<!--quoteo(post=1575553:date=Nov 10 2006, 01:34 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 10 2006, 01:34 PM) [snapback]1575553[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A republican moral relativist...who have thunk it?
Ok lolfighter, I'm not going to question your assumption of an external moral framework, but Rob is. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Feel free to pick your target for your comeback, since we're arguing basically totally different things, despite reaching the same conclusion in the end. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say I'm a Republican only in name... They're the closest match, but I tend to take things I like from everywhere. Personally, I see no problem with this, but I'm some would consider it... eh... weak willed. Then again, I'm not one to defend a cause I don't believe in, nor abondon one that I do. In any case, I'll take your words as a compliment. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
@lolfighter:
A true bible-beater would say, "Only Jesus was without hypocrisy! We lowly sinners double talk all the time!" Whether or not you believe in what the true bible-beater believes in, the truth of his statement seems well enough. Now, this isn't an excuse for such behavior, but rather a concession that it will always happen, at least into the near future. Further, lots of contradictions seem to keep coming up in the world around us, as well. Knowing facts about fictional characters and yet knowing that they also don't exists, or the old liar's contradiction: "This sentence is false." Our own behavior should be no different.
In fact, I think we should embrace our individualism. Aside from maybe courage wrought from desperation, we are at our strongest rallied around a center of common interests and values. Wars happen when two camps of opposing interests and values meet. And not all wars are fought with weapons, either. We're enganged in one right now. And we'll walk away (hopefully) with a better understanding of each other and ourselves.
So, our government hypocritical? Surely. Are we? On occasion, but hopefully not all the time.
Rob, the true bible beater knows that by Jesus he is saved, and therefore he doesn't need to be a good person, but can say "God hates homosexuals" all day long (except he is not under the yoke of a nonsensical swear filter, and will choose different words) and still go to heaven. The true <i>christian</i> will be nice to others anyway, since it's in his nature to obey the most important (and most neglected) tenet in the entire religion: Love your neighbour as yourself.
Cxwf, the fact that the persecution of the minority has been going on for a long time and is far more widespread than I thought is not an argument FOR it.
I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything. YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.
You claim that your country is not persecuting homosexuals. But you deny them the right to marry their partners. You claim that right is inconsequential. But marriage, as a legal institution, confers financial benefits and securities that are not otherwise guaranteed. By denying this right to certain individuals based on their sexuality, you put them at a disadvantage in regards to the pursuit of happiness, compared to the majority. That is persecution. The right to sit at the front of the bus, or at the middle, or anywhere you goddamn choose is an inconsequential right if you're honest about it, and yet denying it to people based on their skin colour is undeniably persecution. Even black people had the right to marriage long before your country abolished segregation.
Woah, woah! I don't remember saying any of those things...
As for my stance on morales being a cop out... My ability to stand up for what I believe is not affected by the idea that someone else can fight just as hard for something they believe in as I do. That's a bit of an unfounded statement. If anything, our previous sparing matches about Bush should show you that I'm not afraid to take a stand on something I believe in, lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rob, the true bible beater knows that by Jesus he is saved, and therefore he doesn't need to be a good person, but can say "God hates homosexuals" all day long<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was sort of making a joke. True as in, not radical.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything. YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you believe that "living document" nonsense, then the constitution is fluid, not rigid, in definition. Open to the current day's insights. I rather believe that the constitution serves as the backing for arguments like the one you're making. It's the <i>instrument</i> through which minorities sway majorities.
I kinda liked Cxwf's ideas about equality under the constitution, so I won't touch that.
As for my country persecuting a minority? Sure, you're probably right. My personal feelings on this and related matters are pretty dark, however.
What should we do about it? What else can we do in a democracy but find out what the majority wants? Should the president do something?
Bush has already shown what happens when a president moves against popular opinion. State level officials doing so would commit politcal suicide. Bush is in the golden position. He can do as he believes is right and retire to quiet life when it's all over, his ambitions satiated.
Others on the rise up have strong incentive not to cross public opinion.
I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats ok, because I'm not suggesting the majority is always right. Sometimes they are wrong. But how do you KNOW when they're wrong? You and I both believe there is a distinct right and wrong in this case, and we both want the right law to be passed. But we disagree on which one the right law IS. So when then that happens, how does the legal system decide which one of us to believe? How does the government know which law is right and which is wrong, when they have millions of people saying this one is right, and millions more saying the other one is right?
You don't have a whole lot of options in this case. Really, the only thing they CAN do is to abide by the majority. However, our legal system provides some protections by requiring larger and larger majorities for more powerful laws. For example, 51% of the people to pass a normal law, 67% of the people of one state to pass a State Amendment, or 67% of 37 different states in order to pass a National Amendment. Well, so far we've hit the second level of majority, but not the third. That means the law only has the power of a State Amendment, and if it is found to be against the National Constitution, then it can be struck down. But if it doesnt violate the National Constitution, then it stands. Whether or not it violates the Constitution is a legal question though, not a moral one.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're not persecuting a minority. They have exactly the same rights, privileges, and restrictions as all the rest of us. Down to the last detail.
But you know what? I'm not a legal expert. Perhaps the legal experts will disagree with me. They are already disgreeing with each other--remember those last 6 states that don't ban g.a.y marriage? Thats only because legal experts there decided the laws they USED to have banning g.a.y marriage were unconstitutional. But so far the legal experts in the other 44 states haven't been convinced.
So the question will go to the courts, and the courts will tell us whether or not we are actually persecuting a minority. Thats the way our country works, and its a damned good system as far as I can tell. So tell me, how do YOU want our system to work, to better suit your morals? Should we base our laws off of UN resolutions perhaps?
I've only briefly skimmed this so I apologize if someone's already said it, but...
lolfighter yes democracy is flawed unfortunately it's the best form of government that we know of. (Did you suggest something else that I missed?)
and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it.
<!--quoteo(post=1575702:date=Nov 11 2006, 02:10 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 11 2006, 02:10 AM) [snapback]1575702[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]We're not persecuting a minority. They have exactly the same rights, privileges, and restrictions as all the rest of us. Down to the last detail.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except that little detail where homosexuals are denied the right to marry their partners, a right that heterosexuals have. I'm getting a little tired of having to repeat this, to be honest.
Look, I'll repeat it again, just to drive the point home:
Heterosexuals (the majority) have the right to marry their partners. Homosexuals (the minority) are denied the right to marry their partners.
<!--quoteo(post=1575807:date=Nov 11 2006, 11:08 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 11 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]1575807[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]lolfighter yes democracy is flawed unfortunately it's the best form of government that we know of. (Did you suggest something else that I missed?)[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I agree. It's unfortunate, but true.
<!--quoteo(post=1575807:date=Nov 11 2006, 05:08 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 11 2006, 05:08 AM) [snapback]1575807[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because by their very definition, conservatives resist change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Silly question, Nadagast.
<!--quoteo(post=1575807:date=Nov 11 2006, 05:08 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 11 2006, 05:08 AM) [snapback]1575807[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like other social taboos and discrimination from the past, the common-man-social-conservative fights progess because of ignorance, racism, and general xenophobia. The <i>politician</i>-social-conservative fights it to get VOTES. Most politicians are intelligent, and will use whatever issue exists among the common people to attain power. Look at every single issue addressed by conservatives. They take advantage of racism and ignorance by focusing on immigration and ga_y marriage. The vast majority of these politicians couldn't care less about these petty issues*; this is made obvious as they use meth, hire male escorts and attend pagan orgies. This is nothing to be ashamed of, unless you're trying to fake out the peasants with a holier than thou "godly" act.
(immigration is not a petty issue, but the motivation of the minuteman mindset is racism, which calls into question all current illegal immigration concerns)
<!--quoteo(post=1575927:date=Nov 11 2006, 06:54 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Nov 11 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]1575927[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Most politicians <strike>are intelligent</strike> know how to get votes, and will use whatever issue exists among the common people to attain power.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think this is more accurate.
<!--quoteo(post=1575831:date=Nov 11 2006, 06:07 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 11 2006, 06:07 AM) [snapback]1575831[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Except that little detail where homosexuals are denied the right to marry their partners, a right that heterosexuals have. I'm getting a little tired of having to repeat this, to be honest.
Look, I'll repeat it again, just to drive the point home:
Heterosexuals (the majority) have the right to marry their partners. Homosexuals (the minority) are denied the right to marry their partners. No, I agree. It's unfortunate, but true. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats your point? Are you trying to get me to change my personal, moral religious convictions on g.ay marriage? Or are you trying to convince me that these laws are legally indefensible?
Don't for a second think they are the same question--even IF you are morally correct, it doesn't do you a bit of good unless you can convince a majority of the American people to agree with you. If you want to get the laws changed, you have to be legally correct.
Ok, legally speaking...not every minority is free to do whatever they want. For example, we have a minority who believes the pursuit of happiness is best served by smoking marijuana. And we tell them they can't smoke it, its illegal. I guess we're persecuting the weed-smokers--but those laws are valid.
We have a minority who enjoy having relations with animals. And in most states, we make that illegal--we are persecuting the bestialists. And those laws are valid.
We have a minority who would really like to make money by selling their bodies for sex. And in most states, we make that illegal--we are persecuting the prostitutes. And those laws are valid.
We have a minority who wouldn't mind selling some of their organs, for cash, to doctors so they can be transplanted into sick people who need them. But thats also against the law. Selling your own organs--for the sole purpose of curing someone elses disease no less--is illegal. I guess we're persecuting the organ donors as well. And those laws are valid.
Of course, none of these laws is written to apply differently to that minority compared to anybody else. The weed-smokers cant smoke weed, and I cant smoke weed either. Its just that I don't <i>care</i> that I cant smoke weed, because I dont want to anyway. The prostitutes can't sell their bodies for money, and I can't either. But I don't care, because I didn't want to anyway. And the homosexuals can't marry a same-sex partner, and I can't either. But I don't care, because I didn't want to anyway.
The law works exactly the same for all of us, which is why it is considered legally valid. Just because only a minority is <i>complaining</i> about the effect of a law doesn't mean the law is persecuting that minority.
None of these "examples" applies. Homosexual human beings are not drugs. Also, they are not selling anything, and they are not prostitutes. And as for animal-relations, animals cannot speak for their own rights. Different situation totally, unless you think of homosexuals as animals. I can see how these would be confused though. Religious fundamentalists often equate all immorality - fewer shades of complexity to deal with.
Also it is interesting to note that all of these examples deal with illegal acts. I suppose that most of the people who voted yes to amendments which prohibit same-sex marriage would also vote yes to amendments making homosexuality illegal.
In all the cases you mention, the minority wishes to do something that NOBODY is allowed to do. That is not persecution of a minority, that is equal treatment (whether rightfully or wrongfully).
In the case that I am talking about, the minority (homosexuals) are being denied a right (marrying their partners) that the majority (the heterosexuals) have. If the gender of that partner matters, that is a breach of gender equality.
<!--quoteo(post=1576025:date=Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]1576025[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In all the cases you mention, the minority wishes to do something that NOBODY is allowed to do. That is not persecution of a minority, that is equal treatment (whether rightfully or wrongfully).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EXACTLY!!! Thats the whole point of the example. I'm glad you got it.
And similarly, NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of their own gender. Just because there are only a few people who WANT to marry someone of their own gender doesnt mean they are being treated any differently than all the other people who dont want to marry someone of their own gender.
<!--quoteo(post=1575844:date=Nov 11 2006, 07:57 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 11 2006, 07:57 AM) [snapback]1575844[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Because by their very definition, conservatives resist change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Silly question, Nadagast. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok let me restate. Why are there so many social conservatives? It just seems dumb, they've been wrong on so many issues in the past, and society has moved on for the better. Oh wait I know why there are so many, religion. Yay...
The fact that people are trying to parse words and justify banning homosexual marriage makes me sad. Think about what your Grandchildren would think if they saw this in the future... Chances are good that they would think you're being a bigot.
You conveniently ignored the part of my post where I pointed out that this is gender inequality, Cxwf. Kindly consider my entire post, not just the part about it that you, out of context, like.
<!--quoteo(post=1576025:date=Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]1576025[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In the case that I am talking about, the minority (homosexuals) are being denied a right (marrying their partners) that the majority (the heterosexuals) have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. People (including heterosexuals) do NOT have the universal right to marry whatever partner they choose. They can marry CERTAIN partners, within limits set by the state. For example, the partner generally has to be 18 years old. The partner can't be too closely related to you. And the partner must be a different gender than you.
This "right", along with the limits prescribed on that right, are all set by the state, and the constitution doesn't have any complaints about that.
Gender equality? Gender equality is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Lots of laws provide different effects on men and women. Public nudity laws, for example. Rape laws. I'm sure there are others.
Remember people, we aren't talking about moral equivalency here at all: moral equivalency is important when trying to convince 6 million people to vote for the amendment in the first place. Now that its passed, the only thing we are discussing is whether it is unconstitutional. And there is no reason to assume that this law is unconstitutional for drawing a distinction between men and women, when many other laws already draw distinctions between men and women.
Its not a discriminatory distinction or anything: It grants all women the right to marry men, and all men the right to marry women. Thats enough to satisfy "equal protection".
Well, I've come to realise that arguing details of law for a country that lacks fundamental human rights is probably the wrong approach. Better to worry about the large picture first, then the details later.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
Hmm I voted in a Northern California election
I voted for Shwarzenneger just cause my dad is a hardcore dem and he hasn't ###### him off, It seems like Ahnold is another pete wilson clone but he isn't doing things to piss off the democrats and he isn't going crazy with the spending. He has broken a couple promises to teachers and the like but overall he isn't dropping the ball. It's just disconcerting to see him on the cover of movies when I visit the local video store.
Hmm I voted against most of the bond measures except one, but they pretty much all passed
I voted against bringing a target to my town, but that ish passed ith 600 votes. GFG
I voted against the choice voting innitative, even though it was just an advisory vote.
I voted to give PG&E the boot, and let a MUD come in [this one was Sacramento MUD] but it got voted down because of woodland / west sac. And it didn't pass on the sacramento side as well.
Hmm I voted Democratically for all the government positions, and I voted for all the unnoposed judges even though I didn't know anything about them. Oh I didn't vote democratically for the insurance commisioner because the dem who was running for it had done things to piss me off
<!--quoteo(post=1576031:date=Nov 11 2006, 05:56 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 11 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]1576031[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Ok let me restate. Why are there so many social conservatives? It just seems dumb, they've been wrong on so many issues in the past, and society has moved on for the better. Oh wait I know why there are so many, religion. Yay... The fact that people are trying to parse words and justify banning homosexual marriage makes me sad. Think about what your Grandchildren would think if they saw this in the future... Chances are good that they would think you're being a bigot. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to be careful here. We may very well think that things turned out for the better. A lot of the folks who lived through such changes still carry the old hatreds and whatnot. To them, things are worse off. To those from even earlier, more restricted times, we're nothing but heathens. It's really a matter of perspective.
The important thing is that our majorities believe we're better off, so we're a happy lot. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we think social conservatives have been wrong before, even in all cases before, doesn't make them always wrong and their cause(s) not worthy.
In all things, the victors will write history and be happy - because they got what they wanted. If in the coming years homosexual marriage triumphs, the grandchildren of resistors may every well think of them as bigots. If not, they may think of them as heroes.
<!--quoteo(post=1576350:date=Nov 12 2006, 05:02 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(That_Annoying_Kid @ Nov 12 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1576350[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> plus I was a pollworker! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1576367:date=Nov 12 2006, 05:41 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 12 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]1576367[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We have to be careful here. We may very well think that things turned out for the better. A lot of the folks who lived through such changes still carry the old hatreds and whatnot. To them, things are worse off. To those from even earlier, more restricted times, we're nothing but heathens. It's really a matter of perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think this level of relativism does us any good. Should we just pretend that it's a matter of perspective whether or not slavery is good?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The important thing is that our majorities believe we're better off, so we're a happy lot. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we think social conservatives have been wrong before, even in all cases before, doesn't make them always wrong and their cause(s) not worthy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't make them always wrong but it does give the general population a pretty damn good reason to not listen to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In all things, the victors will write history and be happy - because they got what they wanted. If in the coming years homosexual marriage triumphs, the grandchildren of resistors may every well think of them as bigots. If not, they may think of them as heroes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that there is a pretty damn good chance that just like in the past, the social conservatives will be wrong...
<!--quoteo(post=1576442:date=Nov 13 2006, 02:40 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 13 2006, 02:40 AM) [snapback]1576442[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't think this level of relativism does us any good. Should we just pretend that it's a matter of perspective whether or not slavery is good?[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The general consensus is that moral relativism can be applied to everything except race and gender equality, because if you try to do that your position becomes indefensible.
Yet Nadagast is right. Since there is no absolute right and wrong, one must assume that the viewpoint that all black people should be slaves and women should stay in the kitchen must be granted merit.
I'm in Texas, not sure what District. I was only voting for governor as I didn't know any of the other candidates. So, unfortuanetly I had to vote straight ticket, Republican. (Perry being a Republican.)
I didn't feel like any of the other candidates were as realistic as Rick Perry. He's done good things for education, including raising pay for public school teachers. (They greatly deserve this, at least in my area, where students are a huge pain in the rear. Not to mention the fights, riots and bomb threats. - This mostly being in Duncanville, which is the second largest High School in the entire nation, under one roof.)
Anyway, hopfully next time I'll be more educated concerning the other candidates, this was my first time to vote. (Just turned 18 in May.)
Comments
A republican moral relativist...who have thunk it?
Ok lolfighter, I'm not going to question your assumption of an external moral framework, but Rob is. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Feel free to pick your target for your comeback, since we're arguing basically totally different things, despite reaching the same conclusion in the end.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say I'm a Republican only in name... They're the closest match, but I tend to take things I like from everywhere. Personally, I see no problem with this, but I'm some would consider it... eh... weak willed. Then again, I'm not one to defend a cause I don't believe in, nor abondon one that I do. In any case, I'll take your words as a compliment. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
@lolfighter:
A true bible-beater would say, "Only Jesus was without hypocrisy! We lowly sinners double talk all the time!" Whether or not you believe in what the true bible-beater believes in, the truth of his statement seems well enough. Now, this isn't an excuse for such behavior, but rather a concession that it will always happen, at least into the near future. Further, lots of contradictions seem to keep coming up in the world around us, as well. Knowing facts about fictional characters and yet knowing that they also don't exists, or the old liar's contradiction: "This sentence is false." Our own behavior should be no different.
In fact, I think we should embrace our individualism. Aside from maybe courage wrought from desperation, we are at our strongest rallied around a center of common interests and values. Wars happen when two camps of opposing interests and values meet. And not all wars are fought with weapons, either. We're enganged in one right now. And we'll walk away (hopefully) with a better understanding of each other and ourselves.
So, our government hypocritical? Surely. Are we? On occasion, but hopefully not all the time.
Cxwf, the fact that the persecution of the minority has been going on for a long time and is far more widespread than I thought is not an argument FOR it.
I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything. YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.
You claim that your country is not persecuting homosexuals. But you deny them the right to marry their partners. You claim that right is inconsequential. But marriage, as a legal institution, confers financial benefits and securities that are not otherwise guaranteed. By denying this right to certain individuals based on their sexuality, you put them at a disadvantage in regards to the pursuit of happiness, compared to the majority. That is persecution.
The right to sit at the front of the bus, or at the middle, or anywhere you goddamn choose is an inconsequential right if you're honest about it, and yet denying it to people based on their skin colour is undeniably persecution. Even black people had the right to marriage long before your country abolished segregation.
As for my stance on morales being a cop out... My ability to stand up for what I believe is not affected by the idea that someone else can fight just as hard for something they believe in as I do. That's a bit of an unfounded statement. If anything, our previous sparing matches about Bush should show you that I'm not afraid to take a stand on something I believe in, lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rob, the true bible beater knows that by Jesus he is saved, and therefore he doesn't need to be a good person, but can say "God hates homosexuals" all day long<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was sort of making a joke. True as in, not radical.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything. YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you believe that "living document" nonsense, then the constitution is fluid, not rigid, in definition. Open to the current day's insights. I rather believe that the constitution serves as the backing for arguments like the one you're making. It's the <i>instrument</i> through which minorities sway majorities.
I kinda liked Cxwf's ideas about equality under the constitution, so I won't touch that.
As for my country persecuting a minority? Sure, you're probably right. My personal feelings on this and related matters are pretty dark, however.
What should we do about it? What else can we do in a democracy but find out what the majority wants? Should the president do something?
Bush has already shown what happens when a president moves against popular opinion. State level officials doing so would commit politcal suicide. Bush is in the golden position. He can do as he believes is right and retire to quiet life when it's all over, his ambitions satiated.
Others on the rise up have strong incentive not to cross public opinion.
Cxwf:
I am still not buying the "the majority is always right" argument. Persecution of minorities is never right, and I'm not buying the "right and wrong are relative, not absolute" argument either. That's a cop-out for people afraid to take a stance on anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats ok, because I'm not suggesting the majority is always right. Sometimes they are wrong. But how do you KNOW when they're wrong? You and I both believe there is a distinct right and wrong in this case, and we both want the right law to be passed. But we disagree on which one the right law IS. So when then that happens, how does the legal system decide which one of us to believe? How does the government know which law is right and which is wrong, when they have millions of people saying this one is right, and millions more saying the other one is right?
You don't have a whole lot of options in this case. Really, the only thing they CAN do is to abide by the majority. However, our legal system provides some protections by requiring larger and larger majorities for more powerful laws. For example, 51% of the people to pass a normal law, 67% of the people of one state to pass a State Amendment, or 67% of 37 different states in order to pass a National Amendment. Well, so far we've hit the second level of majority, but not the third. That means the law only has the power of a State Amendment, and if it is found to be against the National Constitution, then it can be struck down. But if it doesnt violate the National Constitution, then it stands. Whether or not it violates the Constitution is a legal question though, not a moral one.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION says that persecution of minorities is wrong. YOUR COUNTRY is persecuting a minority. Start by refuting either of those statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're not persecuting a minority. They have exactly the same rights, privileges, and restrictions as all the rest of us. Down to the last detail.
But you know what? I'm not a legal expert. Perhaps the legal experts will disagree with me. They are already disgreeing with each other--remember those last 6 states that don't ban g.a.y marriage? Thats only because legal experts there decided the laws they USED to have banning g.a.y marriage were unconstitutional. But so far the legal experts in the other 44 states haven't been convinced.
So the question will go to the courts, and the courts will tell us whether or not we are actually persecuting a minority. Thats the way our country works, and its a damned good system as far as I can tell. So tell me, how do YOU want our system to work, to better suit your morals? Should we base our laws off of UN resolutions perhaps?
lolfighter yes democracy is flawed unfortunately it's the best form of government that we know of. (Did you suggest something else that I missed?)
and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it.
[...]We're not persecuting a minority. They have exactly the same rights, privileges, and restrictions as all the rest of us. Down to the last detail.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that little detail where homosexuals are denied the right to marry their partners, a right that heterosexuals have. I'm getting a little tired of having to repeat this, to be honest.
Look, I'll repeat it again, just to drive the point home:
Heterosexuals (the majority) have the right to marry their partners.
Homosexuals (the minority) are denied the right to marry their partners.
<!--quoteo(post=1575807:date=Nov 11 2006, 11:08 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Nov 11 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]1575807[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
[...]lolfighter yes democracy is flawed unfortunately it's the best form of government that we know of. (Did you suggest something else that I missed?)[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I agree. It's unfortunate, but true.
and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because by their very definition, conservatives resist change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Silly question, Nadagast.
and the ga_y marriage debate is a dumb debate that only exists because of religion and old social mores. A few decades from now ga_ys will be allowed to marry and it will be common, just like EVERY other social taboo and discrimination from the past. Every single time something like this happens progress always wins, it just takes time. I don't know why social conservatives fight it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like other social taboos and discrimination from the past, the common-man-social-conservative fights progess because of ignorance, racism, and general xenophobia. The <i>politician</i>-social-conservative fights it to get VOTES. Most politicians are intelligent, and will use whatever issue exists among the common people to attain power. Look at every single issue addressed by conservatives. They take advantage of racism and ignorance by focusing on immigration and ga_y marriage. The vast majority of these politicians couldn't care less about these petty issues*; this is made obvious as they use meth, hire male escorts and attend pagan orgies. This is nothing to be ashamed of, unless you're trying to fake out the peasants with a holier than thou "godly" act.
(immigration is not a petty issue, but the motivation of the minuteman mindset is racism, which calls into question all current illegal immigration concerns)
[...]Most politicians <strike>are intelligent</strike> know how to get votes, and will use whatever issue exists among the common people to attain power.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is more accurate.
Except that little detail where homosexuals are denied the right to marry their partners, a right that heterosexuals have. I'm getting a little tired of having to repeat this, to be honest.
Look, I'll repeat it again, just to drive the point home:
Heterosexuals (the majority) have the right to marry their partners.
Homosexuals (the minority) are denied the right to marry their partners.
No, I agree. It's unfortunate, but true.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats your point? Are you trying to get me to change my personal, moral religious convictions on g.ay marriage? Or are you trying to convince me that these laws are legally indefensible?
Don't for a second think they are the same question--even IF you are morally correct, it doesn't do you a bit of good unless you can convince a majority of the American people to agree with you. If you want to get the laws changed, you have to be legally correct.
We have a minority who enjoy having relations with animals. And in most states, we make that illegal--we are persecuting the bestialists. And those laws are valid.
We have a minority who would really like to make money by selling their bodies for sex. And in most states, we make that illegal--we are persecuting the prostitutes. And those laws are valid.
We have a minority who wouldn't mind selling some of their organs, for cash, to doctors so they can be transplanted into sick people who need them. But thats also against the law. Selling your own organs--for the sole purpose of curing someone elses disease no less--is illegal. I guess we're persecuting the organ donors as well. And those laws are valid.
Of course, none of these laws is written to apply differently to that minority compared to anybody else. The weed-smokers cant smoke weed, and I cant smoke weed either. Its just that I don't <i>care</i> that I cant smoke weed, because I dont want to anyway. The prostitutes can't sell their bodies for money, and I can't either. But I don't care, because I didn't want to anyway. And the homosexuals can't marry a same-sex partner, and I can't either. But I don't care, because I didn't want to anyway.
The law works exactly the same for all of us, which is why it is considered legally valid. Just because only a minority is <i>complaining</i> about the effect of a law doesn't mean the law is persecuting that minority.
Also it is interesting to note that all of these examples deal with illegal acts. I suppose that most of the people who voted yes to amendments which prohibit same-sex marriage would also vote yes to amendments making homosexuality illegal.
In the case that I am talking about, the minority (homosexuals) are being denied a right (marrying their partners) that the majority (the heterosexuals) have. If the gender of that partner matters, that is a breach of gender equality.
In all the cases you mention, the minority wishes to do something that NOBODY is allowed to do. That is not persecution of a minority, that is equal treatment (whether rightfully or wrongfully).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EXACTLY!!! Thats the whole point of the example. I'm glad you got it.
And similarly, NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of their own gender. Just because there are only a few people who WANT to marry someone of their own gender doesnt mean they are being treated any differently than all the other people who dont want to marry someone of their own gender.
Because by their very definition, conservatives resist change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Silly question, Nadagast.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok let me restate. Why are there so many social conservatives? It just seems dumb, they've been wrong on so many issues in the past, and society has moved on for the better. Oh wait I know why there are so many, religion. Yay...
The fact that people are trying to parse words and justify banning homosexual marriage makes me sad. Think about what your Grandchildren would think if they saw this in the future... Chances are good that they would think you're being a bigot.
<!--quoteo(post=1576025:date=Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 11 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]1576025[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
In the case that I am talking about, the minority (homosexuals) are being denied a right (marrying their partners) that the majority (the heterosexuals) have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. People (including heterosexuals) do NOT have the universal right to marry whatever partner they choose. They can marry CERTAIN partners, within limits set by the state. For example, the partner generally has to be 18 years old. The partner can't be too closely related to you. And the partner must be a different gender than you.
This "right", along with the limits prescribed on that right, are all set by the state, and the constitution doesn't have any complaints about that.
Gender equality? Gender equality is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Lots of laws provide different effects on men and women. Public nudity laws, for example. Rape laws. I'm sure there are others.
Remember people, we aren't talking about moral equivalency here at all: moral equivalency is important when trying to convince 6 million people to vote for the amendment in the first place. Now that its passed, the only thing we are discussing is whether it is unconstitutional. And there is no reason to assume that this law is unconstitutional for drawing a distinction between men and women, when many other laws already draw distinctions between men and women.
Its not a discriminatory distinction or anything: It grants all women the right to marry men, and all men the right to marry women. Thats enough to satisfy "equal protection".
I voted for Shwarzenneger just cause my dad is a hardcore dem and he hasn't ###### him off, It seems like Ahnold is another pete wilson clone but he isn't doing things to piss off the democrats and he isn't going crazy with the spending. He has broken a couple promises to teachers and the like but overall he isn't dropping the ball. It's just disconcerting to see him on the cover of movies when I visit the local video store.
Hmm I voted against most of the bond measures except one, but they pretty much all passed
I voted against bringing a target to my town, but that ish passed ith 600 votes. GFG
I voted against the choice voting innitative, even though it was just an advisory vote.
I voted to give PG&E the boot, and let a MUD come in [this one was Sacramento MUD] but it got voted down because of woodland / west sac. And it didn't pass on the sacramento side as well.
Hmm I voted Democratically for all the government positions, and I voted for all the unnoposed judges even though I didn't know anything about them. Oh I didn't vote democratically for the insurance commisioner because the dem who was running for it had done things to piss me off
plus I was a pollworker!
Ok let me restate. Why are there so many social conservatives? It just seems dumb, they've been wrong on so many issues in the past, and society has moved on for the better. Oh wait I know why there are so many, religion. Yay...
The fact that people are trying to parse words and justify banning homosexual marriage makes me sad. Think about what your Grandchildren would think if they saw this in the future... Chances are good that they would think you're being a bigot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to be careful here. We may very well think that things turned out for the better. A lot of the folks who lived through such changes still carry the old hatreds and whatnot. To them, things are worse off. To those from even earlier, more restricted times, we're nothing but heathens. It's really a matter of perspective.
The important thing is that our majorities believe we're better off, so we're a happy lot. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we think social conservatives have been wrong before, even in all cases before, doesn't make them always wrong and their cause(s) not worthy.
In all things, the victors will write history and be happy - because they got what they wanted. If in the coming years homosexual marriage triumphs, the grandchildren of resistors may every well think of them as bigots. If not, they may think of them as heroes.
<!--quoteo(post=1576350:date=Nov 12 2006, 05:02 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(That_Annoying_Kid @ Nov 12 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1576350[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
plus I was a pollworker!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good for you!
We have to be careful here. We may very well think that things turned out for the better. A lot of the folks who lived through such changes still carry the old hatreds and whatnot. To them, things are worse off. To those from even earlier, more restricted times, we're nothing but heathens. It's really a matter of perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think this level of relativism does us any good. Should we just pretend that it's a matter of perspective whether or not slavery is good?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The important thing is that our majorities believe we're better off, so we're a happy lot. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we think social conservatives have been wrong before, even in all cases before, doesn't make them always wrong and their cause(s) not worthy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't make them always wrong but it does give the general population a pretty damn good reason to not listen to them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In all things, the victors will write history and be happy - because they got what they wanted. If in the coming years homosexual marriage triumphs, the grandchildren of resistors may every well think of them as bigots. If not, they may think of them as heroes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that there is a pretty damn good chance that just like in the past, the social conservatives will be wrong...
I don't think this level of relativism does us any good. Should we just pretend that it's a matter of perspective whether or not slavery is good?[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The general consensus is that moral relativism can be applied to everything except race and gender equality, because if you try to do that your position becomes indefensible.
Yet Nadagast is right. Since there is no absolute right and wrong, one must assume that the viewpoint that all black people should be slaves and women should stay in the kitchen must be granted merit.
I didn't feel like any of the other candidates were as realistic as Rick Perry. He's done good things for education, including raising pay for public school teachers. (They greatly deserve this, at least in my area, where students are a huge pain in the rear. Not to mention the fights, riots and bomb threats. - This mostly being in Duncanville, which is the second largest High School in the entire nation, under one roof.)
Anyway, hopfully next time I'll be more educated concerning the other candidates, this was my first time to vote. (Just turned 18 in May.)
Cheers,
~ DarkATi