http://gamingtrend.com
September 21, 2014, 06:06:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ban on Gay Marriage a winner in 11 states.  (Read 16265 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
draegun
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: November 04, 2004, 04:19:36 PM »

Quote from: "jonsauce"
Quote
lmao Gryndal
Funniest stuff I've read in awhile
bahahah, classic...
'should I smite them?'
dang, thats good


I found the email funny, but you do realize that just because it is in the bible doesn't mean it is a part of Christian practices right?


 :roll:  It's in the bible and the bible in its original text was/is infalliable.  It came from the Lord God, whichever personality he was presenting at the time . . .  so okay, it's not relevant to use the Pentateuch, what about Paulian theory.  The christian church today does in a way worship this guy.  I would think that they would at least want to be consistent:  Ban homosexuals they should also ban their women from talking in church.

Anyone???
Logged
Nameless
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 41


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: November 04, 2004, 04:26:24 PM »

This whole thing makes me ill.  What if the ammendment proposal had said that anyone born on a Thursday should not be allowed to marry?  How is this different?  I don't care how hard anyone tries, no one will ever be able to convince me that this is anything other than xenophobia.  Has anyone seriously come up with a non-religious reason to pass something like this?  I know earlier in this thread there was a discussion as to it being morally offensive to some people.  But why?  Is it also morally offensive to you when two 90 year olds get married?  Mixed race couples?  I mean, come on.  At one point do we allow personal biases get in the way of people's rights?
Logged

"I don't like signatures"  -  me
Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2004, 04:30:53 PM »

I don't know whether I'm rising to the bait here, or just trying to enlighten those who truly don't know, but here it is as simple as I can make it.

Old Testament -- Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments).  Mostly still followed by Jewish religions today, although some traditions are different.

New Testament -- Law of Christ (for lack of a better term).  Christ taught that several of the old laws should be changed.  For example, the principle "Eye for an eye" of the Old Testament law, was changed to "Turn the other cheek", a New Testament law.  Christianity today comes from the New Testament and the Old (the 10 Commandments in Exodus are still accepted, for example), but where there is conflict, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.

So, most of the laws and traditions in Exodus and Leviticus, from which the above (very funny, I might add!) post were superseded later by the new laws established by Christ.

Thread hijackers!
Logged
draegun
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2004, 04:39:08 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
I don't know whether I'm rising to the bait here, or just trying to enlighten those who truly don't know, but here it is as simple as I can make it.

Old Testament -- Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments).  Mostly still followed by Jewish religions today, although some traditions are different.

New Testament -- Law of Christ (for lack of a better term).  Christ taught that several of the old laws should be changed.  For example, the principle "Eye for an eye" of the Old Testament law, was changed to "Turn the other cheek", a New Testament law.  Christianity today comes from the New Testament and the Old (the 10 Commandments in Exodus are still accepted, for example), but where there is conflict, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.

So, most of the laws and traditions in Exodus and Leviticus, from which the above (very funny, I might add!) post were superseded later by the new laws established by Christ.

Thread hijackers!


taking the bait, butterknife  biggrin

But all for another thread . . .

Back to Paul then.  Why are there not laws outlawing women from teaching, or speaking in the church?  Give me a reason why these issues are so happily smoothed over, but homosexuals are chastized.

Man, I'd love to use references from the OT, but again, another thread  :twisted:
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2004, 04:40:26 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
I don't know whether I'm rising to the bait here, or just trying to enlighten those who truly don't know, but here it is as simple as I can make it.

Old Testament -- Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments).  Mostly still followed by Jewish religions today, although some traditions are different.

New Testament -- Law of Christ (for lack of a better term).  Christ taught that several of the old laws should be changed.  For example, the principle "Eye for an eye" of the Old Testament law, was changed to "Turn the other cheek", a New Testament law.  Christianity today comes from the New Testament and the Old (the 10 Commandments in Exodus are still accepted, for example), but where there is conflict, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.

So, most of the laws and traditions in Exodus and Leviticus, from which the above (very funny, I might add!) post were superseded later by the new laws established by Christ.

Thread hijackers!



You point out that Christ taught that several of the old laws shoudl be changed - did he specify any of the ones listed above?  If not wouldn't they still be in play?

Basically (not trying to be rude or combative) how do we know which laws are superseeded by the New Testament?  Who decided if Christ wasn't explicit?
Logged

Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2004, 05:02:30 PM »

Quote
You point out that Christ taught that several of the old laws shoudl be changed - did he specify any of the ones listed above? If not wouldn't they still be in play?

Basically (not trying to be rude or combative) how do we know which laws are superseeded by the New Testament? Who decided if Christ wasn't explicit?


Well, when I said I was simplifying, I wasn't kidding.  This stuff does get pretty complex, and of course that's why there are so many differing Christian religions.  Basically the Bible doesn't cover every single possibility, and so people try to fill in the blanks with whatever they think should be there.

I would encourage you to read the Bible, if you are truly interested.  It would certainly help you to understand some of this stuff. I'll answer what I can.

One entire subset of laws that were specifically done away with are the animal sacrifice laws from the Old Testament, replaced with the Sacrament (from the Last Supper).  Most religious scholars will agree that the sacrifices performed in the Old Testament were to teach the people about Christ's upcoming sacrifice for them.  After Christ's sacrifice, the sacrifice of animals was no longer required by the newly-formed Christianity.

Slavery was never done away with in the New Testament -- witness slavery being practiced by many Christians in early America, all who believed in the Bible.  Today most Christians believe that it is wrong.

Sleeping with a menstrual woman never was done away with, either, as far as I know.  So I guess you shouldn't do it.  slywink  But, I don't know of any religions that preach this today -- there has to be someone out there teaching that, though, wouldn't you think?
Logged
draegun
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2004, 05:08:52 PM »

Without looking up all the sources, so correct me if I stray

Can't we thank the humanist from the late 19th century for slavery being abolished and christians today thinking that it's wrong?
Logged
Easily Satisfied
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 25


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2004, 05:10:00 PM »

I am just ill over this whole thing. It bothers me to the core that we live in a country that apparently supports discrimination and intolerance of others.

How can so many religious people be so discrimatory / intolerant of others? How can they be Christians and still feel such ill will towards another human being? How can they think that this is moral behavior? What happened to 'treat others how you want to be treated'?

I am truly saddened by this whole election.

How do I deal with my families who I know voted for this proposal in Michigan while I voted against?
Logged
jonsauce
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 236


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: November 04, 2004, 06:32:26 PM »

Quote
WHAT?!? Are you saying that all religions pick and choose what elements of their holy books they want to practice and leave the other stuff out!?!

I'm shocked.  


The bible is divide into the new and old testament, I'm sure you know this.  Testament is another word for Covenant.  So its the new and old Covenant that God has with his people.
If it is in the new Testament, then yes, it is a part of Christianity.  Being in the old testament, which is where all of those quotes are from, does not mean it is a part of Christianity.
Logged

Now Playing
--------------
NHL 09
NFL Head Coach 09
Red Faction Guerilla
Rockband 2
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: November 04, 2004, 06:54:02 PM »

Quote from: "draegun"
Without looking up all the sources, so correct me if I stray

Can't we thank the humanist from the late 19th century for slavery being abolished and christians today thinking that it's wrong?

I think when you research this you'll find that many, if not most, of the Abolitionists were Christians who interpreted the Bible differently from their "Southern Brethren".  Check out this article at one of my favorite websites Religioustolerance.org: link on slavery.  Be sure to check out the section on Christianity and Slavery.
Here's a quote:
Quote
Anabaptists started to criticize slavery in the late 17th century. They were joined by Quakers and Mennonites. It was only when John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of the Methodist movement, became concerned about slavery that the small protest became a mass movement for the abolition of slavery.

Hope that helps.  It's a fascinating topic handled very well by a very balanced website.
Logged
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2004, 03:06:53 AM »

Honestly I find it hard to believe this...if what you wrote is true, the old testament is not valid, what is all the hubbub about Genesis?  Clearly creationist viewpoints would be moot as they would not be valid.  Or is this another case where you get to pick and choose?

Quote from: "jonsauce"
Quote
WHAT?!? Are you saying that all religions pick and choose what elements of their holy books they want to practice and leave the other stuff out!?!

I'm shocked.  


The bible is divide into the new and old testament, I'm sure you know this.  Testament is another word for Covenant.  So its the new and old Covenant that God has with his people.
If it is in the new Testament, then yes, it is a part of Christianity.  Being in the old testament, which is where all of those quotes are from, does not mean it is a part of Christianity.
Logged
scubabbl
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 149


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2004, 03:11:01 AM »

Oh, burn. Good point also.

Quote from: "Jaddison"
Honestly I find it hard to believe this...if what you wrote is true, the old testament is not valid, what is all the hubbub about Genesis?  Clearly creationist viewpoints would be moot as they would not be valid.  Or is this another case where you get to pick and choose?

Quote from: "jonsauce"
Quote
WHAT?!? Are you saying that all religions pick and choose what elements of their holy books they want to practice and leave the other stuff out!?!

I'm shocked.  


The bible is divide into the new and old testament, I'm sure you know this.  Testament is another word for Covenant.  So its the new and old Covenant that God has with his people.
If it is in the new Testament, then yes, it is a part of Christianity.  Being in the old testament, which is where all of those quotes are from, does not mean it is a part of Christianity.



Ohh,
Logged
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2004, 03:56:32 AM »

I have to ask those that read here who support the anti-gay referenda including marriage.  The bible, which is used as the fount of all this wisdom also says "And the King will tell them, 'I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!'"

I am not saying that gays are the "least" of us but how "Christ like" is this discriminatory behavior?
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2004, 04:19:41 AM »

I'm curious to know if any of these are still part of Christianity??

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10)

    "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4).

    "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God" (I Corinthians 4:5).

    "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (James 4:11-2)

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:1-6).

    "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1)

    "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? Luke 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. Luke 12:59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite" (Luke 12:57-59).

    "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" (I Corinthians 6:1,4-7)
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2004, 04:19:57 AM »

Lets just stone each other and bring armageddon to our fields! smile
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2004, 04:20:03 PM »

It's amazing how many people can get wrapped up in interpreting each and every little line of the bible and forget the bigger picture... it's supposed to be a religion that preaches trust, cooperation, kindness, tolerance... and yet.... nada. frown

I wonder if Hephestus is looking for any worshipers... he seemed like a nice, hard working god. Tongue

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
JCC
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2368


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2004, 04:44:09 PM »

You know, I actually thought of a scenario that could justify the denial of the "benefits" of marriage to gay couples. (Please note, this is me inventing a fictional reason for the benefits. I am not saying this IS the reason.) What if the reason for the marriage benefit was to encourage procreation and having the ideal environment (2 parents) for the child(ren). That would actually have a bit of logic.

Having said that, I find the ammendment passing appalling. My biggest beef with it is that we are actually wasting so much tax money and government man hours actually debating something so ludicrous. I just don't get why the people who are so passionately opposed to gay marriage CARE at all about it. Why?! How does it affect your life or your marriage? I just don't get it. On the other hand, I'm single, so what do I know about it? smile
Logged

-John

XBox Live ID: "JCC Davros"
Jeff
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3278



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2004, 04:59:17 PM »

Quote from: "JCC"
I just don't get why the people who are so passionately opposed to gay marriage CARE at all about it. Why?! How does it affect your life or your marriage? I just don't get it.


Because the religious right considers homosexuality "an abomination in the eyes of God", and they consider marriage to be a holy union in the eyes of God. To combine the two, in their view, is a devilish blasphemy. Some would even see it as a sign of apocalyptic doom. (seriously).
Logged
Nameless
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 41


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2004, 05:08:15 PM »

Quote
You know, I actually thought of a scenario that could justify the denial of the "benefits" of marriage to gay couples. (Please note, this is me inventing a fictional reason for the benefits. I am not saying this IS the reason.) What if the reason for the marriage benefit was to encourage procreation and having the ideal environment (2 parents) for the child(ren).


In this case, though, would 'they' be just as morally outraged by marrying to 70 year olds?  Or how about a couple that has made it clear that they have no intention of bearing children?  Shouldn't that be just as morally outrageous?
Logged

"I don't like signatures"  -  me
JCC
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2368


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2004, 05:36:46 PM »

Quote from: "Nameless"
Quote
You know, I actually thought of a scenario that could justify the denial of the "benefits" of marriage to gay couples. (Please note, this is me inventing a fictional reason for the benefits. I am not saying this IS the reason.) What if the reason for the marriage benefit was to encourage procreation and having the ideal environment (2 parents) for the child(ren).


In this case, though, would 'they' be just as morally outraged by marrying to 70 year olds?  Or how about a couple that has made it clear that they have no intention of bearing children?  Shouldn't that be just as morally outrageous?


I never said my scenario was foolproof! slywink

I just came up with a semi-logical, non-religious explanation. You know, playing "Devil's Advocate"! Oh wait...
Logged

-John

XBox Live ID: "JCC Davros"
scubabbl
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 149


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: November 05, 2004, 06:40:30 PM »

Ahh religion, what a wonderful warm blanket it must be. All wrapped up in the wholesome goodness of the lord, no longer having to deal with the stress of making your own decisions. Allowing others to dictate your life and your opinions. Mmmmmm, sheeeep.

But seriously, you know what I'm saying? Not all religious people out there is like this, it's just a broad brush I'm wielding to paint with. But you know the paint matches quite a few people in this country.
Logged
zinckiwi
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 310


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: November 05, 2004, 06:53:11 PM »

Quote from: "Jeff Jones"
Quote from: "JCC"
I just don't get why the people who are so passionately opposed to gay marriage CARE at all about it. Why?! How does it affect your life or your marriage? I just don't get it.


Because the religious right considers homosexuality "an abomination in the eyes of God", and they consider marriage to be a holy union in the eyes of God. To combine the two, in their view, is a devilish blasphemy. Some would even see it as a sign of apocalyptic doom. (seriously).


Phew... good thing they can avert the apocalypse with... a law?
Logged
Nameless
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 41


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: November 05, 2004, 06:55:07 PM »

I actually PMed someone that has taken part in this discussion and is on the other side of this issue to try and understand how I can possibly be wrong on this.  I mean, since I'm in the 40% of Michigan residents that think that anyone should be able to marry anyone, the majority of people think that I'm wrong.  And I just don't understand how.  So I PMed this person asking them to please help me understand.  And that offer goes to anyone.  Please.  How can I be so wrong?
Logged

"I don't like signatures"  -  me
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: November 05, 2004, 06:56:03 PM »

Quote from: "Jeff Jones"
Quote from: "JCC"
I just don't get why the people who are so passionately opposed to gay marriage CARE at all about it. Why?! How does it affect your life or your marriage? I just don't get it.


Because the religious right considers homosexuality "an abomination in the eyes of God", and they consider marriage to be a holy union in the eyes of God. To combine the two, in their view, is a devilish blasphemy. Some would even see it as a sign of apocalyptic doom. (seriously).


Wait....wouldn't combining the two be a neutral?  smile
Logged

JCC
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2368


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: November 05, 2004, 07:10:10 PM »

Quote from: "Nameless"
 And that offer goes to anyone.  Please.  How can I be so wrong?


Being in the Majority != Right
Being in the Minority != Wrong.
Logged

-John

XBox Live ID: "JCC Davros"
Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: November 05, 2004, 07:39:05 PM »

hehehe -- OK, I get it now, the religion thing is just baiting.  Forgive me for rising to it.   I honestly thought there were some of you attempting to understand.

Now, on to the actual subject.  Homosexuality is morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.  We have every right as Americans to make laws against things that we believe to be morally wrong.  For example, I'd say 99% of Americans believe murder to be morally wrong.  Therefore, we have laws against murder.  But, undoubtedly, a small percentage of the population believes murder to be OK.  As far as those few people are concerned, it is "wrong" to make a law against murder.

America is ruled by the majority, not the minority.  Majorities, in theory, make the rules.  At the same time, the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minorities against the majorities (who often need the protection).  The question becomes, then, whether or not marriage is a right.  We have certain rights in this country, but I believe you'd have a hard time proving that marriage is a right (my argument from the beginning).  If it is not a right, then the American majority can make a law forbidding marriage to homosexuals.

Personally, I think it's great that majorities decide the laws, not minorities.  Although I am in the majority on this particular issue, I often find that I am in a minority on other issues.  But I would still fiercely argue that the majority has every right to govern and make the laws -- it is the fundamental principle of democracy.
Logged
Gryndyl
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 908



View Profile
« Reply #106 on: November 05, 2004, 07:44:36 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
hehehe -- OK, I get it now, the religion thing is just baiting.  Forgive me for rising to it.   I honestly thought there were some of you attempting to understand.

Now, on to the actual subject.  Homosexuality is morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.  We have every right as Americans to make laws against things that we believe to be morally wrong.  For example, I'd say 99% of Americans believe murder to be morally wrong.  Therefore, we have laws against murder.  But, undoubtedly, a small percentage of the population believes murder to be OK.  As far as those few people are concerned, it is "wrong" to make a law against murder.

America is ruled by the majority, not the minority.  Majorities, in theory, make the rules.  At the same time, the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minorities against the majorities (who often need the protection).  The question becomes, then, whether or not marriage is a right.  We have certain rights in this country, but I believe you'd have a hard time proving that marriage is a right (my argument from the beginning).  If it is not a right, then the American majority can make a law forbidding marriage to homosexuals.

Personally, I think it's great that majorities decide the laws, not minorities.  Although I am in the majority on this particular issue, I often find that I am in a minority on other issues.  But I would still fiercely argue that the majority has every right to govern and make the laws -- it is the fundamental principle of democracy.


And I think bigotry is morally wrong but sadly I seem to be in the minority on that.
Logged

Twitter: Slush Pile Tweets
Amazon Author Pages: Horror, Humor
Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: November 05, 2004, 07:55:32 PM »

Quote
And I think bigotry is morally wrong but sadly I seem to be in the minority on that


No more bigoted than making a law against murder.
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #108 on: November 05, 2004, 07:58:24 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
hehehe -- OK, I get it now, the religion thing is just baiting.  Forgive me for rising to it.   I honestly thought there were some of you attempting to understand.


I for one was trying to get real information.  I find it baffaling and was enjoying the real dialogue about the subject.

Quote

Now, on to the actual subject.  Homosexuality is morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.  We have every right as Americans to make laws against things that we believe to be morally wrong.  For example, I'd say 99% of Americans believe murder to be morally wrong.  Therefore, we have laws against murder.  But, undoubtedly, a small percentage of the population believes murder to be OK.  As far as those few people are concerned, it is "wrong" to make a law against murder.

America is ruled by the majority, not the minority.  Majorities, in theory, make the rules.  At the same time, the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minorities against the majorities (who often need the protection).  The question becomes, then, whether or not marriage is a right.  We have certain rights in this country, but I believe you'd have a hard time proving that marriage is a right (my argument from the beginning).  If it is not a right, then the American majority can make a law forbidding marriage to homosexuals.



I think this is a place we disagree.  I believe that our country was founded specifically so that majorities couldn't dictate laws.  The Constitution was setup exactly to for that reason.  We didn't want the "tryanny of the masses"

One of the blessings of being an American is that there are certain rights which cannot be taken away just because the "majority" wants them taken away.  


Quote

Personally, I think it's great that majorities decide the laws, not minorities.  Although I am in the majority on this particular issue, I often find that I am in a minority on other issues.  But I would still fiercely argue that the majority has every right to govern and make the laws -- it is the fundamental principle of democracy.


Really?  So if the majority of people said that all dwarves, blind people, mental handicapped people should be forced to be sterilized so they couldn't have children you would be fine with that?

If the "majority" said that blacks couldn't vote you would be fine with that?

If the "majority" said that women didn't have the right to vote you would be fine with that?
Logged

farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #109 on: November 05, 2004, 08:00:10 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
Quote
And I think bigotry is morally wrong but sadly I seem to be in the minority on that


No more bigoted than making a law against murder.



Bad example.  Since murder takes away another person's right to "life, lliberty and the pursuit of happiness" it is not hard to argue it should be illegal.
Logged

Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: November 05, 2004, 08:02:52 PM »

Quote
Really? So if the majority of people said that all dwarves, blind people, mental handicapped people should be forced to be sterilized so they couldn't have children you would be fine with that?

If the "majority" said that blacks couldn't vote you would be fine with that?

If the "majority" said that women didn't have the right to vote you would be fine with that?


Not at all.  I would find it as upsetting as you find it that gay marriage is effectively "banned" in 11 states.  Note where I said
Quote
I often find that I am in a minority on other issues


Nonetheless, I believe that the majority has the right to make laws.  Mostly because I believe that the majority of people, in most cases, will "do the right thing".  And, because I can't think of anything that would work better slywink
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #111 on: November 05, 2004, 08:06:25 PM »

More thoughts -

Ok this is what I learned in school...tell me if you learned something else.

The Pilgrims came to the new world because they were a minority and they didn't like the fact that the majority was persecuting them.  

The founding fathers didn't like the idea of the majority being able to take away fundemental rights so they specifically setup the constitution so that certain rights were protected - from the will of the majority.  For example they felt that everyone had the right to practice the religion they felt in their heart so they made sure that freedom of religion was something the majority couldn't take away.  


Now that is my understanding of the planning behind America  - is that radically different than others?
Logged

Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: November 05, 2004, 08:06:58 PM »

Quote
Bad example. Since murder takes away another person's right to "life, lliberty and the pursuit of happiness" it is not hard to argue it should be illegal.


Perhaps it is a bad example.  The principle behind it is valid, though -- the (assumed) 1% of people who are "for" murder feel that it is their "rights" being taken away, regardless of the Constitution.  In actuality, as you so clearly show, they do not have a "right" to commit murder (as it would infringe on other's rights to life).  The 1% could validly claim bigotry.
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12485


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: November 05, 2004, 08:09:14 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
Now, on to the actual subject.  Homosexuality is morally wrong, as far as I am concerned.  We have every right as Americans to make laws against things that we believe to be morally wrong.  


That's the reasoning that scares the shit out of me.  I just don't understand how anyone could support legislating morality because everyone's idea of "correct morals" is so vastly different.  To me, saying people can't marry because they're gay is no different that saying people who are left-handed can't marry.  Or people who can roll their tounge can't get married.  Or people who are albino can't marry.  Or people who get depressed can't marry.   You're discriminating based on a physical trait, which IMO goes against the entire concept of freedom this country was built on.

Quote
For example, I'd say 99% of Americans believe murder to be morally wrong.  Therefore, we have laws against murder.  But, undoubtedly, a small percentage of the population believes murder to be OK.  As far as those few people are concerned, it is "wrong" to make a law against murder.


I gotta disagree here.  There is a law against murder because it is an act that causes very real harm to another individual or individuals, not because it is morally wrong.  Same with theft, arson, assault, embezzlement, etc., etc.  These are acts that have drastic effects on other people's lives.  I just don't see physical, monetary, or any other sort of harm to anyone if two gay people are allowed to marry.

EDIT:  Damn, I type too slow.  In the time it took me to type this, you guys had already brought up all my points.  Please continue and I'll keep lagging behind...  slywink
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: November 05, 2004, 08:12:21 PM »

farley -- I learned the same thing you did.  But democracy, and voting, is a "will of the majority" system.  If they didn't want the majority to make the decisions, they shouldn't have allowed people to vote.

The Bill of Rights is there to counterbalance the system (checks and balances, remember).  It protects the minorities from the will of the majority.  Note, though, that certain things people think are their rights are not specifically stated in our laws as a right, and so therefore are not actually protected from the will of the majority.  Marriage is one of these things.
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #115 on: November 05, 2004, 08:12:57 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"


Nonetheless, I believe that the majority has the right to make laws.  Mostly because I believe that the majority of people, in most cases, will "do the right thing".  And, because I can't think of anything that would work better slywink


So the constitution means nothing to you?  Seriously...not kidding....you don't have a problem if the majority makes laws which violate the consitution?  (as my examples did)

Your vision of what America is has not inalieable rights?  No protection of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, right to bear arms, etc.?


I feel like I must be missing something.  I see two choices

1. You honestly don't care about the contitution

2. I am not understanding you.


If it is one...I guess we will have to agree to disagree (until I can get the majority to believe you should be thrown in jail for no reason... smile )

If it is two please explain your position a bit more.
Logged

farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #116 on: November 05, 2004, 08:16:50 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
farley -- I learned the same thing you did.  But democracy, and voting, is a "will of the majority" system.  If they didn't want the majority to make the decisions, they shouldn't have allowed people to vote.

The Bill of Rights is there to counterbalance the system (checks and balances, remember).  It protects the minorities from the will of the majority.  Note, though, that certain things people think are their rights are not specifically stated in our laws as a right, and so therefore are not actually protected from the will of the majority.  Marriage is one of these things.


Cross posting... smile


Who decides which things are protected?  My government class taught me that it is the courts.  They look at laws and judge if a law violates the constitution.  Once again - is this the same as you learned?


If that is your understanding as well then what is the problem when the courts say that laws against gay marrige are unconstitutional?
Logged

Butterknife
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 378


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: November 05, 2004, 08:36:36 PM »

Quote
If that is your understanding as well then what is the problem when the courts say that laws against gay marrige are unconstitutional?


I agree with you.  If the court says that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional (Supreme Court will undoubtedly hear this one at some point in the near future) then I would support their decision.  Doesn't mean I would agree with it, but I would support it (hopefully that makes sense).

One other thing -- I think the Bill of Rights is fantastic.  It is what makes the Constitution so cool.  Otherwise, like you say, the "will of the majority" would be a "tyranny of the majority".
Logged
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: November 05, 2004, 08:40:05 PM »

Homosexuality is equaivelant murder in your eyes?  You know the church thought Galileo was "morally" wrong too.  Bigotry and discrimination have hidden behind the cloak of morals for a long time on issue after issue

Our laws are setup up to protect peoples rights basically, just what right is gay marriage taking from you, what harm is caused?  Each inustice, each instance of truning away from being inclusive to exclusive lessens all of us.

You know your "majority" argument has been used so many times in history to cause incredible pain and suffering and we don't even need to stray beyond American history, you would call this "moral" behavior?
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3243



View Profile
« Reply #119 on: November 05, 2004, 08:40:44 PM »

Quote from: "Butterknife"
Quote
If that is your understanding as well then what is the problem when the courts say that laws against gay marrige are unconstitutional?


I agree with you.  If the court says that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional (Supreme Court will undoubtedly hear this one at some point in the near future) then I would support their decision.  Doesn't mean I would agree with it, but I would support it (hopefully that makes sense).

One other thing -- I think the Bill of Rights is fantastic.  It is what makes the Constitution so cool.  Otherwise, like you say, the "will of the majority" would be a "tyranny of the majority".


Fair enough.


I am worried that, unlike you, many people would instead claim that the court was being "activist" and trying to make law rather than interpret.  

That is the rallying cry conservatives used to denounce the MA Supreme Court that ruled on the subject.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.091s, 2q)