Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 121 to 139 of 139
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Everything is not right. Imposing my beliefs on others or adversely affecting others is not right.
    It is unavoidable in a democracy or a republic democratic that someone's beliefs are going to be imposed, and at least one citizen will likely be adversely affected thereby.

    To that end, a society must define it's standards.

    As I stated earlier, homosexuality used to be "disgusting" to our society. Today, the practice seems to be at least palatable, if not downright accepted. However, "Man-boy" love seems to still be disgusting.....for now.

    And, you can bet your last dollar that someone who wants to gain legitimacy for something "disgusting" will refer to "gay marriage" the same way pro homosexual advocates/activists relate their plight to racial inequality and civil rights legislation.

    To the supporters, do you really not see this, or is it that you are minded to "cross that bridge when we come to it"?
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #122  
    Nice!

    Source: DailyKos
    The cloture vote just finished. 60 votes needed for cloture (and of course the amendment ultimately would need 67 votes). Vote was 49-48 in favor of cloture. The amendment is DOA in the Senate. House is supposed to vote next month, but it doesn't really matter (apart from wasting more time)

    cedelson's diary :: ::
    All Dems except Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted against cloture (Rockefeller and Dodd didn't vote). 7 Republicans broke with the party and also voted against cloture: Snowe, Collins, McCain, Sununu, Chafee, Gregg and Specter. Gregg and Specter had voted for cloture in 2004, so they are pickups. I don't believe anyone who voted against the FMA last time switched sides this time.

    (edit: to clarify, no one did switch their vote from against the FMA to for the FMA. However, Dems lost 4 seats since 2004 and one of the lost seats--Colorado--resulted in a one vote swing in Repubs' favor. Vote last time was 48-50 against cloture. 49-48 this time.) This is an embarrassment for the Republicans. They couldn't even get a majority to support this discriminatory constitutional amendment and couldn't make their caucus toe the line--they even lost support. Someone should ask the Republicans to promise they won't waste any more of the country's time on this in the future.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Your statement is false. 1996 Defense of Marriage Act states that "States shall not be bound to recognize, same sex marriages recognized in foreign states." or some sh^t like that. And this whole thing really goes against republican values, which you mentioned "state rights". A constitutional amendment prohibits states from making their own decisions. Hence restricting state rights from a federal level.
    I don't think any DOMA challenges have reached SCOTUS yet.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I don't think any DOMA challenges have reached SCOTUS yet.
    Correct, but there is a law already on the books that says states DO NOT have to recognize other states marriages. SCOTUS may over turn it, but I doubt it.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is unavoidable in a democracy or a republic democratic that someone's beliefs are going to be imposed, and at least one citizen will likely be adversely affected thereby.

    To that end, a society must define it's standards.
    With all due respect, thats just bs. Someone has to be dissappointed here, so it must be the minority.... Shopharim, the 'majority' loses nothing by extending equal rights to gays. Nothing is lost. You're "choosing" to impose your beliefs adversely.... for no reason other than your own ego. Get over yourself.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    With all due respect, thats just bs. Someone has to be dissappointed here, so it must be the minority.... Shopharim, the 'majority' loses nothing by extending equal rights to gays. Nothing is lost. You're "choosing" to impose your beliefs adversely...
    In general the constriction of anyone's rights should be provoked only by the most egregious of stuff.

    some Supreme once said something about my freedom of expression ends just before the beginning of your nose.

    personal drug usage as an example for some -- gun usage for others are examples where different folks disagree on whether laws should control personal behavior.

    Sex is obviously the most personal of behaviors -- it should be given as much respect for consensual privacy as is possible.

    (coercive, child, incestual, bestial etc are unlawful for specific seperate reasons)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    With all due respect, thats just bs. Someone has to be dissappointed here, so it must be the minority.... Shopharim, the 'majority' loses nothing by extending equal rights to gays. Nothing is lost. You're "choosing" to impose your beliefs adversely.... for no reason other than your own ego. Get over yourself.
    you are rebutting an argument that I did not make.
  8. #128  
    Isn't it amazing that the state (Massachusetts) that accepted same-sex marriages has the lowest divorce rate?
  9.    #129  
    we all know there was never any debate on this issue

    it was inteded to stir up the simple folk before the election

    it seems to have worked
  10. #130  
    Can we also amend the constitution to make sure that there is only one definition for "Dope?"
  11.    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Can we also amend the constitution to make sure that there is only one definition for "Dope?"
    and freedom fries
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #132  
    Well this bill is dead, for now.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    To that end, a society must define it's standards.

    As I stated earlier, homosexuality used to be "disgusting" to our society. Today, the practice seems to be at least palatable, if not downright accepted. However, "Man-boy" love seems to still be disgusting.....for now.

    And, you can bet your last dollar that someone who wants to gain legitimacy for something "disgusting" will refer to "gay marriage" the same way pro homosexual advocates/activists relate their plight to racial inequality and civil rights legislation.

    To the supporters, do you really not see this, or is it that you are minded to "cross that bridge when we come to it"?
    Good points. But I would argue that society evolves. Many positive changes in the past 200 years in this country (or probably anywhere) were initially met with outrage and disgust. These would include women's rights, racial equality, interracial marriage.

    Those changes have been positive. I'm not trying to "relate" this to anything. Just pointing out that many things that were initially reviled have proven to be not only positive, but right.

    Trying to detract from the issue by throwing in concepts that are not even being considered (e.g. man-boy, woman-girl, person-animal) just muddies the waters. And, actually, I think those supporters would not point to the gay issues. They would use more universal examples such as civil rights.

    Sure, everything is a slippery slope. So, we either started up the slope of enlightenment and acceptance when life first crawled out of the ooze; or we started on the downward slope to hell and damnation. It's a free country so you can take your pick.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    As I stated earlier, homosexuality used to be "disgusting" to our society. Today, the practice seems to be at least palatable, if not downright accepted. However, "Man-boy" love seems to still be disgusting.....for now.

    And, you can bet your last dollar that someone who wants to gain legitimacy for something "disgusting" will refer to "gay marriage" the same way pro homosexual advocates/activists relate their plight to racial inequality and civil rights legislation.

    To the supporters, do you really not see this, or is it that you are minded to "cross that bridge when we come to it"?
    A few post back I wrote "Disgust is not an argument" and you replied "Agreed. Disgust has no legal basis" - But alas, your memory seems to have become short, you recycle the disgust argument.

    In contrast to what you claim to believe, "man-boy" love is not illegal because it is considered disgusting by a majority, but because it was proven beyond doubt that the "boy" part of the relation may suffer severely damaging psychological consequences from the act. The damaging effect to one party (the party which cannot adequately defend itsself) is the reason why pedophile sex is illegal.

    Homosexual relations are among consenting adults, they are not inherently damaging, and hence not illegal.

    I get the impression that deep down you know these things, but lack of valid arguments make you come back to bad arguments all the time. It's not valid, logical, ethical arguments which drive you, but your interpretation of what is written in a book first published a long while ago.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    you are rebutting an argument that I did not make.
    Huh? I quoted you. Those were you words.

    Hey! Is your baby sister logging in under your account?!
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Well this bill is dead, for now.
    bah! I wanted to finish this now! That bill needs to be buried once and for all!
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Good points. But I would argue that society evolves. Many positive changes in the past 200 years in this country (or probably anywhere) were initially met with outrage and disgust. These would include women's rights, racial equality, interracial marriage.

    Those changes have been positive. I'm not trying to "relate" this to anything. Just pointing out that many things that were initially reviled have proven to be not only positive, but right.

    Trying to detract from the issue by throwing in concepts that are not even being considered (e.g. man-boy, woman-girl, person-animal) just muddies the waters. And, actually, I think those supporters would not point to the gay issues. They would use more universal examples such as civil rights.

    Sure, everything is a slippery slope. So, we either started up the slope of enlightenment and acceptance when life first crawled out of the ooze; or we started on the downward slope to hell and damnation. It's a free country so you can take your pick.
    Allow me to in turn state these are also good points.

    One point of divergence, though, is that I don't believe throwing in other concepts is necessarily detracting. Rather, it is examination of the potential path our society's evolution may take.

    One of the dilemmas we face in discussing such matters is distinguishing the "ought" conversation from the "ramifications/implications" conversation.

    And, I accept your proposition that other lifestyles may not point to homosexuality itself. I do believe such advocates will at least point to the strategy that pro homosexuality advocates utilized.
    Last edited by shopharim; 06/08/2006 at 07:18 AM.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    A few post back I wrote "Disgust is not an argument" and you replied "Agreed. Disgust has no legal basis" - But alas, your memory seems to have become short, you recycle the disgust argument.

    In contrast to what you claim to believe, "man-boy" love is not illegal because it is considered disgusting by a majority, but because it was proven beyond doubt that the "boy" part of the relation may suffer severely damaging psychological consequences from the act. The damaging effect to one party (the party which cannot adequately defend itsself) is the reason why pedophile sex is illegal.

    Homosexual relations are among consenting adults, they are not inherently damaging, and hence not illegal.

    I get the impression that deep down you know these things, but lack of valid arguments make you come back to bad arguments all the time. It's not valid, logical, ethical arguments which drive you, but your interpretation of what is written in a book first published a long while ago.
    Yet another post rebutting an argument I did not make.

    I have not stated nor even sugested that "homosexual marriage" ought to be banned because it will open the door to other behaviors. I just agree with aprasad that the decision will have implications for other sexual behaviors.

    Specifically as it relates to the "disgust" argument, I am pointing out the similarities between homosexuality and pedophilia in terms of cultural acceptance.

    And, while the damaging effects on the "boy" may be well proven, I think you give prior legislators too much credit in declaring that such evidence ws the basis for the laws...at least here in the US. However, that evidence may well serve as a key data point for establishing the legal distinction when advocates seek civil rights. So, we have resolved one of aprasad's questions

    Now, we only need make sure we can prove that adolescents are too young to consent to pedophilia, though they are old enough to consent to abortion.

    In any case, as you review my future posts, I invite you to set aside your impressions and instead simply read my comments. If you review our various discussion on this topic, the only old published document I have referenced in terms of making a case for or against (i.e. the "ought" conversation) is the US constitution.

    Further, if you review the disucssion, you will find that I offered the only case that (I think it was) surur found to have any merit. I don't know if that is a endorsement I will use frequently but it should at least serve as evidence of how I have approached the discussion.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Huh? I quoted you. Those were you words.

    Hey! Is your baby sister logging in under your account?!
    Yes, you quoted me. However, you failed to evaluate my statement in the context in which it was given. You applied my response to a specific statement to the overall topic.

    Here is the replay:

    Statement 1
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Not surprising...liberals will sooner or later have to confront the paradigm that if everything is right, then nothing is wrong.
    Direct Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Everything is not right. Imposing my beliefs on others or adversely affecting others is not right.
    My Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It is unavoidable in a democracy or a republic democratic that someone's beliefs are going to be imposed, and at least one citizen will likely be adversely affected thereby.

    To that end, a society must define it's standards.

    As I stated earlier, homosexuality used to be "disgusting" to our society. Today, the practice seems to be at least palatable, if not downright accepted. However, "Man-boy" love seems to still be disgusting.....for now.

    And, you can bet your last dollar that someone who wants to gain legitimacy for something "disgusting" will refer to "gay marriage" the same way pro homosexual advocates/activists relate their plight to racial inequality and civil rights legislation.

    To the supporters, do you really not see this, or is it that you are minded to "cross that bridge when we come to it"?
    your assessment
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    With all due respect, thats just bs. Someone has to be dissappointed here, so it must be the minority.... Shopharim, the 'majority' loses nothing by extending equal rights to gays. Nothing is lost. You're "choosing" to impose your beliefs adversely.... for no reason other than your own ego. Get over yourself.
    I did not say, "Someone has to be dissapointed here, so it must the minorty." I said in a society someone will always be disappointed. This is not rocket science. 100% of the citizens will rarely if ever agree on a subject. Therefore, on any decision, someone will be disappointed. That was my only point.

    I did however continue to expound on the matter aprasad brought our attention.

    Perhaps, it was my final statement that led to your confusion. If so, I apologize for not making a clear distinction.

    Had I opportunity to do over again, perhaps I would point out the distinction between the "ought" discussion and the "implication" discussion.

    I don't hold the idea that implication is necessarily a cause for action or inaction. However, I do consider it unwise to take action without considering the implications.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567

Posting Permissions