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

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I would prefer it not to recognize a "marriage" between same gender people. To me that is doing it wrong twice

Are you saying only heterosexuals should be screwed by the government? But the homosexuals are the ones who insist on getting the favor, are you saying you're for them being protected from themselves then?

Shouldn't we consider the value in some things remaining taboo?

There was a time when showing two people in the same bed, even clothed, on television was a no-no. I remember the "Dick Van Dyke Show" never showed the main characters, although married to each other, in the same bed. They had separate beds. And back in the 1960's partial nudity on the silver screen was considered very racy, full nudity was scandalous.

Now, full nudity and profanity are both commonplace via cable or satellite TV. Even network stations have loosened up, and everyone in America got a good look at Dennis Franz's naked butt on NYPD Blue.

Not good.

So, whatever happened to our polite society? I remember when only bums and vagabonds wore their pants down around their butts exposing their undergarments in public. Now it's "fashionable." What a joke. Are we a better off society by breaking down our mores and violating our taboos, or is there a good reason for keeping them intact?

I think all this relativism is hurting us either directly or indirectly.

Sorry, wrong party.

Originally Posted by xman

And if we look a little further back the 20's were a time of immense sexual freedom. Before that, Victorian sensibilities. It's not a one way directional growth, it's a cycle.

X

So X, you are saying its cyclical. Kind of like...hmmm....you know...whats that word? Damned memory anyways!! Oh yeah! The weather!!

Originally Posted by JMS

So X, you are saying its cyclical. Kind of like...hmmm....you know...whats that word? Damned memory anyways!! Oh yeah! The weather!!

I think a bike would be a better example of something that's cyclical.

Originally Posted by gugi

Are you saying only heterosexuals should be screwed by the government?

No, what I am saying is what I wrote! Silly gugi! Oh no! Look at the exclamation marks! I'm turning into JMS! :P

Originally Posted by gugi

But the homosexuals are the ones who insist on getting the favor, are you saying you're for them being protected from themselves then?

I am not suggesting that any same gender sexual relationship would endanger anyone else's rights more than any traditional one. Only that this is the only time I think a government should have a mandate to step in and do anything. Of course this issue of the government granting rights not enumerated in the Constitution is apparently up to the voters in our local governments in the US, but if I were the only voter it would not happen. My personal view on the matter is that the government (for both my personal view of the immorality of homosexual relations and my personal view of the role of government) should not be giving such a relationship a title of marriage

Originally Posted by xman

Sorry, wrong party.

Too late, you've been quoted

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No, what I am saying is what I wrote! Silly gugi! Oh no! Look at the exclamation marks! I'm turning into JMS! :P

I resemble that remark!

One of my biggest issues with these two issues in particular is the religious grounding of the arguments against both abortion and gay marriage. Last I checked, the bible said it was God's job to judge, not mine. I think it's unfortunate to use these arguments and perpetuate negative stereotypes of religion. Any God I'll respect loves. Period. I have no use for a vengeful God- those are human emotions, not those of a perfect being.

Also curious about how anyone can justify the argument that this is not the same thing as the civil rights movement of the 60's (talking gay marriage now). How is this not about civil rights? We're preventing a percentage of the population from certain rights simply because it's tradition or different than the "norm". I don't see how that can ever be acceptable under our Constitution. I only have faith that this country has a history of righting these wrongs, and hopefully it'll go the way of slavery, segregation, and having women as second class citizens.

Originally Posted by gugi

...No, I'm not that gullable.

Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. ....

Bottom line is things change.

I wouldn't want anyone to be gullible. The video is only a point in the discussion, not meant by me to be the end of any debate. On it's face it can be taken in just about any political direction.

Your point about change is on target. The question is whether the inertia that apparently resists the inevitable change gives us time to learn or whether the chaos that results from eliminating the tempering inertia is better. There are groups who thrive at either extreme.

I think philosophers have questioned how many times around the cycle of destruction and rebuilding we have to go before we realize the futility and develop a more stable social environment that is less polarizing and more tolerant.

Originally Posted by gugi

I did spend the 10 minutes in which the author(s) started with 5 general forms of government and proceeded to reduce them to a choice between two. The other three were dismissed as either a cover for the 'negative' one, or a temporary transition towards it.
Some of the arguments for doing so were speculative, others were interpretations of history.

I learned a new thing. Apparently historical examples of 'government type A' ends and gives way to 'government type B' can mean either that 'government type A' is inherently doomed to failure, or that 'government type A' is one of the only sustainable possibilities.

No, I'm not that gullable.


Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. The US constitution has been amended 27 times so far and it's safe to assume it will be amended again.

For example I'm pretty sure currently there is a minority of people who consider slavery as a good thing, slaves should have no right to marry, and inter-racial marriages should not be allowed either. When the US constitution was written these people were a majority and these things were then legal.

I expect that the same thing will happen with the gay marriages/unions/rights. And then it will be some other issue which today seems very clear cut to us but in few generations it would be up for debate.

Of course gay people would like to be accepted in the society, black people probably wanted the same thing when the founding fathers created the US constitution.

Bottom line is things change.

For the first time since I joined this forum, I completely agree with your entire post. Well said sir, well said.