California's Prop 8 Overturned

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yeah but I said good reasons

At the end of the day, I'm against it because it's probably bad for the liberty of homosexuals, forcing them into a typecast of an acceptable relationship.

It's moral tyranny even if it has the best intentions.

Which is far better reasoning than "well most other places have done it, so we should do it."

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Thor

Actually in the recent massive gay marriage debate we had right here on CP not one good argument came up against it that wasn't based on religious brainwashing.

Oh snap! Did I type that, or just think it? Are they listening? CAN THEY READ ME!!!!

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yeah but I said good reasons

Am I the only one who finds Peter12 the Tanguay of philosophy?

Deke
Deke
Deke
Dangle
Deke
Deke
Deke

Ends up in the corner with the puck.

I keep rooting for him to finally put it in the net.

~bug

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

At the end of the day, I'm against it because it's probably bad for the liberty of homosexuals, forcing them into a typecast of an acceptable relationship.

It's moral tyranny even if it has the best intentions.

Which is far better reasoning than "well most other places have done it, so we should do it."

Wait... slow this down for me... I must be reading you wrong.
You're against gay marriage because giving them more options to decide how to pursue their personal relationships reduces their liberty? What?!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by firebug

Am I the only one who finds Peter12 the Tanguay of philosophy?

Deke
Deke
Deke
Dangle
Deke
Deke
Deke

Ends up in the corner with the puck.

I keep rooting for him to finally put it in the net.

~bug

Philosophy is pretty much stick-handling. Very few people actually manage to pull off a goal.

[Thor]

But that is a position that has zero chance of being a reality, I actually think I'd agree with a lot of things in that book.

But its not the battle thats in front of us, you can talk all about your well reasoned point of view and its validity; it certainly has a case. But the obvious is this is not about to become a reality in this world anytime soon.

The average person against this issue might think the world is 6000 yrs old and that being gay is something you 'choose' to do, not something you are born into.

So you have a massive mountain to climb trying to bring your ideas to reality of politics and culture.

I'm fighting the battle that can be won, once these rights are universal in the modern world we can start to re-identify relationships, marriage in a more enlightened form of thinking.

I mean we are on the cusp of some major changes, #1 being us living easily over 100yrs and possibly not far off living indefinitely. Image the repercussions on humanity in every single imaginable aspect of philosophy, society, religion, etc..

I think you hang to tightly to what you reasoned is right, to what is needed to be done right now. The battle is here on the battleground thats formed, you can't go 100 yards off the battle ground and shout at millions of people "hey guys over here, this is the battle we should be fighting."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Wait... slow this down for me... I must be reading you wrong.
You're against gay marriage because giving them more options to decide how to pursue their personal relationships reduces their liberty? What?!

There is a variety of empirical sources that show that homosexuals, especially males, do not view monogamy in the same way that heterosexuals do. That is to say, that most homosexuals believe that being married does not mean that you must exclusively have sex with that one person. Now, I'm actually not using this as some moral precept against homosexuals, what I think it indicates is that homosexuality includes SOME sort of lifetime promiscuity.

Gay marriage creates new social norms, one that is approved by the majority which is heterosexual. Approving of gay marriage basically means approving of gays when they follow what is basically a heterosexual bourgeois lifestyle. That is, married, monogamous, with children. This imposes a standard of morality that homosexuals need to follow for acceptance but which may be contrary to the lifestyles they want to lead.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

But that is a position that has zero chance of being a reality, I actually think I'd agree with a lot of things in that book.

But its not the battle thats in front of us, you can talk all about your well reasoned point of view and its validity; it certainly has a case. But the obvious is this is not about to become a reality in this world anytime soon.

The average person against this issue might think the world is 6000 yrs old and that being gay is something you 'choose' to do, not something you are born into.

So you have a massive mountain to climb trying to bring your ideas to reality of politics and culture.

I'm fighting the battle that can be won, once these rights are universal in the modern world we can start to re-identify relationships, marriage in a more enlightened form of thinking.

I mean we are on the cusp of some major changes, #1 being us living easily over 100yrs and possibly not far off living indefinitely. Image the repercussions on humanity in every single imaginable aspect of philosophy, society, religion, etc..

I think you hang to tightly to what you reasoned is right, to what is needed to be done right now. The battle is here on the battleground thats formed, you can't go 100 yards off the battle ground and shout at millions of people "hey guys over here, this is the battle we should be fighting."

Always be skeptical of people promising eternal life.

And yes, absolutely, I can try to move the battleground. That's called skepticism and it's the foundation of reason. I'm not going to follow your line of thinking just because you think that most people fall on to your side.

People here, like most people involved in everyday lives, need to move away from this strange pseudo-utopia into examining their own perceptions and what their actions mean to society.

For example, what you said above about the near-indefinite extension of human life. That will take some pretty remarkable technical innovations that will impact every aspect of everyone's lives on this planet. But you don't understand the problems with technology clearly enough to examine yourself in relation to this ideological statement that you have just made.

[etdpratt]

I am not a mormon, but I wanted to look at the issue from their perspective. I have several mormon buddies that are great individuals.

If you were to believe that God shunned Gay marriage, which almost every religion on earth does, do you think that you have the right to stand up for those principles?

If you also believed that doing drugs is wrong before God, would you be considered intolerant if you opposed laws that would legalize the use of them?

I have talked with these mormon friends on occasion about this issue because I too was a little upset by the news, and from what I have taken from these conversations is that they believe that God doesn't support Gay marriage, just like he doesn't support a lot of other things like pornography, drugs, etc. If gay marriage becomes law, they will accept that, but to them they are just trying to uphold certain values that they feel should exist under a government that claims to be nation "under God." This is why my buddies said that they have no problem with homosexuals being together, but they are against a law that calls it an ok thing.

A lot of the comments that have been made in this thread show complete intolerance for the mormons, which is exactly what they are being accused of doing. You obviously don't have to agree with them, especially if you are one that doesn't believe in God or believes that God is ok with gay marriage, but it is a good thing to understand where the arguments from the other side are coming from.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is a variety of empirical sources that show that homosexuals, especially males, do not view monogamy in the same way that heterosexuals do. That is to say, that most homosexuals believe that being married does not mean that you must exclusively have sex with that one person. Now, I'm actually not using this as some moral precept against homosexuals, what I think it indicates is that homosexuality includes SOME sort of lifetime promiscuity.

Gay marriage creates new social norms, one that is approved by the majority which is heterosexual. Approving of gay marriage basically means approving of gays when they follow what is basically a heterosexual bourgeois lifestyle. That is, married, monogamous, with children. This imposes a standard of morality that homosexuals need to follow for acceptance but which may be contrary to the lifestyles they want to lead.

I still don't see how it reduces their liberty. Giving them an option to enter into a certain type of contract with their partner increases their liberty. Nobody is forcing them into it.


Furthermore, I know plenty of hetero people and couples (even married ones who have agreed to such a setup) that are not strictly monogamous and/or don't want children. Does stripping them of the right to marry increase their liberty? Is that the right thing to do? Do you oppose heterosexual marriage based on the same grounds?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Always be skeptical of people promising eternal life.

I think you know I am very much skeptical, but the fact remains the possibility exists, science is very much on the cusp of a significant change to medicine, from reactionary to preventative. But this is a whole other discussion.

And yes, absolutely, I can try to move the battleground. That's called skepticism and it's the foundation of reason. I'm not going to follow your line of thinking just because you think that most people fall on to your side.

I never said you couldn't, I said your attempt will be drowned out by the noise of the actual battle. Never said to follow my line of thinking, but that this current battle could lead to your reasoning having a chance at reality down the road when the dust settles from this debate.

For example, what you said above about the near-indefinite extension of human life. That will take some pretty remarkable technical innovations that will impact every aspect of everyone's lives on this planet. But you don't understand the problems with technology clearly enough to examine yourself in relation to this ideological statement that you have just made.

You wonder why people get frustrated in talking with you, when you make such statements why not attempt at explaining what it is exactly I don't understand about my ignorance to the problems of technology. Like I've said to you before, you assume a lot about me and my positions which quite a few of you are simply dead wrong about.

The fact of my statement is inevitability, its not a statement of something I'm excited to have happen or look forward to. I'm very concerned at the idea of people living for very long periods of time. Its both exciting and frightening, but not something we can stop from happening.

Just once I'd like you to actually state why I am so lost to the dangers of technology instead of linking to books and telling us you are a nerd that no one gets

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is a variety of empirical sources that show that homosexuals, especially males, do not view monogamy in the same way that heterosexuals do. That is to say, that most homosexuals believe that being married does not mean that you must exclusively have sex with that one person. Now, I'm actually not using this as some moral precept against homosexuals, what I think it indicates is that homosexuality includes SOME sort of lifetime promiscuity.

Gay marriage creates new social norms, one that is approved by the majority which is heterosexual. Approving of gay marriage basically means approving of gays when they follow what is basically a heterosexual bourgeois lifestyle. That is, married, monogamous, with children. This imposes a standard of morality that homosexuals need to follow for acceptance but which may be contrary to the lifestyles they want to lead.

My goodness you are some kind of gas bag. What in sam hell are you talking about? Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are more prone to promiscuity; according to a "variety of empirical sources".

So what does that mean to any hetero couples that don't follow these "social norms" that you state should be adhered to? Hetero couples that have an open relationship, that do not believe in monogamy, or do not have children?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

I am not a mormon, but I wanted to look at the issue from their perspective. I have several mormon buddies that are great individuals.

If you were to believe that God shunned Gay marriage, which almost every religion on earth does, do you think that you have the right to stand up for those principles?

If you also believed that doing drugs is wrong before God, would you be considered intolerant if you opposed laws that would legalize the use of them?

I have talked with these mormon friends on occasion about this issue because I too was a little upset by the news, and from what I have taken from these conversations is that they believe that God doesn't support Gay marriage, just like he doesn't support a lot of other things like pornography, drugs, etc. If gay marriage becomes law, they will accept that, but to them they are just trying to uphold certain values that they feel should exist under a government that claims to be nation "under God." This is why my buddies said that they have no problem with homosexuals being together, but they are against a law that calls it an ok thing.

A lot of the comments that have been made in this thread show complete intolerance for the mormons, which is exactly what they are being accused of doing. You obviously don't have to agree with them, especially if you are one that doesn't believe in God or believes that God is ok with gay marriage, but it is a good thing to understand where the arguments from the other side are coming from.

Two things,

1. Regardless of whether or not "under God" and other God references appear in US government oaths and other sources it is a nation very clearly founded on the notion of seperation between church and state. Any argument against gay marriage in the US based on religious grounds completely misses the point and shows a pretty obvious inability to understand the actual issues at play.

2. I don't see any intolerance towards Mormons, I see people referencing the actions of the Mormon church. Since when is pointing to actual events and actual actions intolerance?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by etdpratt

I am not a mormon, but I wanted to look at the issue from their perspective. I have several mormon buddies that are great individuals.

If you were to believe that God shunned Gay marriage, which almost every religion on earth does, do you think that you have the right to stand up for those principles?

Sure, but we should then ask for the Mormon church to no longer be tax exempt when it puts so much money into fighting a proposition in other states. We can also take note of how gay mormon's have the highest suicide rates in the country. We can look at how the 'nice mormons' shun and push out children that come out of the closet.

If you also believed that doing drugs is wrong before God, would you be considered intolerant if you opposed laws that would legalize the use of them?

Belief has to be countered with reason, because if we didn't have people change or soften their beliefs then the mormon church wouldn't have started to allow blacks into their church in 1978.

I have talked with these mormon friends on occasion about this issue because I too was a little upset by the news, and from what I have taken from these conversations is that they believe that God doesn't support Gay marriage, just like he doesn't support a lot of other things like pornography, drugs, etc. If gay marriage becomes law, they will accept that, but to them they are just trying to uphold certain values that they feel should exist under a government that claims to be nation "under God." This is why my buddies said that they have no problem with homosexuals being together, but they are against a law that calls it an ok thing.

Yeah my favorite parts of the bible is about drugs and porn being wrong, great passages.

As for your buddies saying they have no problem, well they are lying to you. They might be nice, be friends with them and good ones too. But if they hold to their faith they know those people are condemned to hell, that they are not born this way but 'chose it' or live perverted lives.

A lot of the comments that have been made in this thread show complete intolerance for the mormons, which is exactly what they are being accused of doing.

Right, how rude of me to call mormons out on their outdated belief that homosexuality is evil, a choice and that the only family is one that has a man and a woman at the helm.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean they have the right to impose their beliefs on others, which is what they did in prop 8. Go ahead and believe your silliness but don't let your choice in religion force people who have no choice in their sexuality to live by YOUR ideology.

You obviously don't have to agree with them, especially if you are one that doesn't believe in God or believes that God is ok with gay marriage, but it is a good thing to understand where the arguments from the other side are coming from.

You think those angry at the mormons and other religions don't know where they are coming from? Seriously, its not hard to figure out, considering most here for equal marriage rights are either religious or formerly religious people.

There are simply times when you can't play the 'you are being mean to mormons' card when they just helped push back the rights of an entire group based on their backwards belief system.

Once a religious group pushes political agenda all people of a free nation should be angry, but in America the idea of separation from church and state is really background noise in modern politics. Sadly

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

That's great, but doesn't majority rule in a democracy?

No, courts rule.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Wait... slow this down for me... I must be reading you wrong.
You're against gay marriage because giving them more options to decide how to pursue their personal relationships reduces their liberty? What?!

My poor analogy of what I think P12 is trying to say is, the City of Edmonton.

Imagine if there was a law that said gays were not allowed to live in Edmonton. Many would be upset and saying it is unfair, and that they should be able to choose where to live, just like straight people.

P12 seems to be arguing that Edmonton sucks, and that they would in fact be worse off by living in Edmonton.

Essentially the harm caused by limiting their rights is less than the harm caused by living in Edmonton, therefore limiting their rights is morally the right thing to do.

/lame analogy

~bug

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by firebug

My poor analogy of what I think P12 is trying to say is, the City of Edmonton.

Imagine if there was a law that said gays were not allowed to live in Edmonton. Many would be upset and saying it is unfair, and that they should be able to choose where to live, just like straight people.

P12 seems to be arguing that Edmonton sucks, and that they would in fact be worse off by living in Edmonton.

Essentially the harm caused by limiting their rights is less than the harm caused by living in Edmonton, therefore limiting their rights is morally the right thing to do.

/lame analogy

~bug

But why discriminate and think you need to save one group from making a terrible decision like living in Edmonton? If it's morally right to restrict gays from living in Edmonton, the same logic should apply and it would be morally right to restrict straight people from living in Edmonton too.

If, morally, we shouldn't let anyone live there, lets just bulldoze Edmonton and be done with all that nonsense.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

But why discriminate and think you need to save one group from making a terrible decision like living in Edmonton? If it's morally right to restrict gays from living in Edmonton, the same logic should apply and it would be morally right to restrict straight people from living in Edmonton too.

If, morally, we shouldn't let anyone live there, lets just bulldoze Edmonton and be done with all that nonsense.

I think that's generally what P12's point is, the whole instiution is antiquated and restrictive.

And I fully back the bulldozing of Edmonton, where do I sign up?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is a variety of empirical sources that show that homosexuals, especially males, do not view monogamy in the same way that heterosexuals do. That is to say, that most homosexuals believe that being married does not mean that you must exclusively have sex with that one person. Now, I'm actually not using this as some moral precept against homosexuals, what I think it indicates is that homosexuality includes SOME sort of lifetime promiscuity.

Gay marriage creates new social norms, one that is approved by the majority which is heterosexual. Approving of gay marriage basically means approving of gays when they follow what is basically a heterosexual bourgeois lifestyle. That is, married, monogamous, with children. This imposes a standard of morality that homosexuals need to follow for acceptance but which may be contrary to the lifestyles they want to lead.

There's even more empirical evidence that homosexuals are in overwhelmingly in favour of gay marriage. Yet you still want to deny them that right in a concern for imposing a standard of morality on them. A standard of morality that you can't even prove would be transferred to homosexuals if they were allowed to marry, and one that's already changing towards heterosexual couples. Furthermore, society already applies different standards of expectation towards them, there's no reason that would change simply because a law was passed.

This all sounds the logic of someone that decided his position before thinking about it and then rationalized his position by cherry picking some unreferenced "empirical sources" and presented under the guise of trying to appear enlightened. You've achieve the opposite in my opinion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

I remember from election day that CNN said almost 60% of African American and Hispanic voters voted against gay marriage. Doesn't sound very Mormon to me.

I personally think singling out one group for "return hate" is absolutely counterproductive.

Personally, I know 5 or 6 out gay mormons and they are treated better by their mormon friends than most of their gay friends--my roommate is one of them.

I have no problems with mormons at all, nicest people on the planet in my experience as a gay man from southern Alberta.

Look at that, the gay guy who defends mormons to the straights...

You just blew Reggie's mind.