gays.

I obviously don't expect the implemention of gay marriage rights to act as a magic spell that would suddenly make everyone largely accept gay people. However, I know from experience, observation and general knowledge that when a new reality is cast upon you, and you have no choice but accepting it, you eventualy deal with it and at times grow fond of it. The faster we start acting in the matter, the faster this very slow process of gays being accepted worlwide will beging, and the faster it will begin, the faster these problems will begin to disappear.

6) The comparisons you used are flawed. While we 'eat the roast' it's murdering (albeit small) parts of the icecream, who knows how far it will go by the time we're done eating it?

Gays are being murdered in large quantities, everywhere, simply because they're gay. The ones killing them aren't only trying to kill them, but also kill the 'idea' of 'Gayness'.

I'd like to repeat and expand on something here.

Forcing a reality, as bad as it sounds, isn't really that bad. Ofcourse many wouldn't like the new reality, but they will get used to it, because they have no other choice. And their children are very likely to like the new reality, as they have known no other before it.

Lastly, considering the 'new reality' we're talking about is infact not harming (perhaps offending, but in no way harming) anyone directly, and that if we are to simplify, rights are given, but none are taken away, the righteous goal also has a good theory behind it.

7) Call me dumb, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say here.

8) The majority doesn't have the right to do whatever the hell it wants....

It's true that many commit crimes or decide certain rules do not apply to them. And what of it :S?

Implementing new rules not only makes more and more people apply to them, it also means the leaders of country X are aware of the problem/issue/case/etc and are trying to change things.

9) That's not true at all. A man could know and understand that raping a child is wrong, and do it anyway. You don't have to think something is right in order to do it.

10) It's not a matter of decision. If we take an hypothetical situation, you know what? Not even a situation just throw in the air that the minority of a certain population knows or understands a concept that the majority of the same population does not. Simply because they know of or understand the concept, their opinion, if picked objectively, is valid. The mere fact that the majority does not know of/understand the concept, invalidates their opinions.

Another (rather sad) fact is, that the majority gets to 'vote' for what they think is right, even if they don't understand everything or anything in the matter. I'm not sure how it works in America, but (I'm pretty sure that) every democratic country has a certain age limit (usualy either 18 or 21). After that age, any individual has every right to vote for the leader he/she thinks is best, EVEN IF HE/SHE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT POLITICS!

If anyone voted for Obama for example, only because he is black, then their opinion is automaticly invalid, yet he had his right to vote for him.

11) Exactly, nothing to add here.

12) But in the matter of pollution lies a problem that does not when talking about gay marriage- gay marriage is simply a right (that may offend, and only offend) that is given, no other rights are taken.

In the matter of that mill I'm the owner of, basicly if 1 person dies because of the pollution my mill spit, I took his right to live for the favor of others'. We can keep on debating on whether 1 person's right to live should be taken to consideration as opposed to serveral others', but it doesn't matter because the real issue we're discussing, gay marriage, doesn't have that 'dilemma' in it.

13) The fact that a certain situation is present, doesn't make it right. Who said the fact that TV and books show almost always a heterosexual couple is good/okay?

14) I agree, but there still is a worldwide (or atleast West&Europewide) consensus. Personaly, I don't believe any concesus, and it doesn't matter if worldwide, countrywide or even familywide is righteous. People should be entitled to different opinions, different ways of life, and shouldn't be judged only because they're not a part of the consensus (even in a family). But, once again, the consensus exists and unless mass media tried to do something about it (at the moment it's doing the opposite), we would have to stick with it. And if we are to stick with it, we could atleast try to change it as to accept more types of sexual orientations, ways of life, opinions, etc.

[/hide]

 

 

Sorry for the probably countless spelling errors and grammar mistakes I made.

[Saru Inc]

As a [bleep], I agree with Romy. =\ (at least compared to Archimage)

[Natures_Idol]

They're gonna give it to alcoholics? Isn't giving something with a sort of addiction possibility to an addict of something else just the wrong way to go about things?

[archimage_a]

1)

Any orientation can be explained as genetics...or as a test from god...

 

It is expained logically and reasonably...God is logically accurate since there must have been something to create the universe and naturally it could not exist within the universe and therefore must be more powerful than the universe...and thus is God, since everything within science is within the universe. It is reasonably explained as the fact that human beings can 'overcome' their genetics, as they have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years...Baden Powel is an example of a gay person actively 'fighting' their genetic predisposition to be gay and live a straight life.

Thus logic and reason are not 100% Truth seekers; they are tools, tools dependant on a person's life time experiances.

 

The idea that a Rapists is out to rape as many people as possible is offensive, please don't use it. It is as offensive as the idea that, as a gay person, I am out to have sex with as many men as possible.

The cost of not letting rapists live their lives as they chose is their personal suffering. The cost of letting them live their lives is societal suffering.

There is no difference between that and homosexuality.(In this respect)

 

Or is it riots and then 200 years of hardship and even then the threat of being assassinated(As in the US President's case) is still excessive. That isn't progress...That is anti-progress, it is progress masquerading in the clothes of Progress.

 

2)

Ahhh the insanity! You should watch 'Its a Good Life', an episode of the Twilight Zone. Everyone has to think happy thoughts or they are killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMKniBHPU9c

A. Rapists have the human right to be free, yet imprisoning them takes away that right... Rights have to be taken away occationally.

B. I would rather people spit in my face that have people shake my hand wishing they could kill me.

c. Watch 'Its Still a Good Life' another episode of the Twilight Zone. Or better yet...From now on say you think Rape is a good idea, do that for two years and see if, after 2 years, you think that rape is a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFKdWk8Ink

3)

No. I am suggesting that a world society should change and then it is implemented... You don't build a house on a swamp and then try to drain it. You Drain the swamp then build a house on the land that has been reclaimed.

Why would you have to shoot yourself? Surely that indicates a fairly massive problem with your morality...that the only way to make the world better is to get rid of yourself.

 

YES! "IF PEOPLE DID NOT SACRFICE SOME OF THEIR FREEDOM" You can't sacrifice someone else's freedom, you have to sacrifice your own freedom!

Giving up power to the Government is done with the strictist intent that you will be represented...not that you will have stuff forced on you and you have to live with it.

 

4)

I can take it in greater certainity that while gayness is something which you either accept or you deny there will be no progress. Homosexuality is not talked about. People do not ask questions and if they do they are often left with the stupid answers that don't help....People want to understand but they are never given the chance...Now you want to take away one of the remaining forums of discussion where people can talk about homosexuality as a concept, rather than a self-evident truth.

 

5&6)

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

 

Obviously by that token, not allowing it...Forcing the reality that 'Gay people will NEVER marry'....Will also work.

 

Except that it hasn't worked. Homosexuality has been perscuted for thousands of years, it has not died out. Forcing the reality that 'Homosexuality does not exist' has not lead to the destruction of homosexuality.

I fail to see how the application of this idea will work when you reverse the sitatuation.

Anti-homosexuality will not die out, it will merely become repressed because we will be the intolerant ones...not them.

 

7)

Its not really important to this discussion. Lets just drop it.

 

8)

Neither does the minority. It must accept that its actions have consquences and that these consquences prevent them from doing something.

Sorry, but are you American? You are saying that America should become gay friendly so it can tell other countries that they are evil? That is an offensive idea...The idea that, not only must we stamp out anti-homosexuals in this country we must stamp out ALL anti-homosexuals in all countries! We must purge the planet of anti-homosexuals! All people must believe what we claim to believe!

I may sound sarcastic but this is really really really annoying me. So please can we not mention the world wide purge of freedom?

 

9)

Yes...You do.

You cannot do an action which you do not believe to be right. It is not physically possible. For example I have a choice between raping someone and being shot. Therefore it is right that I rape someone because the alternative is my death.

(I don't actually believe that but most people seem to)

Give me any example and I can tell you why the person who did something thought it was right.

 

10)

I agree.

However that underlines a symptom, not an cause. Lack of understanding has constantly been applied...(Actually I am British) Take the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident"...Right from the start there is no discussion, no reasoning or logic behind it...There is just an opinion held to be fact.

We need to stop forcing reality and start educating people in why we understand one thing to be true and why others understand something else to be true.

 

11)

Great...now there will be a blank in the numbering =P

 

12)

The Right to Hold Marriage a Sacred Bond between Man and Woman. Yes marriage is degraded, but you don't dump stuff in a lake because it is already polluted.

The Right to Be Represented. Democracies hold...or assumedly hold... this right to be in the highest regard. "Taxation without Representation" and all that jazz. The reason that George Washington fought the British(or is said to be the reason why he fought the British) was that Britian enforced it's will on a nation which did not have a place in the representative system.

The Right to Free Speech. If I was straight...even as a gay person...I want the right to say 'I think gay marriage is wrong' not have A reality forced upon me.

The Right to Practice Religion In a Way of Your Choosing. Why should the Church have its terms(I am also an Atheist and a Communist for anyone wondering) dictated to it by the State? Which, if I am honest goes either way....

 

Yes it does. 1 persons right to live...IE the right to believe that they believe, to practice what they believe and to say what they believe, without fear of destruction and vilification by society...should be taken into consideration when deciding if it is right to take that right away from several others.

 

14)

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."

Because people forge new links to bind the old links...

"Your not allowed to do this"

"Well your not allowed to to this."

"Fine, then you are not allowed..." Ect...

 

Also known as

The old 'If you are falling off a cliff then why not try flapping' excuse...

 

 

15)

To summerise.

Rather than create a false world, live in the real world. Fight in the real world by talking to people and dispeling the falsehoods they hold...Don't abuse a system that doesn't work, try to make it work. Yes the path is long and dangerous, but it is the one that provides long term results because you only need to educate 1 people to educate their children, and their children's children and their children's children's children.

[Romy]

1)

Any orientation can be explained as genetics...or as a test from god...

 

It is expained logically and reasonably...God is logically accurate since there must have been something to create the universe and naturally it could not exist within the universe and therefore must be more powerful than the universe...and thus is God, since everything within science is within the universe. It is reasonably explained as the fact that human beings can 'overcome' their genetics, as they have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years...Baden Powel is an example of a gay person actively 'fighting' their genetic predisposition to be gay and live a straight life.

Thus logic and reason are not 100% Truth seekers; they are tools, tools dependant on a person's life time experiances.

 

The idea that a Rapists is out to rape as many people as possible is offensive, please don't use it. It is as offensive as the idea that, as a gay person, I am out to have sex with as many men as possible.

The cost of not letting rapists live their lives as they chose is their personal suffering. The cost of letting them live their lives is societal suffering.

There is no difference between that and homosexuality.(In this respect)

 

Or is it riots and then 200 years of hardship and even then the threat of being assassinated(As in the US President's case) is still excessive. That isn't progress...That is anti-progress, it is progress masquerading in the clothes of Progress.

 

2)

Ahhh the insanity! You should watch 'Its a Good Life', an episode of the Twilight Zone. Everyone has to think happy thoughts or they are killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMKniBHPU9c

A. Rapists have the human right to be free, yet imprisoning them takes away that right... Rights have to be taken away occationally.

B. I would rather people spit in my face that have people shake my hand wishing they could kill me.

c. Watch 'Its Still a Good Life' another episode of the Twilight Zone. Or better yet...From now on say you think Rape is a good idea, do that for two years and see if, after 2 years, you think that rape is a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFKdWk8Ink

3)

No. I am suggesting that a world society should change and then it is implemented... You don't build a house on a swamp and then try to drain it. You Drain the swamp then build a house on the land that has been reclaimed.

Why would you have to shoot yourself? Surely that indicates a fairly massive problem with your morality...that the only way to make the world better is to get rid of yourself.

 

YES! "IF PEOPLE DID NOT SACRFICE SOME OF THEIR FREEDOM" You can't sacrifice someone else's freedom, you have to sacrifice your own freedom!

Giving up power to the Government is done with the strictist intent that you will be represented...not that you will have stuff forced on you and you have to live with it.

 

4)

I can take it in greater certainity that while gayness is something which you either accept or you deny there will be no progress. Homosexuality is not talked about. People do not ask questions and if they do they are often left with the stupid answers that don't help....People want to understand but they are never given the chance...Now you want to take away one of the remaining forums of discussion where people can talk about homosexuality as a concept, rather than a self-evident truth.

 

5&6)

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

 

Obviously by that token, not allowing it...Forcing the reality that 'Gay people will NEVER marry'....Will also work.

 

Except that it hasn't worked. Homosexuality has been perscuted for thousands of years, it has not died out. Forcing the reality that 'Homosexuality does not exist' has not lead to the destruction of homosexuality.

I fail to see how the application of this idea will work when you reverse the sitatuation.

Anti-homosexuality will not die out, it will merely become repressed because we will be the intolerant ones...not them.

 

7)

Its not really important to this discussion. Lets just drop it.

 

8)

Neither does the minority. It must accept that its actions have consquences and that these consquences prevent them from doing something.

Sorry, but are you American? You are saying that America should become gay friendly so it can tell other countries that they are evil? That is an offensive idea...The idea that, not only must we stamp out anti-homosexuals in this country we must stamp out ALL anti-homosexuals in all countries! We must purge the planet of anti-homosexuals! All people must believe what we claim to believe!

I may sound sarcastic but this is really really really annoying me. So please can we not mention the world wide purge of freedom?

 

9)

Yes...You do.

You cannot do an action which you do not believe to be right. It is not physically possible. For example I have a choice between raping someone and being shot. Therefore it is right that I rape someone because the alternative is my death.

(I don't actually believe that but most people seem to)

Give me any example and I can tell you why the person who did something thought it was right.

 

10)

I agree.

However that underlines a symptom, not an cause. Lack of understanding has constantly been applied...(Actually I am British) Take the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident"...Right from the start there is no discussion, no reasoning or logic behind it...There is just an opinion held to be fact.

We need to stop forcing reality and start educating people in why we understand one thing to be true and why others understand something else to be true.

 

11)

Great...now there will be a blank in the numbering =P

 

12)

The Right to Hold Marriage a Sacred Bond between Man and Woman. Yes marriage is degraded, but you don't dump stuff in a lake because it is already polluted.

The Right to Be Represented. Democracies hold...or assumedly hold... this right to be in the highest regard. "Taxation without Representation" and all that jazz. The reason that George Washington fought the British(or is said to be the reason why he fought the British) was that Britian enforced it's will on a nation which did not have a place in the representative system.

The Right to Free Speech. If I was straight...even as a gay person...I want the right to say 'I think gay marriage is wrong' not have A reality forced upon me.

The Right to Practice Religion In a Way of Your Choosing. Why should the Church have its terms(I am also an Atheist and a Communist for anyone wondering) dictated to it by the State? Which, if I am honest goes either way....

 

Yes it does. 1 persons right to live...IE the right to believe that they believe, to practice what they believe and to say what they believe, without fear of destruction and vilification by society...should be taken into consideration when deciding if it is right to take that right away from several others.

 

14)

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – chains us all, irrevocably."

Because people forge new links to bind the old links...

"Your not allowed to do this"

"Well your not allowed to to this."

"Fine, then you are not allowed..." Ect...

 

Also known as

The old 'If you are falling off a cliff then why not try flapping' excuse...

 

 

15)

To summerise.

Rather than create a false world, live in the real world. Fight in the real world by talking to people and dispeling the falsehoods they hold...Don't abuse a system that doesn't work, try to make it work. Yes the path is long and dangerous, but it is the one that provides long term results because you only need to educate 1 people to educate their children, and their children's children and their children's children's children.

 

 

After reading that I'm very eager to answer everything. However, I'm too tired and busy and wil have to get to it by the weekend, probably.

 

Just some headlines-

* As an Atheist I believe the illogic behind God can also be explained to anyone by the same way I described on my last post.

* if we're to go to the Philosophy of laws and such... You can't enfore a new rule/right and expect everyone to follow it without any problems. The only possible way to enforce a new rule, is by stiuplating failure of enforcement with rights being taken.

*I turthfuly and firmly believe that if I were to tell everyone rape is good for 2 years, I would ATLEAST have doubts of whether or not it's bad.

*What if you can't drain the swamp before building the house (for any reason). Would you rather not build the house? Currently the vast majoirty of orthodox people of all three main religions hate and denigrate 'Gayness" (mostly only gay men, not that it matters). And Orthodoxes obviously affect others who believe in God.

*As a matter of fact, when (most of) mankind decided to sacrifice their freedom in the favour of confidence, etc, they also, automaticly, sacrificed anyone else's (obviously, only citizens of the country.)

*Homosexuality IS talked about. Obviously not as much as should be, but it is talked about. Facts are, that talking isn't always enough and when injustice is served, IMO, it should be handled immediately with (almost) no regard to consequences. As for the 'almost' part, I only mean extreme cases in which handling injustice brings whole lots of new injustices that cannot be handled with ease.

*Anti-Homosexuality exists just about everywhere, and when it's empowered by things like religion and a sense that you're right when you fight Homosexuality, who knows if we (not particularly me and you) will ever live to see it repress?

*On # 8 I wasn't referring to any country in particular. I tried to simplify it by refering to the world as a whole but infact only meant each country on it's own. Sorry for that.

*I can remention the example I gave on my last post (which you seemed to ignore even though you mentioned you can explain why every person thinks what he does is right).

I know of a very specific case in which a rapist I know personaly raped a girl (which I also happen to know personaly). Eventually he turned himself in and when interrogated he admitted he KNEW what he did was wrong even before committing it, he also had thoughts of it right before he started (sorry for the very cold description, I'd rather no burst in tears), throughout the occurance, and since then, for the rest of his life.

Unless you have completely different definitions of 'right' and 'wrong', you're wrong. Saying that he made a decision because he thought it was right at the moment would also be wrong- he admittedly said he regretted what he's doing, while he was doing it.

* "Forcing a reality" you say that as if we'd be changing the world entirely the second we enforence gay marriage as a right. Well, 'forcing' the reality in which gay marriage is perfectly allowed will lead to both the cancellation of injustice made to gays, and the eventual accpetance of gays. It will also be a faster process, by the way, than propaganda. No one even knows if on its own propaganda is good enough here.

* The right to hold marriage is NOT hurt. The definition of Marriage is changed, is all.

The right to be represented is also left unhurt, both because of the real impact of implemention of gay marriage (much less harmfull than you seem to suggest), and because it's no different than so many other rules applied every day, and on every country, by the so-called representatives of ours. This will only be like throwing a tiny rock to a river of lava.

The right to Free Speech is also still present if gay marraige is applied as a right. You can still criticize and you can still say "I think gay marriage is wrong.".

The right to practice Religion is slightly hurt. However, that right collides with many others (I have the right to choose not to be a member of any religion, or the right not to follow any religion's rules [i can even eat ham to the face of any Jewish person, for example. Not a good example but considering how far away I've gone from being a religous person, I guess it's not too bad]). In a way, if you name 'Gay marriage implemention' as hurtful to the right to practice Religion, you also do to the right to be an Atheist or not follow any religion's rules.

* As for # 14. Perhaps, but implemention of gay marriage as a right is not the first of the chain, and whether it would or would not be implemented, the chain wouldn't cease to exist. As I had already said, it's just like throwing (another) tiny rock to a river of lava.

*As for #15. I doubt any of us will take the other's side. I believe that by not enforcing gay marriage we're creating and supporting injustice, you believe that by doing that we're creating injustice.

*I think we can also go on with this forever, but considering what is written just above that sentence, I doubt we'll ever reach joint conclusions.

 

 

 

Feel free to comment on any part of what I typed here, even though it's not what I would have if I had some more time on my hands. Hopefully I'll get to fully comment on your post on saturday.

[fakeitormakeit2]

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree.

 

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex.

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

[indy500fan]

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree.

 

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex.

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

[archimage_a]

Lets get rid of all the tittling over insignificant points(Which I do rather a lot =( )

 

You are talking about something being defacto right and defacto wrong. I don't believe in this concepts because something that was considered defacto right at the time, Eugenics, is now considered defacto wrong. Similarly Women voting was considered defacto wrong, now is considered defacto right. Opinions change over time and, even though we may have had ideas at the time, if we didn't act on them until later then it doesn't detract from the actions that we did do.

 

And to specifical address your argument:

(Which I haven't watched all the way though because I am very intolerant of people who profess to have 'come to terms' with homosexuality.)

How someone was gay, but 'thankfully' converted back to a life of worship and stopped being gay. Thus "he KNEW what he did was wrong even before committing it, he also had thoughts of it right before he started (sorry for the very cold description, I'd rather no burst in tears), throughout the occurance, and since then, for the rest of his life."

 

[hide=Addressing your example specifically"] I am having qualms about including this, since it sort of goes against my 'No Tittling' policy but still:

Ok. He(and I am assuming here) thought it would be a good idea to rape someone. Naturally he had fears and doubts about them, that is a logical and reasonable reaction to anything which can potentially damage him. Thus he may have though 'Actually this is wrong, maybe I shouldn't be doing it' but he did not act on it. If you don't act on something then it doesn't really matter what you think now does it? After all I have already said about my wish to stick my tounge down someones throat, on its own it is not a bad thing, only when and if I did it would it become a bad thing. (Though personally I hold myself in much stricter regard, but that is me being who I am.)

If you don't act on something then you do not feel as strongly about something as you do by your inaction. Example, I feel more strongly for his rights than for my own pleasure. In your example he felt more strongly that he should rape someone than he shouldn't rape someone. Which fundamentally means 'I think that it is MORE RIGHT to rape someone than it is RIGHT not to rape someone.' Or, in simple terms, I think it is right to rape someone because I think it is wrong not to rape someone.

We can hold two seperate idea but we cannot act in two seperate ways...at least not when interacting with a state of being. Ie 'Raped' and 'Unraped'[/hide]

 

Let me give you another example... 'Its just one small rock in a river of lava' Its something that is wrong. The writer acknowldages that 'Yes it is wrong but it is a small evil which much greater good can come out of.' Or more basically is right because there is more good that comes out of it than bad. (I fully believe that you believe you are right. Whereas I see any thing that is wrong, leading, innexorably, to something else wrong.)

See where I am coming from? We can hold two seperate ideas, something being both right and wrong and at any given time we can be more on one side or the other.

 

 

I would agree with you...I even started typing that I did agree with you...but actually I don't agree with you...None of my actions have supported or created injustice and thus by not enforcing gay marriage I have not created or supported injustice. So your logic is flawed.

 

I have been actively working to undermine the injustice, to dispel the falsalities that people hold and to convey the 'truth' to them.

 

Your actions would cause injustice as well as justice to be done. I am not going to deny that there would be someone people who would achieve greater justice. I am not going to deny that gay people should have the right to marry if they so choose. I am merely pointing out that you are also creating injustice and, like a man who is using a hammer to fix a toaster, you may fix the problem in the short term but in the long term someone else will need to fix it with another hammer.

 

(Which is a considerable cut back to the normal quibbling I do =) Oh, and apologies for not responding your point last time. If I am honest I did it at the end of a 36 hour day when then went on for another 4 hours, so there is a (minor) excuse for that.

 

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

Agreed!

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

And yet

However, I know from experience, observation and general knowledge that when a new reality is cast upon you, and you have no choice but accepting it, you eventualy deal with it and at times grow fond of it.

If the people who campaign for homosexual rights are also the people who believe that by doing so they will force people into accepting their beliefs then its not really FUD...more FACT. (Fact, Accurate, Certain, True. Originally I left the A out but then its 1 letter away so)

[Romy]

Lets get rid of all the tittling over insignificant points(Which I do rather a lot =( )

 

You are talking about something being defacto right and defacto wrong. I don't believe in this concepts because something that was considered defacto right at the time, Eugenics, is now considered defacto wrong. Similarly Women voting was considered defacto wrong, now is considered defacto right. Opinions change over time and, even though we may have had ideas at the time, if we didn't act on them until later then it doesn't detract from the actions that we did do.

 

And to specifical address your argument:

(Which I haven't watched all the way though because I am very intolerant of people who profess to have 'come to terms' with homosexuality.)

How someone was gay, but 'thankfully' converted back to a life of worship and stopped being gay. Thus "he KNEW what he did was wrong even before committing it, he also had thoughts of it right before he started (sorry for the very cold description, I'd rather no burst in tears), throughout the occurance, and since then, for the rest of his life."

 

[hide=Addressing your example specifically"] I am having qualms about including this, since it sort of goes against my 'No Tittling' policy but still:

Ok. He(and I am assuming here) thought it would be a good idea to rape someone. Naturally he had fears and doubts about them, that is a logical and reasonable reaction to anything which can potentially damage him. Thus he may have though 'Actually this is wrong, maybe I shouldn't be doing it' but he did not act on it. If you don't act on something then it doesn't really matter what you think now does it? After all I have already said about my wish to stick my tounge down someones throat, on its own it is not a bad thing, only when and if I did it would it become a bad thing. (Though personally I hold myself in much stricter regard, but that is me being who I am.)

If you don't act on something then you do not feel as strongly about something as you do by your inaction. Example, I feel more strongly for his rights than for my own pleasure. In your example he felt more strongly that he should rape someone than he shouldn't rape someone. Which fundamentally means 'I think that it is MORE RIGHT to rape someone than it is RIGHT not to rape someone.' Or, in simple terms, I think it is right to rape someone because I think it is wrong not to rape someone.

We can hold two seperate idea but we cannot act in two seperate ways...at least not when interacting with a state of being. Ie 'Raped' and 'Unraped'[/hide]

 

Let me give you another example... 'Its just one small rock in a river of lava' Its something that is wrong. The writer acknowldages that 'Yes it is wrong but it is a small evil which much greater good can come out of.' Or more basically is right because there is more good that comes out of it than bad. (I fully believe that you believe you are right. Whereas I see any thing that is wrong, leading, innexorably, to something else wrong.)

See where I am coming from? We can hold two seperate ideas, something being both right and wrong and at any given time we can be more on one side or the other.

 

 

I would agree with you...I even started typing that I did agree with you...but actually I don't agree with you...None of my actions have supported or created injustice and thus by not enforcing gay marriage I have not created or supported injustice. So your logic is flawed.

 

I have been actively working to undermine the injustice, to dispel the falsalities that people hold and to convey the 'truth' to them.

 

Your actions would cause injustice as well as justice to be done. I am not going to deny that there would be someone people who would achieve greater justice. I am not going to deny that gay people should have the right to marry if they so choose. I am merely pointing out that you are also creating injustice and, like a man who is using a hammer to fix a toaster, you may fix the problem in the short term but in the long term someone else will need to fix it with another hammer.

 

(Which is a considerable cut back to the normal quibbling I do =) Oh, and apologies for not responding your point last time. If I am honest I did it at the end of a 36 hour day when then went on for another 4 hours, so there is a (minor) excuse for that.

 

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

Agreed!

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

And yet

However, I know from experience, observation and general knowledge that when a new reality is cast upon you, and you have no choice but accepting it, you eventualy deal with it and at times grow fond of it.

If the people who campaign for homosexual rights are also the people who believe that by doing so they will force people into accepting their beliefs then its not really FUD...more FACT. (Fact, Accurate, Certain, True. Originally I left the A out but then its 1 letter away so)

 

I have to go in about 6 minutes, and am in a hurry. I'll try my best at pointing most of what I wish to.

 

* For the rapist, he knew he was wrong. Literally knew it. He felt that his biological and perhaps psychlogical pressures are to MAKE him do it regardless of whether or not he thinks what he's doing is right. I repeat, he *knew* all along, that what he is/was/about to do, is wrong.

 

 

By support injustice I mean that the mere fact that person X is not doing anything to correct injustice(s) he's aware of, he unvolunteerly supports it.

 

The hammer example is rather flawed- A. because at times the hammer will fix the problem, and B. because we're not using a "hammer" to fix a toaster, we're using it to handle injustice.

 

I'm running out of time and will come back when I'm done.

 

EDIT:

I'm back now.

As for me, not tolerating religion, I have much more to say than I'm about to, I hope what I do say would suffice.

I don't believe taking people's right to believe in any deity is righteous in any way, and never have.

I've had much experience with people who claim to do what they think is right and stipulate it by saying God is on their side. Whether God exists or not, I don't think anyone can firmly say- personaly, I've stopped believing in God (and unlike many others, not because I think God wouldn't exist in an unjust world, but because I tend to ask (some would say too many) questions, and when left unanswered I start to suspect. When the highest "echelon"s can't answer my questions, I suspect even further and reach new conclusions.)

 

I never have said that all who do believe in God are against Homosexuality. What I did say is that most Orthodox ones are, and that they have a tendercy to project their beliefs about gays, to SOME other, none Orthofox believers (once again, not ALL of them, only SOME).

 

 

 

I also disagree with you saying that an act of evil (I wouldn't call it that, but I'll go on here) can only lead to further evil acts, as this statement has no base.

 

You surely agree that killing a person for his (not necessarily religious) beliefs is an act of evil, right?

Well, I trust that Adolft Hitler's (obviously none religious) beliefs led him to do everything that he did. Well, I'm not the first to wish I had a time machine and kill him before he had the chance to even start anything.

Here it is- an act of evil, that even cancels injustices.

Edited January 18, 2010 by romy