If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

No one called you ridiculous, at least not in writing in this thread.
I am discussing the denial of rights for citizens of the United States of America so let's not do any wiping off of any argument.

I think it's funny that you are opposed to people from another country on another continent having the same freedoms that your country was the first to grant. I think it is funny that you care at all. Alex, that is exactly the point of my initial question. Why would it cause you any stress if a gay couple in Flint, Michigan, USA wants to join together in a legally sanctioned marriage? I read Glennerator's statement that he doesn't have to have a reason, it just bugs him. Is distaste and/or dislike for a certain group of the population sufficient to deny those people equal rights? So if you held the scepter of power would you then reverse the rules and deny people the freedoms they have been granted?

Brad

---

No, you called my arguments rediculous which amounts to the same thing in the end.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that this discussion was limited to your little corner of the world. You started the discussion as something about "if it doesn't affect you personally why would you care?"

I didn't know that there was a geographical location limitation on that. I forget sometimes that United Statians are the only ones that deal with real issues and that everything outside of the US doesn't count.

As for what I would do if I were in power I'd at least hold a referendum and put sanctions on those who wouldn't show up. Then if the outcome was different from the current laws I'd revoke those laws but keep past decisions legal. So if a gay couple had married in the past under legal supervision their mariage would still be valid. However mariage under my administration would not be possible for same sex mariage.

BUT, and this is a big one. ONLY if this is what the population chose for. Which hasn't happened in the Netherlands for most things and when it does the government finds some kind of way to surpass that anyway.

As for my personal opinion, I think that acts of homosexuality are wrong with a capitol W. This is my religious conviction. I know that many of you have a problem with that but that's my conviction. And nothing short of personal revelation from God will convince me otherwise.

I don't hate gay people, I just don't like their gay actions. Just like I don't hate smokers, just the fact that they smoke. We could get into a long discussion about whether that comparison works. For me it does. I have a gay friend, I love the guy very much but I don't love the fact that he's gay. Many will argue that that's "just the way he feels" that it's "In his DNA" etc etc.

Well the way I feel sometimes is that I'd like to bash someone's head in. But I don't. In my DNA is programmed that I need to be with as many women as possible according to the scientists, but I'm only with my wife. Those things are not any excuse to me. If a person can't control his/her actions that he/she has based on their feelings they might as well go out and live in the jungle with the other animals that respond purely to instinct and stimulation.

I'm a man, I chose what I do and I expect others to do the same. Just like "I fell in love with her" is no excuse for a man to have an affair. If it's that important let him end it with his wife, then he can pursue other relationships.

Oh please Alex, don't say that. I actually have great respect for you at a personal level. You are clearly intelligent, talented, skilled in many areas and a loving father, husband and I would have to extrapolate(but hopefully not too far) to say friend too. To call you as a person ridiculous would be a foolish mistake if not outright lie. However, in the world of debate it is easy to make a ridiculous statement or argument. Bringing up human sacrifice in a discussion about same sex marriage is (in my opinion) ridiculous. If you'd like we can take a poll on it and see if I stand alone or if everyone else thinks so too.

Once again, the basic question of this thread was not specifically about gay marriage. It was about some people who want to control others. The thread morphed into the marriage thing which people can not argue logically against. The only argument has been purely emotional, "It bugs me." Now if we are discussing why folks of the same sex are not allowed to marry, we could not be discussing the Netherlands. Same sex marriage is allowed there. And in response to your snotty "your little corner of the world" comment, my "little corner of the world" is Connecticut. Same sex marriages are allowed in Connecticut. As Connecticut is on the other side of North America from California, we can be discussing neither my "little corner" nor my bigger corner.

Now how about my question regarding those who will not let other drivers pass on a two lane, bi-directional, limited access highway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Bringing up human sacrifice in a discussion about same sex marriage is (in my opinion) ridiculous. If you'd like we can take a poll on it and see if I stand alone or if everyone else thinks so too.

Once again, the basic question of this thread was not specifically about gay marriage. It was about some people who want to control others. The thread morphed into the marriage thing which people can not argue logically against.


Now how about my question regarding those who will not let other drivers pass on a two lane, bi-directional, limited access highway?

---

Which is what I responded to. The original question. One of the reasonings of the original question was that if it doesn't harm you, why should you have a problem with it? Then I gave an example of something that doesn't harm a person but could possibly harm them in the future.

THAT is what I responded to.

After that I went on to respond to the whole gay mariage thing. But my initial response was to the idea that something that doesn't harm you should be allowed. The response to that was with an example that does not harm a person but might in the future. Offcourse the example was out there. That way it could be clearer. It had nothing directly to do with gay mariage because that wasn't the topic of this discussion.

I wasn't comparing it to gay mariage because that wasn't the topic.


After that I went on to say some things about gay mariage, but that had nothing directly to do with gay mariage and human sacrifice. However the principal was the same. People would (and do) object to both because they fear it might harm then In the future.

It was an illustration of an idea. Not a comparison.

As for the fact that you're my friend:hmmm:, I agree:D

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

OH HEY! Good news everyone. I just read that if you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to have one. *whew*


...


...


...

Well, that solved that in a hurry now didn't it? Anybody for some scones? I bake them fresh myself. :D

X

You're a bit behind X, that answer has already been given. But I'm glad you confirmed that for those who weren't paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

You're a bit behind X, that answer has already been given. But I'm glad you confirmed that for those who weren't paying attention.

---

That's one for scones. Who else is in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

One of the reasonings of the original question was that if it doesn't harm you, why should you have a problem with it? Then I gave an example of something that doesn't harm a person but could possibly harm them in the future.

---

That is an excellent point.

As a corollary, there is also a gray area of being harmed by something.

If you wore the worlds ugliest socks in the world tomorrow, it wouldn't effect me in the slightest degree. Not even by the most complex chain of cause and effect.

If you hopped on a plain tomorrow, and flew all the way to little Monmouth, OR - USA and performed a ritual sacrifice in my living room, that would have a HUGE effect on me.

The problem is that so often when these topics are debated, everybody views it as black and white. Either it has a huge meaningful effect directly on your life, or it shouldn't matter to you at all. But, it's a long way from wearing ugly socks on a different continent to performing a sacrifice in my living room, and somewhere in the middle, it get's pretty seriously ambiguous as to whether it's any of my business or not.

So many debates are a matter of gray area these days.

The abortion debate is a perfect example. Everyone in the civilized world (excluding crazy people) agrees that it is wrong to senselessly murder a child. The difficulty comes in because not everybody agrees on when an egg cell stops being partial genetic material, and starts being a child. AND, not everyone agrees on the definitions of "senseless" or "murder."

I know people who believe that the morning after pill is senseless murder, and other's who believe that it's perfectly reasonable, compassionate even, to abort a 5 month fetus because an amnio shows a 50% chance of a bad birth defect.

(I mention this particular debate because it's a good example of what I'm talking about, and it was mentioned in the opening post)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The abortion debate is a perfect example. Everyone in the civilized world (excluding crazy people) agrees that it is wrong to senselessly murder a child. The difficulty comes in because not everybody agrees on when an egg cell stops being partial genetic material, and starts being a child. AND, not everyone agrees on the definitions of "senseless" or "murder."

I know people who believe that the morning after pill is senseless murder, and other's who believe that it's perfectly reasonable, compassionate even, to abort a 5 month fetus because an amnio shows a 50% chance of a bad birth defect.

---

Not to argue but only to comment: I've known a fair number of women who have decided to have abortions and none of them were happy about it. Sometimes people feel forced to take extreme positions in public debate ("It doesn't bother me at all") because they don't want the basic issue to be sidetracked but I think it would be fair to say that such decisions are not taken lightly and always involve choosing the lesser of two evils. In addition to knowing women who have aborted, I have also raised two adopted daughters and I can also tell you that giving up a child for adoption, as an alternative to abortion, and being an adopted child that was given up by her biological mother, are no beds of roses either.

There's also another aspect to both the gay marriage and abortion debate that I'm surprised no one else has mentioned. Parents who believe that the happiest way to live is to have a stable marriage and raise children are very worried about role models that glorify irresponsible sex.

The abortion debate is also about irresponsible sex. Parents worry that, if abortion becomes widely accepted and easy, their daughters will sleep around and it will be harder for them to marry, stay married and raise healthy children. I'm not arguing this, just explaining what some people think.

The gay marriage issue also has this aspect. True, there are gays in stable relationships but there are a lot of gays that have frequent anonymous sexual encounters in bath houses, bathrooms and parks in the dark. This is one of the theories about why AIDS spread so fast among gay males. Some people want to put gays in a ghetto to keep them out of sight of their children, not because they will be tempted to become gay, but to imitate a hedonistic lifestyle. Part of the fear of gay marriage is that gays will become mainstream, i.e., big gay weddings and photographs of happy couples kissing in the newspapers. Again, I'm not arguing this, but explaining where some of the emotion comes from. I know people who are literally nauseated when they see gay behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

That's one for scones. Who else is in?

---

Deep socio-political discussions degenerating into name calling or scones. Hmmm, I'll have some scones too. Thanks.
Do you have jam and cream too?

As much as I hadn't intended to get into that part of the debate, I feel I really need to respond to your comments.

I say the following as a straight catholic who believes that abortion is wrong unless medically necessary, and that whether legal gay marriage ever become a reality, it's no a real marriage unless it's between a man and a woman.

I have no interest in arguing those points, or in trying to convince anyone here that I am right, or that they are wrong, nor do I have any interest in someone trying to convince me of anything. The point I will try to make here, is that your argument is a very bad one if you want to advance your cause. I say all that because it's important to know that before reading the next thing I have to say.




I really can't stand some of your comments here. Some I agree with, but others I find deeply counter productive, and frankly, very bigoted.

There are MANY reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion. A rape victim who chooses not to carry the rapist's baby to term has nothing to do with irresponsible sex. The woman who aborts a baby because her situation changed shortly after getting pregnant and no longer feels she can raise a child has nothing to do with irresponsible sex. There's also the women who are in a stable relationship with no desire to have children (or more children as the case may be) who took reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy but got pregnant anyway.

To assert that gay means sexually irresponsible comes across as deeply bigoted. There's no way I can pad that one. That's just the way it reads. The problem with the perception of the gay community, is that there is a very small, but incredibly loud subset of that population who are, quite frankly, raging perverts and sexual deviants. However, the VAST majority of gay people I have ever known, are just like you and I, except that they prefer the same sex to the opposite sex. I even think they deserve all the same right as straight people.


When people make arguments against abortion and gay marriage, but base those arguments on notions like those you posted, they give a bad name to the majority of people who believe that abortion and gay marriage are wrong, just as a small but vocal subset of the gay community give all other gays a bad name.

Frankly, I believe that if everyone who thinks abortion and gay rights are all about encouraging people to be sexually irresponsible AND all the people who use gay rights and abortion as excuses to BE sexually irresponsible, would all shut up and get out of the way, all the reasonable people could sort both issues out completely in an afternoon when they had a couple of hours of free time for a BBQ.

I think the main reason why a traditional heterosexual monogamous relationship works, is a lack of information or possibilities to compare.
Even if you skip the monogamous and just stick to heterosexual, you're usually all on your own. In other words: guys know different girls and may be able to compare or girls know different guys etc.
What you don't know is how you compare to people of the same gender.

Nowadays we (at least in europe) live in a society that seems almost addicted to determinations in that field. Like: "I'm an active homosexual male" or else. That stands against the classic isolation policy.

Personally I think that a great deal of that is group pressure determined, none of my concern and doesn't have a pathological background at all. But some people just feel unhappy with partners of the opposite sex and those are the ones who should have the chance to live the life they have to live.

I'm all for intergenetical same sex marriages cause I love my cats, hehehe

@VeeDubb65:

All I said is that there are people who think this way. Isn't that true? I am not interested in defending these opinions, only to put them on the table. No need to make it personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

All I said is that there are people who think this way. Isn't that true? I am not interested in defending these opinions, only to put them on the table. No need to make it personal.

---

I see now how I misread your comment. I stick to my comments with regards to the people who hold and loudly spread the views you referenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

What I wanted this thread to be about is why some people tend to want to control the freedoms of others.

---

OK, lets keep this 100% generic. Let's discuss institutions.

Quote:

---

Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service.

---

Some people enter into these institutions. They get the rights and privileges associated with following the rules.

Other people choose not to enter into these institutions, and don't get the benefits.

However, a third group are more problematic. "Hey," they say, "I don't want to follow the rules, but I want the benefits, and I demand the right to join in without following the rules."

Now it is important to remember something. These benefits are not necessarily something granted by law or any authority. Mainly they are offered by society, because society feels (rightly or wrongly) that the benefits are deserved by people entering those institutions.

The benefit most relevant to our discussion is respect. Respect is not given to people who join various institutions simply because they become members. It is given to them because of what being a member involves, and how society feels about it. Some examples (nothing more, please don't overanalyze them):

• A doctor is respected because he saves lives. Somebody with an honorary PhD can call himself a doctor, but he will not get the same respect as a practicing medical doctor.
• A soldier is respected because he risks his life to protect his country's interests. If a soldier refuses to act because he gets scared, he loses that respect.

Now. Bearing in mind that honorary membership of an institution does not earn you respect automatically, what does that tell you about that third group above who demand membership so they can get the associated respect?

• They simply will not get that respect just by being allowed to join. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
• They will have nominal membership, nothing more.
• They are deluding themselves.
• They will annoy people who enter into the institution fully and willingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Well, that solved that in a hurry now didn't it? Anybody for some scones? I bake them fresh myself. :D

X

---

yeah, sounding better and better all the time.

That's four of us then, I'm gonna start baking. If anybody else wants in let me know. Will somebody please start the tea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

That's four of us then, I'm gonna start baking. If anybody else wants in let me know. Will somebody please start the tea?

---

Well, I can do workmans tea as well as any other Brit but if you want the posh stuff :shrug:

Jam and cream?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Jam and cream?

---

Mais bien sur!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Well, I can do workmans tea as well as any other Brit but if you want the posh stuff :shrug:

Jam and cream?

---

I know it might be a little unconventional, but can I have a dollop of honey in my tea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

OK, lets keep this 100% generic. Let's discuss institutions.
Some people enter into these institutions. They get the rights and privileges associated with following the rules.

Other people choose not to enter into these institutions, and don't get the benefits.

However, a third group are more problematic. "Hey," they say, "I don't want to follow the rules, but I want the benefits, and I demand the right to join in without following the rules."

Now it is important to remember something. These benefits are not necessarily something granted by law or any authority. Mainly they are offered by society, because society feels (rightly or wrongly) that the benefits are deserved by people entering those institutions.

The benefit most relevant to our discussion is respect. Respect is not given to people who join various institutions simply because they become members. It is given to them because of what being a member involves, and how society feels about it.
...
what does that tell you about that third group above who demand membership so they can get the associated respect?

• They simply will not get that respect just by being allowed to join. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
• They will have nominal membership, nothing more.
• They are deluding themselves.
• They will annoy people who enter into the institution fully and willingly.

---

I think you're missing one entry on that last list: The case in which the societal rules for the institution are unreasonable and/or unfair.

(Keeping it 100% generic) Let's use a hypothetical institution, which has certain rules for membership. If a person looks at those rules and thinks, "Hmm, I think I really should, in all fairness, be allowed to be a member of this institution and deserve the full respect thereof, but the rules don't quite fit," they could well be deluding themselves, true. However, there is the possibility that society has changed since the rules were established. I'd argue that all of us, as members of society, have an obligation to recognize when new information or societal shifts challenge the rules of our existing institutions, and to respond appropriately.

How about some examples:

• Suppose we have an institution which only allows people who chew with their mouth closed and with proper posture. At some point opinions begin to change and some people start to think, "Hey, proper posture's really not necessary; chewing with your mouth closed is all that's necessary for me to respect the institution."
  
• An institution which only allows members who are at least 6 feet tall. Perhaps, as our average height grows, the members of this institution begin to look more and more average. We might decide this is a bad thing, and so maybe we'll consider the rule to be more like 2 meters (also because the metric system just makes more sense).
  
• The soldier who declines risking his life could do so due to rational risk assessment, and decide he would be more valuable to his country if he doesn't go on a suicide mission. Should he still be worthy of the respect that comes along with the institution of being a soldier? (This one is arguable, but that's the point)
  
• Getting more concrete: The institution of the right to vote in America (keeping it to the US so I can deal with only recent history) was originally pretty much just for white, male landowners. The requirements were gradually loosened as society's opinions changed and people began to consider various rules unreasonable.

My point is this: When enforcing the rules for membership in an institution, one must (at least periodically) evaluate those same rules to see if they're still reasonable. They often are, and we can go on with our lives. When they're not reasonable, though, is the topic of this thread.

Some people insist on enforcing rules for institutions while refusing to look at whether the rules make sense. Enforcing a rule simply because it's a rule is, in my opinion, a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Says who?
Marriage is what we collectively say it is.

---

Says God.
Marriage was instituted by God not man it therefore isn't a right but a requirement in order that we are to avoid fornication and for procreation.Of course plenty people don't believe in God but that will not excuse them from what God requires.
The increase of gay rights affects the rights of straights and in recent years we have seen an increase of the mockery of Christianity and even the defacing of the Holy Bible in Glasgow in the disguise of art where people are encouraged to deface and rip out pages from it.Can you imagine that happening to any other religious book? Gays can object to straights but straights cannot object to gays.You cannot say anything in objection or you're labled homophobic well no I'm not scared of homosexuals just of what is happening to what is left of our rights.On telly you can see peope pretending to be ok with it all when really they are fearful for their jobs.In the not too distant future,in Scotland,There is going to be the return of the banning of the Holy Bible like it was in the days of the covenanters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie762

Says God.
Marriage was instituted by God not man it therefore isn't a right but a requirement in order that we are to avoid fornication and for procreation.Of course plenty people don't believe in God but that will not excuse them from what God requires.
The increase of gay rights affects the rights of straights and in recent years we have seen an increase of the mockery of Christianity and even the defacing of the Holy Bible in Glasgow in the disguise of art where people are encouraged to deface and rip out pages from it.Can you imagine that happening to any other religious book? Gays can object to straights but straights cannot object to gays.You cannot say anything in objection or you're labled homophobic well no I'm not scared of homosexuals just of what is happening to what is left of our rights.On telly you can see peope pretending to be ok with it all when really they are fearful for their jobs.In the not too distant future,in Scotland,There is going to be the return of the banning of the Holy Bible like it was in the days of the covenanters.

---

Charlie,

You say this as though it is fact. Please let me correct you. You have only voiced your opinion, your belief. My original question remains unanswered. What others do and believe will not alter your beliefs nor infringe on your right to any belief you like. Why would you care if others receive the same rights as you?

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Charlie,

You say this as though it is fact. Please let me correct you. You have only voiced your opinion, your belief. My original question remains unanswered. What others do and believe will not alter your beliefs nor infringe on your right to any belief you like. Why would you care if others receive the same rights as you?

Brad

---

I know,what am I like eh? I seem to have this habit of taking Gods word as fact.
To answer your question. I have no objection to anyone having the same rights as me but I must refer you back to the facts as God sees it as I stated at the start of my posting.That and the real events as they have just recently taken place in Glasgow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie762

I know,what am I like eh? I seem to have this habit of taking Gods word as fact.
To answer your question. I have no objection to anyone having the same rights as me but I must refer you back to the facts as God sees it as I stated at the start of my posting.That and the real events as they have just recently taken place in Glasgow.

---

Are you referring to what the Bible told you to be "God's word"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie762

Says God.
Marriage was instituted by God not man it therefore isn't a right but a requirement in order that we are to avoid fornication and for procreation.Of course plenty people don't believe in God but that will not excuse them from what God requires.

---

Interesting way to resurrect an old thread...

How would you feel leaving God to deal with the whole problem of people disobeing Him? Isn't he powerful enough to do it, or you are worried that He will just do it the old Sodom & Gomorrah way and you'll end up pay for sins that aren't your own?

If I remember correctly you are supposed to consider mockery for your faith a privilege, or was that part just for the guys who hang out with Jesus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Are you referring to what the Bible told you to be "God's word"?

---

Well yes The Bible is refered to by Jesus himself as "God's word."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Interesting way to resurrect an old thread...

How would you feel leaving God to deal with the whole problem of people disobeing Him? Isn't he powerful enough to do it, or you are worried that He will just do it the old Sodom & Gomorrah way and you'll end up pay for sins that aren't your own?

If I remember correctly you are supposed to consider mockery for your faith a privilege, or was that part just for the guys who hang out with Jesus?

---

The book of revelations tell us how God will deal with it.As far as paying for sins that aren't my own,I can't even pay for sins that are my own for nothing I have is good enough to pay with.My sins are already paid for by Christ when he died on the cross.

To suffer for Christ is indeed a privilege but that doesn't mean we should sit back while people tear up the Bible.Mockery of the word of GOD is nothing new of course but the tearing up of the Bible in public has always ended in disaster for the nation.
And before I become a bit of a disaster, :)I'm off,gentlemen.Thank you for the courteous discussion of a difficult subject.
If you ever get the chance to hear a sermon on CD by Dr.Martyn Lloyd-Jones,please take it you will not regret it.
Regards,
Charlie

I was about to vote c, but then gave it a second tought.
I've had an opinion that gay people should have a right for 'registered partnership' with all the same rights and commitments as in marriage, but marriage should be left for straights.

Then i did think about the marriage as an institution and what it really means to me. As a non-religious person i see marriage as two people walk into church and make some promises in front of some priest. And then they are married.
I've been together with the same girl for 28 years and of those we've been married for 17. I do not think that something we once said in front of the priest is the thing that have kept us together, but far more important and personal things. Our life didn't change after we had walked down the church stairs.
So if the homosexual couples are willing to do that in the church also, i have nothing against it.