Comedy Central shows that one pretty much EVERY night.

Janene

As far as what you want to worship, etc the Constitution says that the government is to stay out of religion. But before its said, instituting heterosexual marriage is not instituting a religion, it’s one value shared by the majority of the world. When I say majority of the world I say it population wise, because while there are many cultures who practice polygamy (however that pertains to this argument) there is still a higher percentage of the population that does not, and an even higher percentage that does not practice homosexual marriage.

Homosexuality is wrong only if we accept Christianity. By legislating against homosexuality, Christianity is implied. Ergo, religion has been legislated. We are forced to abide by the arbitrary dictates of a religion we may not believe, simply because democracy has degenerated into the dictatorship of the masses, running ramshod over the rights of minorities.

On population, you are correct. Those few, perverse and unworkable cultures which are currently disintegrating before our very eyes also suffer from severe, systemic overpopulation problems–being among the most primary reasons for their inevitable collapse in the very near future. I do not see why this means that their arbitrary rules should be counted more heavily. If anything, it is proof that their particular taboos are an unworkable, inherently unstable configuration. I would think that anything they believe should be held up to suspicion precisely because they believe it.

So, to my mind, you’re working from a disadvantage. You have a “broken” culture that teaches something. I know something–or likely, many things–about this culture doesn’t work. Not only does it not counter-balance a working culture, like those of the Native Americans, or the New Guinea tribes … you need to prove that this is one of the few parts of that culture that isn’t “broken.”

I have a friend who is a lawyer that has said to me homosexuals already have these rights because of how courts have already ruled on such cases relating to these matters.

99% of all legal FUD online is attributed to “friends who are lawyers.” Judge Moore has a law degree, for Chrissakes, and I’d trust the legal opinion of most 8-year-olds over him.

Even though the majority of legislation as nothing to do with morality does not prove that the government does not pass laws with moral dimensions to them nor does it prove they are passed without moral dimensions in mind or for the sole purpose of enforcing a slight amount of morality.

True. But what they believe to be moral, and what is moral, are very different things. I cited many examples of immoral things that are legal above, and many things that are required by law that are immoral. Every introductory ethics class spends the first day of lecture going over the basic fact that ethics and laws are totally different things. Laws don’t imply that something is ethical, and not everything that’s ethical should be legislated. Laws are about making society work; ethics relate to some kind of philosophical truth. To show that it’s unethical is an entirely different argument than to prove that it should be illegal. To prove that it should be illegal, you must prove that banning it would improve society. I tend to think that marginalizing and doing something you admit is unfair to 10 to 15 people out of every 100 would make society much, much worse. What good can you possibly come up with to balance that? What is the harm?

So far, the only case I’ve heard on this is that children will be raised to believe it isn’t wrong. This is mixed with the sick concept of “homosexuality as disease” to say that, for some reason, homosexuality will go up, which they believe is “wrong.” This makes sense if we also accept that marriage has always and everywhere been between one man and one woman, that no culture has ever accepted homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, both ideas are completely unfounded. Many, many cultures accepted homosexuals and even gave them an honored place in their society. Do you see homosexuality increasing amongst these cultures? No, they still hold around 10-15%. So this would be a lovely thought experiment, if not for the fact that we’ve done it and it didn’t happen.

On the other hand, there are some things that have been proven to make the incidence of homosexuality go up–like overpopulation. Which Christianity and Judaism both endorse. So, who’s the one with the homosexual agenda?

Fourth paragraph, I do not think we are denying them a right (or a right that anyone else has), therefore I really do not believe we are pushing them into second-class citizenry.

Unfortunately, legal precedent does not ask your opinion, it looks to judicial opinion. They seem to understand logic better than you do, because they have already ruled that it is, in fact, second-class citizenship. I’ve made a very clear argument as to why, and your counter-argument is simply, “I don’t think so.” Well, that’s fine, but it’s still true. More importantly, as a point of law, your opinion is irrelevant. It’s already been decided. The precedent is on the books. All that’s yet to be decided is if we’re going to do it anyway. Right now, rules against second-class citizenship are inferred from the Constitution. If we pass an ammendment, then second-class citizenship will be, very explicitly, constitutional. A document meant to protect the rights of minorities will become the easiest tool to strip any minority of any right at any time. If you can lose a right at any time for any reason, then it’s no longer a right. So, if an ammendment against homosexual marriage is passed, rights no longer exist.

A: Homosexuals.
B: A can’t marry.
C: A are second-class citizens.
D: Same rules apply to A and -A
E: -A are second class citizens.

So, we have

If B, then C.
If D and B, then E.

The first line, “If B, then C,” has already been established. D is established with the 14th ammendment. So all we need is B–the actual ammendment itself–to yield E. This is a legal argument. Your opinion is irrelevant. You’ll need to cite case law or constitutional law to successfully counter this point.

In the end what you are talking about is having to depend upon the majority opinion of a democratic country that they will be able to define “rights� correctly, and while not necessarily perfect or ideal I do have faith within the system of democracy and the people’s ability to distinguish right from wrong

Well, the founding fathers didn’t. That’s why they wrote the Constitution–to protect minorities from the predations of the majority. The idea that the majority should be able to do this is a revolution in political philosophy that I don’t think you’ll find too many supporters for. Certainly not here. Since the 2004 election, I’ve taken an increasingly dim view of the American people as a narcisstic, ignorant and bigoted people whose cruelty is matched only by their cowardice. The idea of living under a dictatorship of such evil makes my blood run cold with terror.

Once again no test will work in ever single situation.

Every discussion of applied ethics must begin with a mutual agreement on which theory of ethics is to be used, since each theory will lead to divergent results. Nothing can be gained unless we first agree to one test. What you’re saying is exactly the opposite of all applied ethics.

Most philosophers will tell you that the only philosopher who appeared to have gotten it all right was Plato (they’d probably say Aristotle too).

No, they won’t. No philosopher will tell you that. If they do, then they know even less about philosophy than I know about quantum mechanics. It has been said that all of Western philosophy is a footnote to Aristotle, but that’s because everyone keeps disagreeing with him.

Now you yourself cite the Harm principle several times which is also not full proof. The principle goes that anything which harms something else (he included anything that could feel) is wrong and that this is the reason why killing is immoral. I will use two classic examples of where it fails. The first one is very simple, if I kill animals to eat is it immoral? Some might say yes. However what if I eat plants? Some have claimed that plants can feel as someone mentioned in a very interesting article on this site. So is it also wrong to kill plants? I would say not.

Right, which is why the “Harm principle” is just one part of an ethical theory. Michael is not citing any “Harm principle,” he’s using the Lockesian argument that the only limit to one person’s rights are the extent of another person’s rights. That is, you’re free to do anything you like, right up until “what you like” impinges on my right to do the same. Thus, killing is not wrong because it does harm; it’s wrong because it impedes the other’s right to live. In the case of eating, as animals, we do not provide our own nutrition. For us to live, something must die. Same goes for all other animals. Now it is no longer simply a morbid desire to kill; now it is a requirement for sustaining life.

I prefer consequentialist ethics. Killing is wrong because it diminishes diversity more than it adds. It adds no diversity, it only diminishes. Eating, however, sustains diversity, unlike simple killing. Ergo, eating is good, and simple killing is bad.

Oh yes indeed how could I forget the several New Guinea tribes? Earlier in this response I mention population. While population does not dictate being right, I should think that, “you betray a bitter ignorance of the diversity of human cultures� if you believe that the utterly huge population of the world throughout history which does not practice this is absolutely wrong.

I was always clear to say the vast majority of human cultures, not the vast majority of humans. As i mentioned previously, the fact that our culture is also severely dysfunctional with endemic overpopulation that has left it careening towards completely breakdown does not make it a moral exemplar. It is still just one culture among many. If we want to make any claim for its peculiarity, it must be that it is unstable, untested, and unsustainable–none of which speak well for it, or its beliefs.

Looking to our population for cultural guidelines because of our population is not unlike looking to the morbidly obese for tips on healthy living, because they have so many more cells they’re keeping alive than a slim, fit athlete.

This pertains to our discussion how? As a matter of fact I don’t believe that it does. Just spreading a little hate I guess? And weren’t they already doing that?

Just an aside, pointing out what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1: “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” The Etoro are very interesting, because their behavior gives us such willies. Yet, if homosexuality is “wrong,” how is it that they were able to live far more ethically than we, until we came along and changed all that? It doesn’t prove anything, but it’s interesting to point out along the way that, as much as we like to damn everyone who isn’t like us, we remain the single most evil, murderous culture to ever exist. We have a plank in our own eye, as we go about damning others for their specks.

Yes restraint for the sake of restraint is indeed stupid but were talking restrain for morality’s sake.

Not until you come up with an argument that it’s immoral. So far you have two logical fallacies. You have bald assertion which you’re saying is true simply because, supposedly, a god said so. That’s the second fallacy–argument from authority.

Tangentially, I thought I might mention one of my favorite stories from the Talmud, in Baba Mezia 59b. I don’t have the exact verses handy, so I’ll paraphrase. Some rabbis are debating, and G-d performs a miracle to show that one side is correct. The other rabbi replies, saying that his argument is based on the Torah, and if the Jews are to go off believing every miracle that G-d performs, then they are not being faithful to their vow to follow the Torah given at Sinai. G-d admits that he has been defeated, and declares the rabbi the victor. G-d is very proud of his children that day, because they managed to outsmart him.

Isn’t every parent proud of his children on the day they’re able to stand up on their own? Don’t you think G-d would be proud of us, being able to think and choose for ourselves? Would you be particularly pleased with your own children if they remained in your house into their 30s and 40s, slavishly obeying all the rules you gave them when they were 3 or 4? Or would you prefer them to one day find their own way?

To quote Galileo, I do not think the same G-d who gave us will and reason meant us to forego their use.

First you claim that Gentiles are not Hebrews. Many people do not subscribe to this belief.

That’s insane. The deifnition of a Gentile is a non-Hebrew. That’s like saying, “First you claim that clowns are not non-clowns. Many people do not subscribe to this belief.”

A quick note might be the book of Hebrews which was written to the Gentiles. Now why would they call it the book of Hebrews?

Ehhh, no, it was written to Hebrews. That’s why it’s called Hebrews, that why it’s all about what it means to be a Hebrew Christian.

The other point I might make, if you do not accept that one, is how Paul repeatedly says that we are grafted on to the tree of the house of Abraham.

I won’t ask for the verse, I know what you’re referring to. He makes the argument several times.

Unfortunately, I reject Paul in toto. So, if you accept Paul, then you accept being subject to the Torah. Except, Paul also made the argument (in the Letter to the Galatians) that we are not subject to the Torah anymore, despite Jesus saying the opposite. Ohhh, so is the Torah in play or not? Can we cherry-pick which parts apply, and which don’t? If homosexuality is wrong, what about bacon cheeseburgers and cotton/nylon shirts?

By the way, your clearest evidence against homosexuality in the Bible comes from Paul, not Leviticus. Though now I understand that the Greek word he used refers specifically to temple prostitutes common in the Roman world … so once again, it’s not about some loving, long-term homosexual relationship, it’s referring to some bizarre, pagan sex ritual.

Yup there were problems in the beginning. Though compared to the rest of the world at the time were doing a lot better in the “rights� department than anyone else, also doing better on the morality situation.

No we weren’t. Our rights at the time of the country’s founding were no more liberal than France’s or Britain’s. It was nearly identical to the British government, just sans monarch. This was the era of King George III, when the modern parliament was emerging. We were on the forefront of the Enlightenment, I’ll give you that, but we weren’t any further ahead than anyone else. That’s just nationalistic propaganda.

Slavery is often cited as a reason to hate early America, our founders, and white people in general. Many of the founders expressed great concern over slavery, even freeing slaves, but as is the norm in politics compromise took hold and nothing was done. As for the general hatred of white people everywhere, while not explicitly stated but obviously implicitly stated, it is simply another form of racism and neglects to remember all of those who fought (whether politically, through aid, or physically) to end slavery. I must say that as for myself my ancestors fought on the side of the Union, whatever difference that makes.

My own ancestors were often slaves. I respect those few founding fathers who fought against slavery. Well, father. Pretty much just TJ, really. I don’t hate white people as white people; I am, myself, white. I hate our culture. It’s sick, perverse, evil, and has done more harm and brought more suffering upon the world than, well, anything. Ever. But I don’t hate white people. They’re the ones who were being victimized by this sick culture before anyone else.

As far as slavery and the rest goes, the U.S. has always been the very last to adopt every bit of new freedom. We were the second-to-last country in the Western world to abolish slavery. We were among the last to give women the right to vote. In terms of rights and liberties, we have always been backwards. Here, again, we will be one of the last to recognize homosexuals as full human beings, living up to our grand tradition of always bringing up the rear guard in the march of freedom, as the guardian of backwards, hateful bigotry and oppression, and a friend to miltiaristic dictators the world over.

Another note, Peter 3 talks about wives and their husbands, and husbands and their wives. Not husbands and their husbands or wives and their wives.

Neither does the Bible mention computers or flush toilets. Are they “wrong” as well?

ven so this debate is rather pointless, all that matters is how the people vote and how the political machine responds.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that your side–despite its moral, philosophical, empirical and logical bankruptcy–will prevail. Because American cruelty is matched only by cowardice. We have always been at the forefront of tyranny, oppression, and backwards, bigoted theocracy cloaked in a self-important mythology of “freedom.” I have no doubt that you’re correct, that we will never recognize homosexuals as human beings. I have no doubt we’ll continue to hunt, torture and kill them because of people making arguments like yours.

Truth does not matter to tyrants, and the majority of this nation that hungers for the blood of the innocent doesn’t give a damn about truth. How can you stop that, when all you have on your side is truth?

Not only that but an argument like this could go on forever even though I have given you plenty of reasons why homosexual marriage should not be allowed none of them will satisfy you.

You’ve given no reasons at all. Give one, and i’ll consider it. You’ve grasped at a lot of straws, but still nothing.

Even if God himself came down and said what the truth is within this situation right now you would not listen.

Damn skippy. And any G-d worth obeying or worshipping would be damn proud of me for standing up for what’s right, even when he can strike me with lightning. And if he’s as evil and tyrannical as to support what you’re suggesting, then I’ll be proud to sign on with the legions of hell to war against such a vile tyrant. Good is good, and evil is evil, regardless of whether or not the cause is doomed.

If the price of doing what’s right is damnation, then let me be damned. Let salvation come to those too cowardly to stand for what is right when the price is too high. Let all your eternities in paradise haunt you with the memory of when you failed to do the good, and remember that prince of hell who stood when you faltered, and remained true to the truth when you slavishly clung to your heinous lies.

really have no problem with someone disagree with me either, that’s one of the great things of the US

Yet, you want to destroy it. I agree, the great thing about the U.S. is that we can all have our different opinions, and you don’t have to live my way, and I don’t have to live yours.

But you’re trying to make me live your way….

That’s the problem.

And what is that harm? Simply, thinking on my own and disagreeing with them.

Firstly, you haven’t thought a bit on your own. You have believed every piece of deceit and filth that you’ve been spoon-fed by Christian fundamentalists and homophobes. There’s no original thought in your words. You’re just parroting some of the most ridiculous, evil rhetoric this side of Mein Kampf.

And there are plenty of people we disagree with, and we don’t treat them like this. The harm you do is the murder, and the suicide, of all those poor young people you’ve victimized with your irresponsbile, hateful rhetoric.

People die for your opinion, every day. That’s why we hate you.

How would you prove to a court that two people love each other?

I suppose that would be the same place the immagration service is in that regard. I also didn’t say it needed to be proved, lawyer. Intent is intent. Fraud is fraud. Thank you councilor.