What's the problem?

[StruckingFuggle]

You say I force my morality on you by voting for a ban on gay marriage? You force your morality on me by voting against it. We're even.

Exactly. Either way, someone gets forced one way or the other. So the question is, which way do you force it? In the way of denying people who're not hurting anyone from being happy for the sake of tradition, or in the way of skullfucking tradition to make some people able to be happy and not hurt anyone?

There can be tyranny no matter where or how you look at it. Tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the elite, tyranny of the minority, etc etc. There will ALWAYS be somebody who is unhappy with the way things are. That's life.

You have a point, but you also ... don't. Just because there's someone being unhappy doesn't make it tyrrany.


And no, Blaze, you never said you didn't believe in Seperation of Church and State. Just checking to make sure you did just argue for it, and do believe in it, in case it comes up later. You don't pay attention to what people you discuss with are for and against and what it implies they are also for and against?


And, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how "the Mass. Court's decision is supoosedly "tyrrany from the courts" and an "usurpation" of our republican form of government"... 'cause it still makes no sense.

[Triviarre]

[quote="RONIN";p="428944"]

It would be great if people would just stop being dicks and allow gay and lesbian couples to join in union.

If you don't believe in same sex marriage you are a dick? Join a union is fine with me. The government could even grant them the tax break. I'm with Blaze though, marriage is a different story.[/quote]

I still fail to see how much a difference it makes if you claim you're "married" or "civilly united."

Main Entry: 1union
Pronunciation: 'yün-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin union-, unio oneness, union, from Latin unus one -- more at ONE
1 a : an act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one: as (1) : the formation of a single political unit from two or more separate and independent units (2) : a uniting in marriage; also : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (3) : the growing together of severed parts b : a unified condition : COMBINATION, JUNCTION <a gracious union of excellence and strength>

[quote="RONIN";p="428944"]

and wasn't this country founded on the premise that all people have the right to pursuit of happiness? Or do the people who are against it just believe that the preservation of thier own happiness justifies them being dicks to everyone else?

now if you don't believe in same sex marriage you are a dick and only concerned with your own happiness? Big assumptions...[/quote]

I believe the point he was getting across is that when you hinder a couple's right to join in a union as two consenting adults, you are also hindering them in their persuit of happiness. What, other than religious prejudice, is so wrong with two people (of the same gender or not) joining together in a union to fulfil their happiness together?

You might as well ban homosexual dating, as well.

[quote="RONIN";p="428944"]

So what's a solution that doesn't involve the forcing of opinions?

Is the issue gay marriage or the forcing of opinions?[/quote]

I don't not know what you are trying to ask, but as far as homosexual unions go, the banning therof would be forcing the opinion of those who are against it on those who are not against it.

[quote="RONIN";p="428944"]

but society has taken it and developed it to be something quite different than a covenant to God.

Does this make it right?[/quote]

What is "right?" Is there some ultimate law that everyone should follow because a few religious conservatives feel their religious beliefs are otherwise being violated? Who and what gives you the right (the pun was truly not intended) to enforce your personal convictions on others? Is everyone who disagrees "wrong"? If so, how and why? Who are you to dictate what everyone "should" or "should not" do?

[quote="RONIN";p="428944"][quote="Azurain";p="428942"]Just curious... oh, and you have heard of Tyranny of the Majority... right? : \[/quote]

In a previous topic, weren't you stating that the United States is a democracy? In that case, majority rules. If Tyranny of the majority applies here, then why not anywhere else?[/quote]

This has been said once before in many threads, and I shall state it again. The United States of America is not a true democracy. This "majority" you speak of consists of only a fraction of the population. Many people do not participate, do not care, or flat-out refuse to participate because of how the government treats them. So, even with the voting system, is the majority of the population truly being represented?

To put it in an entirely different light, if this majority you speak of was supportive of legalised murder, would that mean their voice was that of the entire nation? Most certainly not. On any issue regarding the population, especially an issue that is strongly religiously-biased and that effects a large amount of citizens greatly, one must take into the account of everyone speaking, not just the fraction that actually cares adamantly and furiously enough to stand up and strongly object to something that they feels attacks their personal moral code.

[mikehendo]

[quote="Blaze";p="428861"]
Nice to see you forcing your opinions on us all.[/quote]
Just like it is nice to see the religious right force thier opinions on everybody. Only when they do it, they try to get it passed into law. The religious right doesnt even stand for the majority of the republican party.

[tankkisankari]

After living for few years now in a country which has allowed civil unions on same sex couples, i can quite easily say that society hasn't self-destructed, churches are doing just as good as they were before, you don see gay people forcing heterosexual people to marry them.
I guess it's the lack of religious nutters which allows such blasphemy to be allowed.

[Deacon]

[quote="mikehendo";p="428684"]It would be great if people would just stop being dicks and allow gay and lesbian couples to join in union.[/quote]
Regardless of different people's stances on this issue, logical fallacies aren't usually helpful in making a persuasive argument, especially when they involve hotbutton issues.

[RONIN]

believe the point he was getting across is that when you hinder a couple's right to join in a union as two consenting adults, you are also hindering them in their persuit of happiness. What, other than religious prejudice, is so wrong with two people (of the same gender or not) joining together in a union to fulfil their happiness together?

I believe gays can have a "union" together. I don't think it should be recognized by law as a marriage.

I don't not know what you are trying to ask, but as far as homosexual unions go, the banning therof would be forcing the opinion of those who are against it on those who are not against it.

again, no one is banning the unions.

What is "right?" Is there some ultimate law that everyone should follow because a few religious conservatives feel their religious beliefs are otherwise being violated? Who and what gives you the right (the pun was truly not intended) to enforce your personal convictions on others? Is everyone who disagrees "wrong"? If so, how and why? Who are you to dictate what everyone "should" or "should not" do?

What is right? There is no ultimate law. I never said anyone should follow conservative views. I am not forcing anything on anyone. This is what I believe, I am voicing my opinion. Everyone who disagrees is not wrong. I am not a dictator by any means.

This has been said once before in many threads, and I shall state it again. The United States of America is not a true democracy. This "majority" you speak of consists of only a fraction of the population. Many people do not participate, do not care, or flat-out refuse to participate because of how the government treats them. So, even with the voting system, is the majority of the population truly being represented?

Those who voice their opinions by voting or other means are probably being represented in some way.

[StruckingFuggle]

again, no one is banning the unions.

You know ... I could swear that at least a majority of those amendments/propositions/resolutions/what-have-yous that passed on November 2nd in something like 20% of the states either outright banned, or were worded such that they could be used to ban civil unions ... but I can't find them at the moment to back that up.

Posted Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:46 am:

I believe gays can have a "union" together. I don't think it should be recognized by law as a marriage.

If looks, smells, legislates, fucks, functions as a marriage, who or what does it hurt by calling the union a marriage? Because guess what? "Marriage" might have started off as a purely Religious thing, but it has been appropriated by the state. You can LEGALLY get MARRIED, and call it legally "marriage", without going through a church. There are secular marriages. Which seems to mean that if you use religion as an argument for what is and is not marriage, you need to either support also the anullment of "marriages" that aren't run through churches (what sort of churches, too? See below at the *) or admit that you're trying to ask the government to pass laws based on your religion... *CoughCONGRESS-SALL-PASS-NO-LAWcough*

You can be against homosexual marriage because of your religion, but you can't be against not legally allowing it, through legislation or legislative exclusion, from a religious standpoint. Just like how the government can't, say, say that Catholic mass can only give communion to children and no adults ... the Church can't say people can be entitled or denied something because they are or are not sinners.

(*And, another question, an interesting kink in this whole debate - what if there was a religion that believed people of the same gender could get married? Would that change anyone's status on the issue?)

[Deacon]

For some reason that I can't rightly explain, I feel the need to point out that the quote in your sig should end with "God will be cut." Rolled up? Where'd that come from?

[StruckingFuggle]

I know that the original quote is "god will be cut". The original quote also should be "this is my finest sword". It's a double reference, to both Kill Bill and Katamari Damacy. Katamari don't cut things, they roll them up.

Posted Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:58 am:

And wow. My post that ninja'd yours and got added on to mine instead of after yours was rambling and incoherent and ... wow.

I'm gonna go to bed, because lack of sleep is effecting my posts - and compelling me to talk like a televangelist, for some reason. And so! It's a sign to go to bed.

But I am going to leave the incoherent and rambling post, because I do think I still made a point, convoluted as I was in getting to them.

[RONIN]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="428990"]You know ... I could swear that at least a majority of those amendments/propositions/resolutions/what-have-yous that passed on November 2nd in something like 20% of the states either outright banned, or were worded such that they could be used to ban civil unions ... but I can't find them at the moment to back that up.[/quote]

The states have, yes. I'm not. Call it a union fine, don't call it a marriage.

You can be against homosexual marriage because of your religion, but you can't be against not legally allowing it, through legislation or legislative exclusion, from a religious standpoint.

I'm not using religion as an argument.

(*And, another question, an interesting kink in this whole debate - what if there was a religion that believed people of the same gender could get married? Would that change anyone's status on the issue?)

What 'if's' don't matter. A friend of mine has discussed this with you before.

[JarysM]

Marrige is a social relationship, which has developed in human culture almost universally, despite a wide variation of religious doctrines that coexist, and some times interact, with it.
Western civ ideologyt tends to see love as a base human emotion, more fundamental then society itself, or any of sociteis parts (such as religion).
It is understandable how this idealogy has come to accept "different" types of love.

Marrige is also a legal and federal isntitution, as it is legally recognized, regulated, and recorded by the government. Therefore further relulation and recognition of hoosexual marrige is warrented. Its a government issue. The government recognises the superority of love over traditiion in marrige. Arranged and forced marriges are not encoraged, but enforced agaisnt by the government, holding that ones perosnal choice is the sole rightous justification for marrige. It follows then that if people want access to this government isntitution, asl ong as they are of consenting age, it is the mutual choice that jsutifies it, not their gender.

And here is a thing. The government allowing homosexuals marrige rights is not an infringment on the rights of religious persons who believe that such a thing is immoral. To live in a society free of those who do otherwize than as you would have them do is not a right granted by the government. Rights are self delaing and equal. If you wantthe govenrmentto infringe the rights of others, it would have to be a right you would give up yourself, and would in some way contribute to the life liberty and persuit of happiness of all ciotizens. otherwize is tyranny.

If churches dont want to give marrige to gays, thats fine, they dont have to, but to make religious doctrine, govenrment doctrine is not allways making goverment more moral.
To say there is a right kind of marige and awrong kind of marrige says there is right and wrong kind of love. Love that involves the harm upon naouther, like in pediophilia, Ill grant you. But gays wast to love each other, and they want to do it as we do it, consecrate with marrige. Can there be any non-biblically inspired argument agaisnt this. I woudl liek to hear one if so.

[mikehendo]

Ronin, he wasn't responding to you. In fact, people havent been responding to you in a while..

[Blaze]

My point, for all you who care to stop looking for microscopic holes and understand the larger issue, is that as marriage is a religious issue, Governement really shouldn't have anything to do with it whatsoever. People already have to get a "marriage licence" before they get married at a church. So what MY particular plan is, personally, is that we have a "Union licence". Which then allows a given couple to go out and get some level of union. For instance, one could get a union licence and then go get "married". One could get a union licence and then go get "Civily Joined". One could get a union licence and then get a "Life Platonic Partnership for the betterment of humanity from church of Bob". That way, what's really important is the licence, but any type of joining still has value, and you're not forcing any given group to accept that certian people are "married", at least not in their own terms.

[tankkisankari]

Blaze a fair idea, especially if this "licence" would give all "united" people the same finacial rights and legal status as married people.

[StruckingFuggle]

Well, takkisanakari, that would be the only way it would work in any sort of equitable manner.

Everyone, gay or straight, can get this "union", that comes with all the various benefits and drawbacks. And also, then, "marriage" conveys neither legal union nor any of the legal/economic things that come with it.

Though I don't like the denial that seems to be inherent in it that "marriage" hasn't been taken from being a strictly religious thing and given a secular meaning to it, seperate of whatever religions, use the word, too ... because that's what it is. Denial.

But, regardless, such a system seems to be fair and equitable, if unlikely to ever come into being.