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

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?

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, I agree

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.