GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 6, 2009 23:20:12 GMT -5
Reading the last few posts I have to say:
1. The gay rights issue compared to gender OR race is complete insanity. I guess it shows how far the propaganda has come that someone could equate either of them. One reason is pretty f'ing obvious. I have amazing chick-dar and black-dar because it's completely apparent. So when someone goes for a job interview or walks around the street I'm quite sure everyone knows and has for centuries. Hiding who you're nailing ain't great but it's not struggling for the right to vote because someone thinks you're a lesser human. If you were a gay white male in times past, you just didn't tell anyone and could still become, say the first director of the FBI or as some suggest, the 16th President of the US.
Put it this way, if Lincoln were gay, he was president and not one black person or woman could have voted for him. I think that's a pretty fair way to put it.
2. I completely agree with ed that you can be against gay marriage or even homosexuality and not be a "homophobe." He could not like homosexuality, work with homosexuals, and even have friends who are gay...or not. One, tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it. Two, here's news, gay people have other roles in life other than who they're screwing. A homophobe is the person who can't be around someone because that person is gay even though there is no sexual or romantic role being played between them.
As for ed trying to legalize taste. I disagree but welcome to the DEA, the FCC, hate crimes, censorship, dry counties, and not smoking within 25 feet of a doorway in Seattle. Everyone does it. This is one that is detrimental to many people, but the concept isn't exactly earth-shattering.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 7, 2009 1:00:08 GMT -5
That last point, giga, was basically, I don't agree with other things, so this is okay. That's just an awful argument.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 7, 2009 12:34:46 GMT -5
easyed said..."I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe gay sexual activity is immoral. It's a religious belief."
Ed my man. How to count the ways this is disturbing, particularly coming as it does from some who presumably thinks he believes in small goverment and personal liberty and that we are freer than say the French.
You freely admit that you are seeking to prohibit others from enjoying a right that you want to keep yourself because of "a religious belief." That's the fatal truth in the anti-gay marriage argument....it very much is a religious belief even if most people are not that honest about it.
So here we go.....who gives a damn about your religious beliefs? I don't find Christian religious beliefs all that much more credible than Scientology. Scientology only lacks the respect that the partina of 20 centuries lends it. So then... Who are you to say what is moral or immoral? Are you really saying American law should be based upon a book of fictional morality tales? Do you talk a lot of nonsense about America being a free country? How in hell is it a free country if everyone has a veto on any right they choose to find immoral? I find it immoral that you are going to brainwash your children into thinking your religious superstitions should guide them in life....do I get to say your practice of Christianity should therefore be illegal because I find it "immoral?" Who gives a damn that I find it immoral you must be thinking...it doesn't bother me does it? Exactly.
You cannot hold the belief that "that which you find immoral should be illegal for all" and also hold the belief that you are in support of liberty at the same time. Can't be done. True story.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 7, 2009 13:38:35 GMT -5
"Who are you to say what is moral or immoral? Are you really saying American law should be based upon a book of fictional morality tales?"
Guess I'm not only a homophobe because I disagree with others re gay marriage but I base my beliefs on some "book of fictional morality tales".
Most who have posted on this subject have given their beliefs/opinions and the rationale behind them and I respect their beliefs/opinion even while disagreeing. I ask for the same respect for my beliefs.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 7, 2009 13:43:16 GMT -5
I can respect your beliefs Ed RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where your beliefs impinge on those who don't share them. This is the meaning of liberty as John Stuart Mill understands it, and I can think of no better theory on which to base a limited goverment. You don't just want me to "respect" your beliefs, you want me to be "governed" by them even if they conflict with my equally valid beliefs. That is a difference of kind, not degree. Here you support the authoratarian impulse of states everywhere over a liberty that you find dis-tasteful but you can't seriously believe causes you any harm. In that way your opinion is not just like everyone elses expressed in this thread as you claim because you expect your opinions to rule over everyone else's. Where is the mutual respect in that? I do not want you to marry a man for example. I fully support your right to NOT marry a man, and even to disparage those who do if you want. But when you want the force of the state to prevent others from doing just that based upon a belief system that under American law has no more creedence than any other, well that is where you are perverting the idea of American liberty as I understand and cherish it. And I saw all of this as a man raised Catholic and who is coming from the conservative (or English "Liberal") tradition that the GOP was founded on by the way.... Mill's "On Liberty" is my own Good Book. Why is your bible more important than mine?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 7, 2009 16:46:41 GMT -5
"I can respect your beliefs Ed RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where your beliefs impinge on those who don't share them."
Seems to me you are trying to force your beliefs onto me and, since I don't agree with you, you feel free to insult me and my religion by referring to a "book of fictional morality tales". Just go away.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 7, 2009 17:31:20 GMT -5
Sorry bin, the mob has spoken. This also plays into what SF said. My disagreement with legislating morality doesn't make ed's argument right but what I'm arguing is his point of view is more politcally relevent than mine or yours or bin's. Simply put, neither of the major parties are social libertarians so while it might be logical to discuss gay marriage in that context, in America today the argument is all about competing moralities.
Special thanks to Jim Moran (D-VA) for joining the legislating morality train today against ED ads. For those who want to live and let live, maybe that "fad" will come back in style one day.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 7, 2009 21:47:47 GMT -5
"I can respect your beliefs Ed RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where your beliefs impinge on those who don't share them." Seems to me you are trying to force your beliefs onto me and, since I don't agree with you, you feel free to insult me and my religion by referring to a "book of fictional morality tales". Just go away. What belief do you think I am forcing on you? Do you think I want you to marry a man? Or do you think you have a right not to be offended by what other people choose to do with their own lives? Well Ed its clear enough to me that you are not actually adressing my points but choosing to continue thinking that your beliefs, dressed as they are with the spirit of historical acceptance, are an argument onto themselves. I'm disappointed. You seem to think that "respecting the opinions of others" means that your faith based opinions should rule us all and that the only thing you have to do to respect our opinions is say you accept that we shouldn't be arrested for saying them. Let's just be clear, you don't believe in Liberty, you are an authoratarian who thinks that your personal absurd beliefs must be of right superior to mine. In only a few years time, your beliefs will be universally understood to be the hogwash that they are. By the way Ed, it was not meant as an insult to call the bible a "book of fictional morality tales." That's literally what it is, as is the Torah and Koran. I think if you polled most educated adults throughout the world you'd find an overwhelming acceptance of that term. Wait...you don't believe Adam and Eve literally existed or that Moses literally parted the Red Sea do you?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 7, 2009 21:58:48 GMT -5
Sorry bin, the mob has spoken. This also plays into what SF said. My disagreement with legislating morality doesn't make ed's argument right but what I'm arguing is his point of view is more politcally relevent than mine or yours or bin's. Simply put, neither of the major parties are social libertarians so while it might be logical to discuss gay marriage in that context, in America today the argument is all about competing moralities. Special thanks to Jim Moran (D-VA) for joining the legislating morality train today against ED ads. For those who want to live and let live, maybe that "fad" will come back in style one day. I wanna live and let live
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on May 7, 2009 22:35:47 GMT -5
Seems to me you are trying to force your beliefs onto me Ed, please explain to me how legalizing gay civil marriage "forces" any belief on you. Because 5 states have legalized it now, and I'm pretty sure your beliefs are still the same. No one has forced you to change your belief system. So please enlighten me as to how two gay people getting some contractual/survivorship rights and tax benefits "forces" a belief on you. Something that "offends" your belief =/= something that "forces" a belief upon you.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2009 5:42:58 GMT -5
Giga- i'm missing the thrust of your last post. I literally dont know if it is agreeing or belittling my argument. Can you re- state?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on May 8, 2009 6:12:55 GMT -5
Giga- i'm missing the thrust of your last post. I literally dont know if it is agreeing or belittling my argument. Can you re- state? I agree with you ideologically. I'm just saying social libertarianism in the US is dead. As you said most "libertarians" aren't even close. They're concerned with avoiding taxes and not with silly things like individual freedoms. ed's point of view is part of the prevailing dialogue where the Republicans want to be your pastor and the Democrats want to be your mom. So logical or not, someone represents ed in state and federal government. In that way, his argument is more powerful because it's part of the current political landscape. The idea that personal morality shouldn't be a legislated at all, is not.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2009 8:10:25 GMT -5
Giga- i'm missing the thrust of your last post. I literally dont know if it is agreeing or belittling my argument. Can you re- state? I agree with you ideologically. I'm just saying social libertarianism in the US is dead. As you said most "libertarians" aren't even close. They're concerned with avoiding taxes and not with silly things like individual freedoms. ed's point of view is part of the prevailing dialogue where the Republicans want to be your pastor and the Democrats want to be your mom. So logical or not, someone represents ed in state and federal government. In that way, his argument is more powerful because it's part of the current political landscape. The idea that personal morality shouldn't be a legislated at all, is not. Not to split hairs but that doesn't make his "argument" more powerful at all, in fact it's really not an argument he's making. It means his side has been winning with a really weak argument for centuries. But isn't that a bit like a boxer who remains undefeated because he doesn't actually have to fight anyone? Let's face it, their side has been unchallenged for centuries. But no more. The number of Americans who don't identify themselves with any church is rising at a staggering pace. Of course his position is still currently the mainstream one, but your pessimism about the durabilty of that primacy is overstated in my opinion. Ed's view, that his morals should be enforced on the general population just because, is rapidly losing ground at least when it comes to homosexuality and generally speaking matters of sexuality. The writing is on the wall, in ten (20 tops) years his views with regard to marriage will no longer be the norm on a national level. Of that I'm sure. Less progress will be made in other victimless "crimes" like prostitution, marijuana laws, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2009 10:31:14 GMT -5
There are a lot of people who support legislating morality based on religious beliefs.
You know, like the Taliban.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on May 8, 2009 11:22:20 GMT -5
Dang thebin, you going all crazy on religion generally reminds me of this episode of the South Park: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_GoMaybe we should chill out on trashing each other's religious beliefs (or lack thereof)? Though I disagree with easyed on many topics, including gay marriage, I respect his beliefs. I also think it is difficult to completely divorce our laws from "morality," especially since the bulk of our laws stem from Judeo-Christian tenets. Now, I certainly don't believe in legislating based on religious beliefs alone (I think we live in a society too diverse for that), but I think we can all agree that certain religious beliefs have worked out for society in general (e.g., murder as a crime). Now, to address easyed's opposition to gay marriage "because [he] believe gay sexual activity is immoral." easyed, do we think there will be more gay sex if marriage is sanctioned by the state? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my gay friends certainly aren't holding out until they get married. In fact, as the late night comedians say, perhaps gay marriage will kill gay sex?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2009 11:56:43 GMT -5
I refuse to accept that I am insulting Ed or any religious person by stating my own belief (which I could argue is a fact but I'll be generous) that the bible is a largely fictional work written by men with no divine direction. If that is "trashing" Ed then what you are really saying is that Ed has a right to state his belief in a god but I should watch my mouth when I state facts that I believe in surrounding the same issue. I'm not playing that game.
Religious people (muslims are the worst at this) need to understand that they DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED. I don't need to specifically insult anyone's religious beliefs, that would be unneccesary, but that DOES NOT mean that I must "respect" their religious beliefs. I cannot "respect" Ed's religious beliefs if it means I am now unable to state my own humanist beliefs. This is a one way street. Ed wants me to respect his belief that OTHER men shouldn't have sex with one another. No, that's not how it works. I can only respect the Ed's belief that HE should not have sex with men. That's it. No more "respect" surrendered which is code for "let me tell you what you can and can not do according to my beliefs." I will only respect someone's beliefs right up to the point where they want to restrict the liberty of others from doing something that will cause them no harm.
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign....That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." -Mill, On Liberty
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 8, 2009 12:07:17 GMT -5
There are a lot of people who support legislating morality based on religious beliefs. You know, like the Taliban. And their government turned out ok! ...right?
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on May 8, 2009 13:24:53 GMT -5
I refuse to accept that I am insulting Ed or any religious person by stating my own belief (which I could argue is a fact but I'll be generous) that the bible is a largely fictional work written by men with no divine direction. You certainly have a right to your own opinion. But I think your humanist points are better received when they are not mixed in with distinctly anti-religious commentary. As a crude analogy, I have every right to think my wife is far better looking than my coworker's, but if I want to continue to work with him, it ain't necessarily a good idea to tell him. I, for one, do not think I should be insulated from being offended. I think we all ought to be challenged. All I'm asking is that we be a little more civil.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on May 8, 2009 13:49:58 GMT -5
... I can only respect the Ed's belief that HE should not have sex with men. That's it. No more "respect" surrendered which is code for "let me tell you what you can and can not do according to my beliefs." I will only respect someone's beliefs right up to the point where they want to restrict the liberty of others from doing something that will cause them no harm. "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign....That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." -Mill, On LibertyPerhaps your arguments and exhortations to JS Mill, explain the 18 points "On Liberty" received here (it is old I know) www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2009 13:54:55 GMT -5
There is something deeply disturbing to me about a list of "the most harmful books." Its about 2 steps removed from a book burning. If you are going to draw up a list, you could easily find room for the Torah, Koran and King James, used as they have been to propagate slavery, war, etc for millenia.
|
|