Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 398
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    OK. What's the action plan to address the hetros' attack on the institutions of marriage and family?

    (.. besides gay-bashing, that is ..)
    Have you heard of Promise Keepers? That's one example.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #142  
    Wow, people are still equating sexual preference to race, amazing. I guess that is the last rallying cry and they are holding on for dear life. I must say that those who put sexual preference and racism in the same category probably harbor the most racism of any group.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    agree. all sorts of wrong arguments are thrown out as smoke screen. bottom line its about the right to pursue happiness. If marriage is legal for any, then it should be legal for all.
    Indeed...which is why it is important to understand how marriage is defined.

    You can attend and graduate from law school, but you are not authroized to pracitce until you pass the Bar.

    You can attend and successfully complete real estate training, but you are not authorized to practice until you pass the licensing exam.

    Anyone can practice law, provided they qualify and pass the bar.
    Anyone can serve as a real estate agent, provided they pass the test.

    Anyone can marry, provided s/he has a patner of opposite from his/her own, and the two have obtained proper license.

    We have the right to modify the qualifications for any of the above, at any time. Until such is done legislatively, though, it is illegal for those who do not mee the qualifications to engage as such.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Indeed...which is why it is important to understand how marriage is defined.

    You can attend and graduate from law school, but you are not authroized to pracitce until you pass the Bar.

    You can attend and successfully complete real estate training, but you are not authorized to practice until you pass the licensing exam.

    Anyone can practice law, provided they qualify and pass the bar.
    Anyone can serve as a real estate agent, provided they pass the test.

    Anyone can marry, provided s/he has a patner of opposite from his/her own, and the two have obtained proper license.

    We have the right to modify the qualifications for any of the above, at any time. Until such is done legislatively, though, it is illegal for those who do not mee the qualifications to engage as such.
    Yet another series of examples of wrong (some would say non sequitur) arguments. Well done. I rest my case. As for laws, it used to lawful to own slaves, and to kill them if they tried to escape.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #145  
    "Really? What is it about your highly tolerent views that make you say gay families make poor parents?"

    I guess I have to repeat myself again, but it is a FACT that any departure from the normal family unit puts children at an increased risk of not developing social norms correctly. My view on the subject IS tolerant since I don't HATE homosexual parents anymore then I HATE parents who get divorced. Both situations pervert the child’s view of what a healthy family is. I guess I'm wasting my time since you probably still think I hate homosexuals.

    " You mean in the future when in vitro fertilization and genetic engineering explodes, as well as stem cell research, complete mapping of the human genome, genetic diseases selected for before birth, custom babies that cure their siblings of diseases? Hearts and lungs grown from your own cells, and dividing embryos in test tubes and harvesting the stem cells to wipe out cancer and genetic disease on earth?

    What do you think they will look back and say about abortion? Be honest in your answer."


    You are amazing at predicting the future (you are developing a theme here), maybe you should invest all your money in fetal stem cell research. According to you there is absolutely no risk. Dump all your money in!

    "What accusations?"

    The accusation that if you disagree with gay marriage you hate homosexuals! And yes...it is possible to make accusations in the form of a question.(its called a rhetorical question) Here it is again: "Or do you think it masks an underlying hatred?"

    "How would the society (especially the "conservative, family values" crowd) fix that problem? Why don't we see a "crusade" against such terrible (and common) hetro behavior from this "concerned about the moral breakdown caused by gays" group?"

    My church is very involved in fixing and instructing marriage. We realize it is a problem and are doing what we can with the recourses we have. What I don't understand is how this truth implies that we should allow gay marriage or encourage it.

    "You are comparing gay couples to polygamists now? How tolerant of you."

    How are they different? (I've only asked this question three times already)

    "agree. all sorts of wrong arguments are thrown out as smoke screen. bottom line its about the right to pursue happiness. If marriage is legal for any, then it should be legal for all."

    -not if that "right", results in developmental harm to a child growing up in that home, and thus society.

    "Wow, people are still equating sexual preference to race, amazing. I guess that is the last rallying cry and they are holding on for dear life. I must say that those who put sexual preference and racism in the same category probably harbor the most racism of any group."

    -when all else fails....go racial (newest example in this thread->"As for laws, it used to be lawful to own slaves, and to kill them if they tried to escape")
    Last edited by aairman23; 07/07/2006 at 12:39 PM.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Yet another series of examples of wrong (some would say non sequitur) arguments. Well done. I rest my case. As for laws, it used to lawful to own slaves, and to kill them if they tried to escape.
    I have consistently attempted to separate the discussion between what ought to be (moral/emotionally), and what currently is (laws). I have made no arguments for or against.

    My commentary is about the process.

    If it is indeed "wrong" to withhold legal status from homosexual partnerships, then the laws can be amended to right that wrong--as was done in formally abolishing slavery, for example.

    As your example demonstrates, laws tend to follow morality. When the society deems a condition unacceptable, the laws follow. Unless and until then, status quo prevails.

    Ironically, that same patterns is why marriage is historically and legally defined as the union of one male and one female. Why? Because laws follow the morality.

    A case can be made that sometimes laws need to lead morality. However, in truth, people do not behave according to laws, but according to mores. And when the laws are out of synch (ahead or behind), they enjoy neither adherence nor enforcement.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I have consistently attempted to separate the discussion between what ought to be (moral/emotionally), and what currently is (laws). I have made no arguments for or against.

    My commentary is about the process.

    If it is indeed "wrong" to withhold legal status from homosexual partnerships, then the laws can be amended to right that wrong--as was done in formally abolishing slavery, for example.

    As your example demonstrates, laws tend to follow morality. When the society deems a condition unacceptable, the laws follow. Unless and until then, status quo prevails.

    Ironically, that same patterns is why marriage is historically and legally defined as the union of one male and one female. Why? Because laws follow the morality.

    A case can be made that sometimes laws need to lead morality. However, in truth, people do not behave according to laws, but according to mores. And when the laws are out of synch (ahead or behind), they enjoy neither adherence nor enforcement.

    Interesting commentary!
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Wow, people are still equating sexual preference to race, amazing. I guess that is the last rallying cry and they are holding on for dear life. I must say that those who put sexual preference and racism in the same category probably harbor the most racism of any group.
    Care to explain that? I don't see your logic
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Yet another series of examples of wrong (some would say non sequitur) arguments. Well done. I rest my case. As for laws, it used to lawful to own slaves, and to kill them if they tried to escape.
    WIth all due respect, I think yours was the non-sequitur. That is, it doesn't necessarily follow that because slavery laws were bad marriage laws are also bad. Nor does it follow that because we have had bad laws in the past that all past laws are bad.
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Care to explain that? I don't see your logic
    An individual is free to choose their sexual preference, they are free to do what makes them feel good, they are free to continue in their sexual preference as long as they desire and they are free to change when and if they desire. An individual is not free to choose what race they are born into and they do not have the ability to change their race. When you try to equate the two in arguments attempting to bring discrimination status to sexual preference you also reduce a persons race to a choice. You are in effect telling individuals that it was at least partially their fault they are being discriminated against because they could have made a different choice. I for one do not want to reduce the protections we have in place for a persons race or gender or age to the level of someones choice of sexual preference, but when you say they are the same that is what you are doing (you should have chosen to be white instead of Native American) .
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    "I guess I have to repeat myself again, but it is a FACT that any departure from the normal family unit puts children at an increased risk of not developing social norms correctly."
    If that's a FACT, please state your source.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I have consistently attempted to separate the discussion between what ought to be (moral/emotionally), and what currently is (laws). I have made no arguments for or against.

    My commentary is about the process.
    Understood. Obviously there are laws on the books. This debate is raised because there are some that wish to change those laws. A small part of the 'process' (which will hopefully continue).
    If it is indeed "wrong" to withhold legal status from homosexual partnerships, then the laws can be amended to right that wrong--as was done in formally abolishing slavery, for example.

    As your example demonstrates, laws tend to follow morality. When the society deems a condition unacceptable, the laws follow. Unless and until then, status quo prevails.
    Following your logic, slavery wasn't unacceptable or immoral until society deemed it as such. Really. Looks like we're back to 'might makes right' and 'the majority rules'. Niether has the least bit to do with "morality". Your moral compass may follow status quo, mine does not.
    Ironically, that same patterns is why marriage is historically and legally defined as the union of one male and one female. Why? Because laws follow the morality.
    Hrm... read my last.
    A case can be made that sometimes laws need to lead morality. However, in truth, people do not behave according to laws, but according to mores. And when the laws are out of synch (ahead or behind), they enjoy neither adherence nor enforcement.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    An individual is free to choose their sexual preference.
    Are they? so being gay is a choice?
    There is lots of debate on that..

    Acting out on your sexuality may be a choice, but I tend to believe the theory that your sexuality isnt a one..

    And on that basis one could equate sexuality and race fairly IMHO..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #154  
    "An individual is free to choose their sexual preference, they are free to do what makes them feel good, they are free to continue in their sexual preference as long as they desire and they are free to change when and if they desire. "

    I personally struggle with this statement since I believe that there is some unknown percentage of people who are in fact born with a propensity for being attracted to the same sex. However, just because someone is born with a particular predisposition does not automatically mean that it is morally right or socially acceptable to practice that behavior. (example polygamy)
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    WIth all due respect, I think yours was the non-sequitur. That is, it doesn't necessarily follow that because slavery laws were bad marriage laws are also bad. Nor does it follow that because we have had bad laws in the past that all past laws are bad.
    Niether was my point. Please reread my message.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Are they? so being gay is a choice?
    There is lots of debate on that..

    Acting out on your sexuality may be a choice, but I tend to believe the theory that your sexuality isnt a one..

    And on that basis one could equate sexuality and race fairly IMHO..
    Slippery slope here. One step and you're gone. Whether its a choice or not is irrelevant.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Niether was my point. Please reread my message.
    I fail to see your point, then, if you're not comparing our marriage laws to slavery laws.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Slippery slope here. One step and you're gone. Whether its a choice or not is irrelevant.
    For the main topic it prob. is, but for cardio's statement it wasnt..


    I was just curious about his logic.. you guys go on back to the main topic, but remember to keep things civilised..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    "An individual is free to choose their sexual preference, they are free to do what makes them feel good, they are free to continue in their sexual preference as long as they desire and they are free to change when and if they desire. "

    I personally struggle with this statement since I believe that there is some unknown percentage of people who are in fact born with a propensity for being attracted to the same sex. However, just because someone is born with a particular predisposition does not automatically mean that it is morally right or socially acceptable to practice that behavior. (example polygamy)
    It's definitely not, as you say. We're a long way yet from it being socially acceptable, but thats just learned behavior. As for morally right, who is the arbitrator of morality that says that it's wrong? (next comes the "we're a nation founded on christian principles" part of the discussion?)
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I fail to see your point, then, if you're not comparing our marriage laws to slavery laws.
    I wasn't comparing them. Shopharim made a point about laws and process. I was simply saying that not all laws are moral and just, and used the slaverly laws as an example. The two types of laws are totally unrelated.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions